CITIZENSHIP
Art. IV, Sec. 2
R.A. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003)
1. Maquiling vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013)
FACTS:
Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen however upon
naturalization as a citizen of the United States of America, he lost his
Filipino citizenship. He applied for repatriation under Republic Act No. 9225
before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and
took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines in 2008. On
the same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition was issued in his favor. In 2009, he again took his Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his
foreign citizenship.
For 2010 elections, Arnado filed his Certificate of Candidacy for
Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. Balua filed a petition to disqualify
Arnado as a candidate contending that he is a foreigner and that he has
been using his US Passport in entering and departing the Philippines.
Arnado garnered the highest number of votes and was subsequently
proclaimed as the winning candidate for Mayor. COMELEC First Division
granted the petition for disqualification and the proclamation is annulled.
Arnado sought reconsideration of the resolution. Thus, COMELEC
En Banc reversed and set aside the ruling of the First Division and granted
Arnado’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Maquiling, another candidate for mayor of Kauswagan and who
garnered the second highest number of votes, filed the instant petition
questioning the propriety of declaring Arnado qualified to run for public
office despite his continued use of a US passport and praying that he be
proclaimed as the winner in the mayoralty race.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the use of a foreign passport after renouncing
foreign citizenship amounts to undoing a renunciation earlier made. YES.
RULING:
The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign
citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to one’s
nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by
repatriation but it recants the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one
to run for an elective position. By using his foreign passport, Arnado
positively and voluntarily represented himself as an American, in effect
declaring before immigration authorities of both countries that he is an
American citizen, with all attendant rights and privileges granted by the
United States of America.
The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can
simply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It
requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship
and a full divestment of all civil and political rights granted by the foreign
country which granted the citizenship.
While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts
enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 63 constituting renunciation and
loss of Philippine citizenship, it is nevertheless an act which repudiates the
very oath of renunciation required for a former Filipino citizen who is also a
citizen of another country.
2. Reyes vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013)
Facts:
Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of
Representative of the lone district of Marinduque. Private respondent
Joseph Tan, a registered voter and resident of the Municipality of Torrijos,
Marinduque, filed before the COMELEC a petition for the cancellation of
petitioner’s COC. On October 31, 2012, respondent filed the amended
petition on the ground that the petitioner’s COC contained material
misrepresentations regarding the petitioner’s marital status, residency, date
of birth and citizenship. Respondent alleged that the petitioner is an
American citizen.
On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution
cancelling the petitioner’s COC on the basis that petitioner is not a citizen
of the Philippines because of her failure to comply with the requirements of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9225.
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 8, 2013 but on
May 14, 2013, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a Resolution denying
the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. On May 18,
2013, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013 elections and
on June 5, 2013 took her oath of office before the Speaker of House of
Representatives. She has yet to assume office at noon of June 30, 2013.
On June 5, 2013, the COMELEC en banc issued a Certificate of Finality
declaring the May 14, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC en banc final and
executory. Petitioner then filed before the court a Petition for Certiorari
with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Status Quo Ante
Order.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC erred in its ruling that the petitioner is
illegible to run for office.
Held: No, in R.A 9925, for a respondent to reacquire Filipino citizenship and
becosme eligible for public office, the law requires that she must have
accomplished the following 1) take the oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines before the consul-general of the Philippine Consulate in the
USA, and 2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of her American
citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. In
the case at bar, there is no showing that petitioner complied with the
requirements. Petitioner’s oath of office as Provincial Administrator cannot
be considered as the oath of allegiance in compliance with RA 9225. As to
the issue of residency, the court approved the ruling if the COMELEC that a
Filipino citizen who becomes naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his
domicile of origin. Upon reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, he must still
show that he chose to establish his domicile in the Philippines through
 positive acts, and the period of his residency shall be counted from the
time he made it his domicile of choice. In this case, there is no showing
that the petitioner reacquired her Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225
to conclude that the petitioner renounced her American citizenship, it
follows that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA.
Petitioner’s claim that she served as Provincial Administrator of the
province of Marinduque from January 18, 2011 to July 13, 2011 is not
sufficient to prove her one-year residency for she has never recognized her
domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be an American citizen. No
amount of her stay in the said locality can substitute the fact that she has
not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA.
The instant petition was DISMISSED, finding no grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the COMELEC.
3. Arnado vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015)
FACTS:
Petitioner Arnado is a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine
citizenship after he was naturalized as citizen of the United States of
America (USA). Subsequently, and in preparation for his plans to run for
public office in the Philippines, Arnado applied for repatriation under
Republic Act No. 9225 (RA 9225) before the Consul General of the
Philippines in San Franciso, USA. He took an Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines on July 10, 2008 and, an Order of Approval of
Citizenship Retention and Re acquisition was issued in his favor. On April 3,
2009, Arnado executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign
citizenship so that he can file his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for the
mayoralty post of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte for the May 10, 2010
national and local elections.
Linog C. Balua, another mayoralty candidate, however, filed a petition to
disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel his CoC on the ground that Arnado
remained a US citizen because he continued to use his US passport for
entry to and exit from the Philippines after executing aforesaid Affidavit of
Renunciation. While Balua's petition remained pending, the May 10, 2010
elections proceeded where Arnado garnered the highest number of votes
for the mayoralty post of Kauswagan. He was proclaimed the winning
candidate.
On October 5, 2010, the Comelec First Division issued a Resolution holding
that Arnado's continued use of his US passport effectively negated his April
3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation. Thus, he was disqualified to run for
public office for failure to comply with the requirements of RA 9225.
Arnado moved for reconsideration.
On February 2, 2011, the Comelec En Banc rendered a Resolution reversing
the ruling of the Comelec First Division. It held that Arnado's use of his US
passport did not operate to revert his status to dual citizenship. The
Comelec En Banc found merit in Arnado's explanation that he continued to
use his US passport because he did not yet know that he had been issued a
Philippine passport at the time of the relevant foreign trips. The Comelec
En Banc further noted that, after receiving his Philippine passport, Arnado
used the same for his subsequent trips.
Maquiling then sought recourse to this Court by filing a petition, while
petition was pending, the period for the filing of CoCs for local elective
officials for the May 13, 2013 elections officially began. On October 1,
2012, Arnado filed his CoC for the same position. Respondent Capitan also
filed his CoC for the mayoralty post of Kauswagan.
On April 16, 2013, this Court rendered its Decision in Maquiling. Voting 10-
5, it annulled and set aside the Comelec En Banc's February 2, 2011
Resolution, disqualified Arnado from running for elective position, and
declared Maquiling as the duly elected mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao Del
Norte in the May 10, 2010 elections.
On May 10, 2013, Capitan, Arnado's lone rival for the mayoralty post, filed
a Petition seeking to disqualify him from running for municipal mayor of
Kauswagan and/or to cancel his CoC based on the ruling of this Court in
Maquiling. The resolution of said petition was, however, overtaken by the
May 13, 2013 elections where Arnado garnered 8,902 votes (84% of the
total votes cast) while Capitan obtained 1,707 (16% of the total votes cast)
votes only.
On May 14, 2013, Arnado was proclaimed as the winning candidate.
Unfazed, Capitan filed another Petition this time seeking to nullify Arnado's
proclamation. He argued that with the April 16, 2013 Decision of this Court
in Maquiling, there is no doubt that Arnado is disqualified from running for
any local elective office. Hence, Arnado's proclamation is void and without
any legal effect.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN DISQUALIFYING PETITIONER WHO HAS FULLY COMPLIED
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RA 9225 BEFORE THE FILING OF HIS COC
ON OCTOBER 1, 2012.
HELD:
No. Under section 4 of the Local Government Code, a person with
dual citizenship is disqualified from running for any elective local position.
RA 9225 allowed natural born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization abroad to reacquire
Philippine citizenship and to enjoy full civil and political rights upon
compliance with the requirements of law. They may now run for public
office provided that they: 1.)meet the qualifications for holding such public
office as required by the constitution, and 2.) make a personal sworn
renunciation of any valid all foreign citizenships before any public officer
 authorized to administer an oath prior to or at the time of filing of their
CoC.
In this case, Arnado failed to comply with the second requisite because, as
held in Maquiling v. COMELEC, his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of renunciation
was deemed withdrawn when he used his US passport after executing said
affidavit. Furthermore, COMELEC found out that Arnado continued to use
his US passport even after he already received his Philippine passport
contradicting his claim that he was only using his US passport because his
Philippine passport was not yet issued at the time of his flights in and out
of the country.
The use of foreign passport amounts to repudiation or recantation of the
oath of renunciation. Arnado’s use of his US passport in 2009 invalidated
his oath of renunciation resulting in his disqualification to run for mayor in
the 2010 elections. Since then and up to the time he filed his CoC for the
2013 elections, Arnado had not cured the defect in his qualification.
Maquiling, therefore is binding in this case.
4. Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016)
FACTS:
Petitioner Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares was found abandoned
as a newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo on Sept. 3, 1968.
After passing the parental care and custody over petitioner by Edgardo
Militar to Emiliano Militar and his wife, she has been reported and
registered as a foundling and issued a Foundling Certificate and Certificate
of Live Birth, thus was given the name Mary Grace Natividad Contreras
Militar. When the petitioner reached the age of 5, celebrity spouses
Fernando Poe, Jr., and Susan Roces filed a petition for her adoption. The
trial court granted their petition and ordered that her name be changed to
Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe.
Petitioner registered as a voter in San Juan City, applied and was issued
Philippine Passport by the DFA, and in 1998 renewed her passport. She left
for the United States to continue her studies after enrolling and pursuing a
degree in Development Studies at the University of the Philippines. She
graduated in 1991 from Boston College where she earned her Bachelor of
Arts degree in Political Studies. She married Daniel V. Llamanzares, a
citizen of the Philippines and the U.S., in San Juan City and decided to flew
back to the U.S.after their wedding. She gave birth to her eldest child while
in the U.S.; and her two daughters in the Philippines. She became a
naturalized American citizen in 2001.
She came back to the Philippines to support her father’s candidacy for
president in the May 2004 elections and gave birth to her youngest
daughter. They then returned to the U.S. in 2004 but after a few months,
she rushed back to the Philippines to attend to her ailing father. After her
father’s death, the petitioner and her husband in 2005 decided to move
and reside permanently in the Philippines and immediately secured a TIN,
then her children followed suit; acquired property where she and her
children resided. In 2006, she took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines pursuant to RA No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition Ac of 2003; she filed a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine
citizenship together with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her
three children which was granted.
She registered as a voter; secured Philippine passport; appointed and took
her oath as Chairperson of the MTRCB after executing an affidavit of
Renunciation of American citizenship before the Vice Consul of the USA
and was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the USA in2011. On
October 2015, petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016
Elections. In her COC, the petitioner declared that she is a natural-born
citizen and that her residence in the Philippines up to the day before 9 May
2016 would be ten (10) years and eleven (11) months counted from May
24, 2005. The petitioner attached to her COC an “Affidavit Affirming
Renunciation of U.S Citizenship” subscribed and sworn to before a notary
public in Quezon City on October 2015.
Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy
on the ground that she cannot be considered a natural-born Filipino citizen
since she cannot prove that her biological parents or either of them were
Filipinos. Respondent Elamparo argued that petitioner cannot be
considered as a natural-born Filipino on account of the fact that she was a
foundling. Elamparo claimed that international law does not confer natural-
born status and Filipino citizenship on foundlings. Following this line of
reasoning, petitioner is not qualified to apply for reacquisition of Filipino
citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 for she is not a natural-born Filipino citizen
to begin with. Even assuming arguendo that petitioner was a natural-born
Filipino, she is deemed to have lost that status when she became a
naturalized American citizen. According to Elamparo, natural-born
citizenship must be continuous from birth.
ISSUE: Whether or not Grace Poe- Llamanzares is a natural- born Filipino
citizen.
HELD: Yes. Grace Poe is a natural-born Filipino Citizen. For that, she
satisfied the constitutional requirement that only natural-born Filipinos may
run for Presidency.
(1) there is high probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos, as being shown
in her physical features which are typical of Filipinos, aside from the fact
that she was found as an infant in Jaro, Iloilo, a municipality wherein there
is 99% probability that residents there are Filipinos, consequently providing
99% chance that Poe’s biological parents are Filipinos. Said probability and
circumstantial evidence are admissible under Rule 128, Sec 4 of the Rules
on Evidence.
(2) The SC pronounced that FOUNDLINGS are as a class, natural born-
citizens as based on the deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional
Convention, wherein though its enumeration is silent as to foundlings,
there is no restrictive language either to definitely exclude the foundlings to
be natural born citizens.
(3) That Foundlings are automatically conferred with the natural-born
citizenship as to the country where they are being found, as covered and
supported by the UN Convention Law.
 Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to
the Conflict of Nationality Laws under which a foundling is presumed to
have the "nationality of the country of birth," to wit: A child whose parents
are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth. If the
child's parentage is established, its nationality shall be determined by the
rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.
A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on
the territory of the State in which it was found.
The second is the principle that a foundling is presumed born of citizens of
the country where he is found, contained in Article 2 of the 1961 United
Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness: Article 2 "A
foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence
of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within the
territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State."
(4) Petitioner's evidence shows that at least sixty countries in Asia, North
and South America, and Europe have passed legislation recognizing
foundlings as its citizen. Forty-two (42) of those countries follow the JUS
SANGUINIS regime.
Current legislation reveals the adherence of the Philippines to this generally
accepted principle of international law. In particular, R.A. No. 8552, R.A.
No. 8042 and this Court's Rules on Adoption, expressly refer to "Filipino
children." In all of them, foundlings are among the Filipino children who
could be adopted. Likewise, it has been pointed that the DFA issues
passports to foundlings. Passports are by law, issued only to citizens. This
shows that even the executive department, acting through the DFA,
considers foundlings as Philippine citizens.
5. Jacot vs. Dal (G.R. No. 179848, November 26, 2008)
FACTS:
Petitioner was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a
naturalized citizen of the US on 13 December 1989. Petitioner sought to
reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise
known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act. He filed a
request for the administration of his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines with the Philippine Consulate General (PCG) of Los Angeles,
California. The Los Angeles PCG issued on 19 June 2006 an Order of
Approval of petitioner’s request, and on the same day, petitioner took his
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before Vice Consul
Edward C. Yulo. On 2 May 2007, respondent Rogen T. Dal filed a Petition
for Disqualification before the COMELEC Provincial Office in Camiguin
against petitioner, arguing that the latter failed to renounce his US
citizenship, as required under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225
ISSUE: W/N Jacot already renounced his foreign citizenship. (NO)
RULING:
If a person seeks to serve the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his
loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to
any other state. Clearly Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 (on the
making of a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship) requires of the Filipinos availing themselves of the benefits
under the said Act to accomplish an undertaking other than that which they
have presumably complied with under Section 3 thereof (oath of allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines). This is made clear in the discussion of
the Bicameral Conference Committee on Disagreeing Provisions of House
Bill No. 4720 and Senate Bill No. 2130 held on 18 August 2003 (precursors
of Republic Act No. 9225), where the Hon. Chairman Franklin Drilon and
Hon. Representative Arthur Defensor explained to Hon. Representative
Exequiel Javier that the oath of allegiance is different from the renunciation
of foreign citizenship. The oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate of
Candidacy, which is substantially similar to the one contained in Section 3
of Republic Act No. 9225, does not constitute the personal and sworn
renunciation sought under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225.
Additionally, Petitioner presented before this Court for the first time, in the
instant Petition for Certiorari, an "Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to
the United States and Any and All Foreign Citizenship," which he
supposedly executed on 7 February 2007, even before he filed his
Certificate of Candidacy on March 2007. With the said Affidavit, petitioner
puts forward in the Petition at bar a new theory of his case – that he
complied with the requirement of making a personal and sworn
renunciation of his foreign citizenship before filing his Certificate of
Candidacy. This new theory constitutes a radical change from the earlier
position he took before the COMELEC. Petitioner should have offered the
Affidavit dated 7 February 2007 during the proceedings before the
COMELEC. The COMELEC en banc eventually refused to reconsider said
document for being belatedly executed. What was extremely perplexing,
not to mention suspect, was that petitioner did not submit the Affidavit of 7
February 2007 or mention it at all in the proceedings before the COMELEC,
considering that it could have easily won his case if it was actually executed
on and in existence before the filing of his Certificate of Candidacy, in
compliance with law.
6. Lee vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996)
7. Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives (G.R. Nos. 92191-
92, July 40, 1991)
8. Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC ([176 SCRA 1 (1989)]
9. Frivaldo vs. COMELEC [174 SCRA 245 (1989)
10. Bengzon vs. Cruz (G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Art. III, Sec. 5
Art. II, Sec. 6 (Separation of State and Church)
1. Ronulo vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014)
Non-Establishment Clause
2. Ang Ladlad LGBT vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010)
Anti-evolution laws
3. Epperson vs. Arkansas [33 U.S. 27 (1968)]
Prayer and Bible reading in public schools
4. Engel vs. Vitale [370 U.S. 421 (1962)]
5. Abington Schools Dist. vs. Schempp [374 U.S. 203 (1973)]
6. Stone vs. Graham [449 U.S. 39 (1980)]
Art. VI, Sec. 29 (2)
7. In Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano (A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017)
8. Aglipay vs. Ruiz [64 Phil. 201 (1937)]
9. Mueller vs. Allen [463 U.S. 388 (1983)]
10. Lemon vs. Kurtzman [403 U.S. 602 (1971)]
11. Wallace vs. Jaffree [472 U.S. 38 (1985)]
12. Islamic Da ‘wah Counsil vs. Executive Secretary [G.R. No. 153888, July 9,
2003]
Intramural religious disputes
13. Fonacier vs. CA [96 Phil. 417 (1955)]
Free Exercise Clause
14. Imbong vs. Ochoa (G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)
15. Estrada vs. Escritor [A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006]
Flag salute
16. West Va Board of Education vs. Barnette [319 U.S. 624 (1943)]
17. Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent March 1, 1993)
Freedom to propagate religious doctrines
18. American Bible Society vs. City of Manila [181 Phil. 386 (1957)]
19. Swaggart Ministries vs. Cal Bd. of Equalization [493 U.S. 378 (1990)]
Exemption from Union shop
20. Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union [59 SCRA 54 (1974)]
Disqualification for local government officials
21. Pamil vs. Watkins [367 U.S. 488 (1961)]
Religious Test
22. Torcaso vs. Watkins [367 U.S. 488 (1961)]
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) (1965)
Arts, 290, 291, 292 and 299. Revised Penal Code.
23. Gaanan vs. IAC [145 SCRA 113 (1986)]
24. Katz vs. U.S. [389 U.S. 347 (1967)]
25. Ramirez vs. CA (G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995)
26. Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CA [235 SCRA 111 (1994)]
27. Alejano vs. Cabuay (G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005)
Privileged Communications
28. In Re: Laureta [148 SCRA 382 (1987)]
29. People vs. Albofera, [152 SCRA 123 (1987)]
30. Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals [253 SCRA 699 (1996)]
31. Deano vs. Godinez [12 SCRA 483 (1964)]
32. Waterhouse Drug Corporation vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 113271. October 16,
1997)
Exclusionary Rule
Art. III, Sec. 3(2)
33. Silverthorne Lumber vs. US [251 US 385 (1920)]
34. People vs. Aruta (G.R. No. 120915, April 3, 1998)
35. People vs. Rondero (G.R. No.125687, December 9, 1999)
Liability for damages
36. Aberca vs. Ver [160 SCRA 590 (1989)]
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
Art. III, Sec. 4
BP Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985)
37. IBP vs. Mayor Lito Atienza (G.R. No. 175241, February 24, 2010)
38. Primicias vs. Fugoso [80 Phil. 71 (1948)]
39. Navarro vs. Villegas [31 SCRA 730 (1970)]
40. Ignacio vs. Ela [99 Phil. 346 (1956)]
41. J.B.I. Reyes vs. Bagatsing [125 SCRA 553 (1983)]
42. Ruiz vs. Gordon [126 SCRA 233 (1983)]
43. Malabanan vs. Ramento [129 SCRA 359 (1984)]
44. Arreza vs. GAUF [137 SCRA 94 (1985)]
45. German vs. Barangan [135 SCRA 514 (1985)]
46. Acosta vs. CA and CSC (G.R. No. 132088 Jun 28, 2000)
47. Bayan vs. Ermita (G.R. No. 169848, April 25, 2006)
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Art. III, Sec. 7
48. Antolin vs. Domondon (G.R. No. 165036 & 17505, July 5, 2010)
49. Baldoza vs. Dimaano [71 SCRA 14 (1976)]
50. Tanada vs. Tuvera (G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985; G.R. No. L-63915
December 29, 1986)
51. Valmonte vs. Belmonte [170 SCRA 256 (1989)]
52. Legaspi vs. CSC [150 SCRA 530 (1987)]
53. Garcia vs. BOI [177 SCRA 374 (1989)]
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Art. III, Sec. 8
Art. IX, Sec. 2 (5)
Art. XIII, Sec. 3, par. 2
54. Occena vs. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404 (1985)
55. In re: Edillon, 84 SCRA (1979)\
56. Rotary Int’l vs. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537 (1987)
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Art. III, Sec. 4
Id., Sec. 18 (1)
Purpose
57. United States vs. Bustos [37 Phil. 731 (1918)]
58. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff [133 SCRA 800 (1984)]
59. New York Times vs. Sulliven [380 U.S. 51 (1964)]
Restrictions
60. Gonzales vs. COMELEC [27 SCRA 835 (1969)]
61. Social Weather Station vs. COMELEC (G.R. No.147571, May 5, 2001)
Balancing of Interest Test
Dangerous Tendency Test
Clear and Present Danger Test
62. Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan [170 SCRA 1 (1989)]
63. Sanidad vs. COMELEC (G.R. 90878, January 29, 1990)
64. Reno vs. ACLU (D-96-511, June 26, 1997)
65. Miriam College vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000)
66. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 133486, January 28,
2000)
67. Chavez vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 162777, August 31, 2004)
Freedom of Expression, Libel and National Security
68. Babst vs. NBI [132 SCRA 316 (1984)]
69. Espuelas vs. NBI [132 SCRA 316 (1984)]
70. Elizalde vs. CFI [116 SCRA 93 (1982)]
71. Lopez vs. Court of Appeals [34 SCRA 116 (1970)]
72. PJI vs. Thoenen (G.R. No. 143372, December 13, 2005)
73. Texas vs. Johnson [491 U.S. 397 (1989)]
74. Borjal vs. CA. [301 SCRA 1 (1999)]
75. Baguio Midland Courier vs. CA (G.R. No. 107566, November 25, 2004)
Freedom of Expression and the Administration of Justice
76. Cabansag vs. Fernandez (102 Phil. 152)
77. People vs. Alarcon [69 Phil. 265 (1939)]
78. In Re: Ramon Tulfo (AM 90-4-1545-0, April 17, 1990)
79. Nestle Phils. vs. Sanchez [154 SCRA 542 (1987)]
80. In Re: Atty. Emil Jurado (AM 90-5-2373 July 12, 1990)
Freedom of Expression, Movie Censorship, Obscenity and the Right to Privacy
81. Disini vs. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014)
82. Ejercito vs. COMELEC (742 SCRA 210)
83. GMA Network Inc. vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014)
84. I-UTAK vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015)
85. Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015)
86. Gonzales vs. Kalaw Katikbak [137 SCRA 356 (1985)]
87. Lagunzad vs. Sotto Vda. De Gonzales [92 SCRA 476 (1979)]
88. Ayer Productions vs. Judge Capulong [160 SCRA 861 (1988)]
89. KMU vs. Director General (G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006)
90. MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN (G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005)
91. Reno vs. ACLU (June 26, 1997, D-96-511)
92. Miller vs. California [413 U.S. 15 (1973)]
93. Ernando vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 159751, December 6, 2006)
94. Eastern Broadcasting Corp. (DYRE) vs. Dans [137 SCRA 247 (1985)]
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Valid Waiver
Art. III, Sec. 2 and 3 130. People vs. Omaweng [213 SCRA 462 (1992)]
Purpose and Importance of the guaranty 131. People vs. Correa [285 SCRA 679 (1998)]
95. Alvero vs. Dizon [76 Phil. 637 (1946)] 132. People vs. Ramos (G.R. 85401-02, June 4, 1990)
To Whom Directed 133. People vs. Barros [231 SCRA 557 (1994)]
96. People vs. Andre Marti [193 SCRA 57 (1991)] 134. Veroy vs. Layague [210 SCRA 97 (1992)]
Who May Invoke the Right? 135. People vs. Damaso [212 SCRA 457 (1992)]
97. Bache and Co., vs. Ruiz [37 SCRA 323 (1971)] 136. Lopez vs. Comm. of Customs [68 SCRA 320 (1975)]
98. Stonehill vs. Diokno [20 SCRA 383 (1967)] 137. Caballes vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 136292, January 5, 2002]
99. Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily [436 U.S. 54 (1978)] 138. People vs. Asis, et. al. (G.R. No. 142531, October 15, 2002)
100. Wilson vs. Layne [(98-83) 526 US 603 (1999)] 139. People vs. Tudtud, et. al. (G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003)
Conditions for a valid warrant Incident to lawful arrest
Existence of Probable Cause Rule 126, Section 13, Rules of Court
101. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff [133 SCRA 800 (1984)] 140) Chimel vs. California [395 U.S. 752 (1964)]
102. Chandler vs. Miller (D-96-126, April 15, 1997) 141) People vs. de la Cruz (G.R. 83988, April 18, 1990)
103. People vs. Chua Ho San [308 SCRA 432 (1999)] 142) People vs. Kalubiran [196 SCRA 645 (1991)]
104. People vs. Molina (G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001) 143) People vs. Malmstedt [198 SCRA 401 (1991)]
Partially Valid Warrant 144) Espano vs. Court of Appeals [288 SCRA 558 (1998)]
105. People vs. Salanguit (G.R. 133254, April 18, 2001) 145) People vs. Tangliben [184 SCRA 220 (1990)]
106. Microsoft Corp. vs. Maxicorp. (G.R. 140946, September 13, 2004) 146) People vs. Che Chun Ting [328 SCRA 592 (2000)]
Personal determination by judge 147) People vs. Estrella (G.R. Nos. 138539-40, January 21, 2003)
107. Sta. Rosa Mining Co., vs. Fiscal Zabala [153 SCRA 367 (1987)] 148) People vs. Libnao, et. al. (G.R. No. 136860, January 20, 2003)
108. Paderanga vs. Drilon (G.R. 96080, April 19, 1991)
109. Pita vs. CA [178 SCRA 362 (1987)] • Plain view doctrine
110. Abdula vs. Guiani [326 SCRA 1 (2000)] 149) People vs. Musa [217 SCRA 597 (1993)]
111. People vs. Mamaril (G.R. 147607, January 22, 2004) 150) Padilla vs. CA [269 SCRA 402 (1997)]
Examination of witnesses 151) People vs. Valdez (G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000)
112. Pasion Vda. De Garcia vs. Locsin [65 Phil 68 (1938)] 152) Arizona vs. Hicks [480 U.S. 321 (1987)]
113. Yee Sue Kuy vs. Almeda [70 Phil. 141, (1940)] 153) People vs. Compacion (G.R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001)
114. Alvarez vs. CFI [64 Phil. 33 (1937)] 154) People v. Huang Zhen Hua (G.R. 139301, September 9, 2004)
115. Mata vs. Bayona [128 SCRA 388 (1984)]
Particularity of description • Enforcement of fishing, customs and immigration laws
116. Olaes vs. People [155 SCRA 486 (1987)] 155) Roldan vs. Area [65 SCRA 320 (1975)]
117. Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit [180 SCRA 69 (1989)] 156) People vs. Gatward [267 SCRA 785 (1997)]
118. Chia vs. Coll. Of Customs [177 SCRA 755 (1989)] 157) People vs. Johnson (G.R. No. 138881, December 18, 2000)
119. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs. CA [164 SCRA 655 (1988)] 158) People vs. Suzuki (G.R. No. 120670, October 23, 2003)
120. People vs. Choi (G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006)
121. Nolasco vs. Cruz Pano [132 SCRA 152 (1985)] • “Stop and frisk”
122. PICOP vs. Asuncion [307 SCRA 253 (1999)] 159) Terry vs. Ohio [392 US 1 (1968)]
123. Yousef Al Ghoul vs. CA (G.R. No. 126859, September 4, 2009) 160) People vs. Solayao [262 SCRA 255 (1996)]
124. Del Rosario vs. People (G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001) 161) Manalili vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 113447, October 7, 1997)
Objects of Seizure 162) Malacat vs. Court of Appeals [283 SCRA 159 (1997)]
Rule 126, Sec. 3, Rules of Court (ROC) 163) Florida vs. J.L. (98-1993, March 28, 2000)
125. Unilab vs. Isip (G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005)
Warrantless searches • Search of moving vehicles
126. Pollo vs. Constantino-David (G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011) 164) Papa vs. Mago [22 SCRA 857 (1968)]
127. Luz vs. People (G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012) 165) People vs. CFI of Rizal [101 SCRA 86 (1980)]
128. People of the Philippines vs. Cogaed (G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014) 166) Salvador vs. People (G.R. No. 146706, July 15, 2005)
129. Sydeco vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 202692, November 12, 2014) 167) Whren vs. United States [(95-5841) 517 US 806, January 10, 1996]
 188) People vs. Conde (G.R. No. 113269, April 10, 2001)
• Emergency circumstances
168) People vs. De Gracia [233 SCRA 716 (1994)]
XII. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
• Checkpoints
169) Gen. De Villa vs. Valmonte (G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990) • Art. III, Sec. 12
170) Aniag vs. Comelec [237 SCRA 424 (1994)]
171) People vs. Usana [323 SCRA 754 (2000)] • Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
172) People vs. Vinecario (G.R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004)
• Custodial Investigation
• Inspection of building 189) People vs. Lugod (G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001)
173) Camara vs. Municipal Court [387 U.S. 523 (1967)] 190) People vs. Del Rosario (G.R. 127755, April 14, 1999)
191) People vs. Bolanos [211 SCRA 262 (1992)]
• Warrantless arrests 192) Rhode Island vs. Innis [446 U.S. 291 (1980)]
• Rule 113, Sec. 5 193) People vs. Mahinay [302 SCRA 455 (1999)]
• Art. 125, Revised Penal Code
• Administrative Investigations
• Rebellion as Continuing Offense 194) People vs. Judge Ayson [175 SCRA 216 (1989)]
174) Umil vs. Ramos (G.R. 81567, July 9, 1990) 195) Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sumiling [271 SCRA 316 (1997)]
196) People vs. Uy (G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005)
• Committed in the Presence of Police Officers
175) People vs. Sucro [195 SCRA 388 (1991)] • Police Lineup
176) People vs. Luisito Go (G.R. No. 116001, March 14, 2001) 197) Gamboa vs. Cruz [162 SCRA 642 (1988)]
198) United States v. Wade [388 U.A. 218 (1967)]
• Personal Knowledge of the Offense 199) People vs. Escordial, G.R. 138934, January 16, 2002
177) People vs. Gerente [219 SCRA 756 (1993)] 200) People vs. Piedad, et al. (G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002)
178) People vs. Sinoc [275 SCRA 357 (1997)] 201) Magtoto vs. Manguera [63 SCRA 4 (1975)]
179) People vs. Baula (G.R. No. 132671, November 15, 2000)
180) People vs. Cubcubin (G.R. No. 136267, July 10, 2001) • Rule under the 1973 Constitution (Voluntary, knowing & intelligent waiver)
202) People vs. Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2 (1980)
• Time of Arrest 203) People vs. Tampus, 90 SCRA 624 (1980)
181) People vs. Rodrigueza [205 SCRA 791 (1992)] 204) People vs. Sayaboc, G.R. 147201, January 15, 2004
182) Go vs. Court of Appeals [206 SCRA 586 (1992)] 205) People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)
183) People vs. Calimlim (G.R. No. 123980, August 30, 2001)
• Rule under the 1987 Constitution
• Marked Money
184) People vs. Enrile [222 SCRA 586 (1993)] • Requirement of Competent and Independent Counsel
206) People vs. Bandula [232 SCRA 566 (1994)]
• Lack of Urgency 207) People vs. Quidato (G.R. 117401, October 1, 1998)
185) People vs. Pasudag (G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001) 208) People vs. Januario [267 SCRA 608 (1997)]
186) People vs. Aminnudin [163 SCRA 402 (1988)] 209) People vs. Labtan (G.R. No. 12793, December 8, 1999)
210) People vs. Samus (G.R. 135957-58, September 17, 2002)
• Effect of Bail 211) People vs. Tomaquin (G.R. No. 133138, July 23, 2004)
• Rule 114, Section 26 212) People vs. Bagnate (G.R. No. 133685-68 May 20, 2004)

• Effect of Entry of Plea • Counsel of Choice

187) People vs. Plana (G.R. No. 128285, November 27, 2001) 213) People vs. Gallardo (G.R. No. 113684, January 25, 2000)
214) People vs. Barasina [229 SCRA 450 (1994)]
• Validity of Conviction
• Counsel’s presence required in entire proceedings • Procedure for bail
215) People vs. Lauga (G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010) 240) People of the Philippines vs. Boncalon (G.R. No. 176933, October 2, 2009)
216) De Castro vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 171672, February 2, 2015) 241) Paderanga vs. Drilon [247 SCRA 741, (1995)]
217) People vs. Morial (G.R. 129295, August 15, 2001) 242) Go vs. Bongolan (A.M. 99-1464, July 26, 1999)
243) People vs. Gako (G.R. 135045, December 15, 2000)
• Seized Articles
218) People vs. Castro [274 SCRA 115 (1997)]
219) People vs. Wong Chuen Ming [256 SCRA 182 (1996)] • Bail and Habeas Corpus
220) Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan [302 SCRA 102 (1999)] 244) Enrile vs. Salazar [186 SCRA 217 (1990)]
221) People vs. Macabalang (G.R. 168694, November 27, 2006) 245) People vs. Judge Donato [198 SCRA 130 (1991)]

• Confession to Newsmen • Bail on appeal

222) People vs. Andan [269 SCRA 95 (1997)] 246) People vs. Fortes [223 SCRA 619 (1993)]
223) People vs. Endino (G.R. 133026, February 20, 2001) 247) Maguddatu vs. CA (G.R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000)
224) People vs. Ordono (G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000) 248) Obosa vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. 114350, January 16, 1997)
225) People vs. Guillermo (G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004)

• Other Confessions
226) People vs. Malngan (G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006)
227) People vs. Gomez [270 SCRA 432 (1997)] • Standards for fixing bail
228) Illinois vs. Perkins [496 U.S. 292 (1990)] • Rule 114, Sec. 9
229) People vs. Lugod (G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001) 249) Villasenor vs. Abano [21 SCRA 312 (1967)]
250) De la Camara vs. Enage [41 SCRA 1 (1971)]
• Re-enactment 251) Almeda vs. Villaluz [66 SCRA 38 (1975)]
230) People vs. Luvendino [211 SCRA 36 (1992)] 252) Yap vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001)
253) Cabañero vs. Cañon (A.M. No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 2001)
• Exclusionary rule 254) Victory Liner vs. Belosillo [G.R. 425 SCRA 79 (2004)]
• Art. III, Sec. 12 (2)
• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
231) People vs. Alicano [251 SCRA 293 (1995)] • Bail and the Right to Travel Abroad
232) Harris vs. New York [401 U.S. 222 (1971)] 255) Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals [142 SCRA 149 (1980)]
233) New York vs. Quaries [104 U.S. 2626 (1984)]
XIV. RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED
XIII. RIGHT TO BAIL
• Art. III, Sec. 14
• Art. III, Sec. 13 • Presumption of Innocence
• Bail Defined 256) People vs. Sumili (G.R. No. 212160, February 4, 2015)
• Rule 114, Section 1, ROC 257) People of the Philippines vs. Umipang (G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012)
• Kinds of Bail 258) People of the Philippines vs. Quintal (G.R. No. 184170, February 2, 2011)
• Rule 114, Sections 10, 11, 14 & 15 259) People vs. Tumambing (G.R. No. 191261, March 2, 2011)
260) People of the Philippines vs. Paloma (G.R. No. 178544, February 23, 2011)
• When right may be invoked 261) People of the Philippines vs. Santiago (G.R. No. 191061, February 9, 2011)
234) Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015) 262) People of the Philippines vs. Andongan (G.R. No. 184595, June 29, 2010)
235) Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira [75 Phil. 634 (1945)] 263) Agustin vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 158788, April 30, 2008)
236) People vs. San Diego [26 SCRA 522 (1968)]
237) Cortes vs. Judge Catral (A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997) • Proof beyond reasonable doubt
238) Lavides vs. CA (G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000) 264) People vs. Webb, et. al. (G.R. No. 176864, December 14, 2010)
239) Government vs. Judge Puruganan (G.R. No. 148571, December 17, 2002) 265) Lejano vs. People (G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010)
266) People vs. Dramayo [42 SCRA 59 (1971)]
 291) People vs. Lozano (G.R. 125080, September 25, 1998)
• Order of Trial 292) People vs. Ladrillo (G.R. No. 124342, December 8, 1999)
267) Alejandro vs. Pepito [96 SCRA 322 (1988)] (modified by Rule 119 Sec. 3 (e) 293) People vs. Valdesancho (G.R. 137051, May 30, 2001)
294) People vs. Alcaide (G.R. Nos. 139225-28, May 29, 2002)
• Presumption of Guilt 295) People vs. Ostia (G.R. No. 131804, February 26, 2003)
268) Dumlao vs. Comelec [95 SCRA 392 (1980)] 296) People vs. Flores Jr. (G.R. No. 128823-24, December 27, 2002)
269) People vs. Mingoa [92 Phil. 857 (1953)] 297) People vs. Cachapero (G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004)

• Applicability to Juridical Persons • Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

270) Feeder Int’l Line vs. CA (G.R. No. 94262 May 31, 1991) 298) Acevedo vs. Sarmiento [36 SCRA 247 (1970)]
299) People vs. Judge Laya [161 SCRA 327 (1988)]
• Official Duty 300) Conde vs. Rivera [45 Phil. 650 (1924)]
271) People vs. Martos [211 SCRA 805 (1992)] 301) Dacanay vs. People [240 SCRA 490 (1995)]
• Equipoise Rule 302) People vs. Rivera (G.R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001)
272) People vs. Zafra (G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012)
273) Corpuz vs. People [194 SCRA 73 (1991)]
274) Dizon Paminatuan vs. People (G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994) 303) Solar Team Entertainment vs. How (G.R. No. 140863, August 22, 2000)
304) Valencia vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 165996, October 17, 229, 2005)
• Right to be heard personally or by counsel 305) Domondon vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 166606, November 29, 2005)
• Importance of Counsel
275) People vs. Holgado [85 Phil. 752 (1950)] • Public trial
276) Delgado vs. CA [145 SCRA 357 (1986)] 306) Garcia vs. Domingo [52 SCRA 143 (1970)]
307) Perez vs. Estrada (A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001)

• Improvident Plea of guilt • Impartial trial

277) People vs. Baluyot [75 SCRA 148 (1977)] 308) Tumey vs. Ohio [273 U.S. 510 (1927)]
278) People vs. Magsi [124 SCRA 69 (1983)] 309) Soriano vs. Angeles (G.R. No. 109920, August 31, 2000)
279) People vs. Besonia (G.R. No. 151284-85, February 5, 2004)
280) People vs. Murillo (G.R. No. 134583, July 14, 2004)
• Right to confront witnesses
• Right to Lawyer of Choice 310) Spouses dela Cruz vs. Ramon Papa IV (G.R. No. 185899, December 8, 2010)
281) People vs. Malunsing [63 SCRA 493 (1975)] 311) U.S. v. Javier [37 Phil. 449 (1918)]
282) Libuit vs. People (G.R. No. 154363, September 13, 2005)
• Right to secure attendance of witnesses
• Deprivation of Right to be Heard 312) U.S. vs. Garcia [10 Phil. 384 (1908)]
283) Moslares vs. CA [291 SCRA 440 (1998)] 313) People vs. Sandal [54 Phil. 883 (1938)]
314) People vs. De Luna [174 SCRA 204 (1989)]
• Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation
284) People of the Philippines vs. Manansala (G.R. No. 175939, April 3, 2013) • Right to be present during trial
285) Abellana vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 174654, August 17, 2011) • Trial in absentia
• Rule 115, Sec. 1 (c)
• Lack of Arraignment 315) People vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 140285, September 27, 2006)
286) Borja vs. Mendoza [77 SCRA 422 (1977)]
287) People vs. Alcalde (G.R. 139225, May 29, 2002) • When presence of the accused is a duty
288) People vs. Dy (G.R. No. 154363, September 13, 2005) • Arraignment and plea
• Rule 116, Sec. 1 (b)
• Sufficiency of the Information • During trial for identification
289) People v. Sadiosa [290 SCRA 82 (1998)] 316) Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 63 [SCRA 546 (1975)]
290) People vs. Perez (G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998) 317) People vs. Salas [143 SCRA 163 (1986)]
• Promulgation of sentence XVII. PUNISHMENTS
• Rule 120, Sec. 6
• Exception: Light offenses • Excessive fines and cruel, degrading and inhuman punishments
342) People vs. Dela Cruz [92 Phil. 906 (1953)]
XV. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION 343) People vs. Borja [91 SCRA 340 (1978)]
344) People vs. Dacuycuy [173 SCRA 90 (1989)]
• Art. III, Sec. 17 345) Loiusiana vs. Resweber [329 U.S. 459 (1974)]
• Scope covers compulsory testimonial incrimination 346) Ford v. Wainwright [477 U.S. 399 (1986)]
318) Dela Cruz vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014) 347) Atkins v. Virginia [536 U.S. 304 (2002)]
319) People vs. Rondero (G.R. No. 125687, December 9, 1999)
320) People vs. Gallarde [G.R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000] • The death penalty
321) United States vs. Tan Teh [23 Phil. 145 (1912)] 348) Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 132601 January 19, 1999)
322) United States vs. Ong Siu Hong [36 Phil. 735 (1917)]
323) People vs. Otadura [86 Phil. 244 (1950)] • Involuntary servitude
324) Villaflor vs. Summers [41 Phil. 62 (1920)] • Art. III, Sec. 18
325) Bermudez vs. Castillo [64 Phil. 485 (1937)] 349) Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan [64 SCRA 131 (1979)]
326) Beltran vs. Samson [53 Phil. 570 (1929)]
327) People vs. Tranca [235 SCRA 455 (1994)] • Imprisonment for debt
328) South Dakota vs. Neville [459 U.S. 553 (1983)] • Art. III, Sec. 20
329) Schemerber vs. California [384 U.S. 757 (1966)] 350) Sura vs. Martin [26 SCRA 286 (1969)]
351) People vs. Nitafan [207 SCRA 726 (1992)]
• In what proceedings available 352) In Re: Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara (G.R. No. 154037, April 30,
330) Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners [28 SCRA 344 (1969)] 2003)
331) Galman vs. Pamaran [138 SCRA 274 (1985)]
• Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder
• Use Immunity vs. Transactional Immunity. • Art. III, Sec. 22
• Art. XIII, Sec. 18 (8) 353) In the Matter of the Petition for the Declaration of the Petitioner's Rights and
• R.A. No. 1379, Section 8 Duties under Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6132. Kay Villegas Kami, Inc. (G.R. No. L-32485
332) Galman vs. Pamaran [138 SCRA 274 (1985)] October 22, 1970)
333) Brown vs. Walker (161 U.S. 591) 354) People vs. Ferrer [48 SCRA 382 (1972)]
355) People vs. Sandiganbayan [211 SCRA 241 (1992)]
• Exclusionary rule 356) Wright vs. CA [235 SCRA 341 (1994)]
• Art. II, Sec. 12 (3)
• Effect of denial of privilege by court • Double Jeopardy
334) Chavez vs. Court of Appeals [24 SCRA 663 (1968)] • Art. III, Sec. 21
• Rule 117, Sec. 7
XVI. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES • Rule 120, Sec. 5
• Art. III, Sec. 16 • Elements
• Art. VIII, Sec. 15 357) Ivler vs. Hon. Judge Pedro (G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010)
• Art. VII, Sec. 19 par. 3 358) Bautista vs. Cuneta-Pangilinan (G.R. No. 189754, October 24, 2012)
• Art. IX, A, Sec. 17 359) People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan, Marcos, Benitez and Dulay
335) Coscolluela vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013) (G.R. No. 153304-05, February 7, 2012)
336) Jacob vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 162206, November 17, 2010) 360) Cerezo vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011)
337) Bernat vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 158018, May 20, 2004) 361) People vs. Obsania [23 SCRA 1249 (1968)]
338) Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan [289 SCRA 721 (1998)]
339) Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan [159 SCRA 70 (1988)] • Subsequent prosecution barred; Exceptions
340) Licaros vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. 145851, November 22, 2001) 362) Ysidoro vs. Hon. Judge Castro (G.R. No. 171513, February 6, 2012)
341) Dimayacyac vs. Judge Roxas (G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004) 363) Villarreal vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012)
364) People of the Philippines vs. CA (G.R. No. 154954, February 1, 2012) 393) Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 663 (1968)
365) People of the Philippines vs. First Division of the Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 394) In re: Abadilla [156 SCRA 92 (1987)]
190963, February 6, 2012) 395) Norberto Feria vs. CA, et al. (G.R. 122954, Feb. 15, 2000)
366) Melo vs. People [85 Phil. 766 (1959)] 396) Illusorio vs. Bildner (G.R. 139789, May 12, 2000)
367) People vs. Yorac [42 SCRA 230 (1971) (overruled)]
368) PSB vs. Bermoy (G.R. No. 151912, September 26, 2005) XIX. NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
369) Heirs of Rillorta vs. Firme [157 SCRA 518 (1988)]
370) People vs. Miraflores [115 SCRA 586 (1982)] • Art. III, Sec. 20
371) People vs. Judge Vergara [221 SCRA 560 (1993)] 397) Ganaway vs. Quillen (42 Phil 805)
372) Tupaz vs. Ulep (G.R. No. 127777, October 1, 1999) 398) Ajeno vs. Inserto (71 SCRA 166)
373) Argel vs. Judge Pascua (A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131, August 20, 2001) 399) Flores vs. Tatad (96 SCRA 676)
400) Serafin vs. Lindayag (67 SCRA 166)
• Jurisdiction of Courts 401) U.S. vs. Cara (41 Phil 826)
374) People vs. Bocar [138 SCRA 166 (1985)] 402) People vs. Merillo (G.R. No. L-3401, June 28, 1951)
375) Galman vs. Sandiganbayan [144 SCRA 43 (1986)] 403) Sura vs. Martin (26 SCRA 286)
376) People vs. Gorospe [157 SCRA 154 (1988)] 404) Lozano vs. Martinez (146 SCRA 323)
377) People vs. Judge Santiago [174 SCRA 143 (1989)]
XX. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
• Identity of Acts
378) People vs. Relova [148 SCRA 292 (1987)] • Art. III, Sec. 18 (2)
• Art. II, Sec. 4
• Identity of Offenses 405) People vs. Zosa (38 O.G. 1676)
379) People vs. City Court [154 SCRA 175 (1987)] 406) Kaisahan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs. Gotamco Sawmills (31 Phil 245)
380) Nierras vs. Acuycuy [181 SCRA 1 (1990)] 407) Caunca vs. Salazar (82 Phil 851)

• Military Court Proceedings

381) Cruz vs. Enrile [160 SCRA 702 (1988)]
382) Tan vs. Barrios (G.R. No. 85481-82, October 18, 1990)

• Right to Speedy Trial

383) Que vs. Cosico [177 SCRA 410 (1989)]
384) Caes vs. IAC [179 SCRA 54 (1989)]

• Administrative & Criminal Proceedings

385) Icasiano vs. Sandiganbayan [209 SCRA 377 (1992)]
386) Vincoy vs. CA (G.R. No. 156558, June 14, 2004)
387) People vs. Larannaga (G.R. No. 138874, July 25, 2005)

• Plea of Guilt to Lesser Offense

388) People vs. Judge Villarama [210 SCRA 246 (1992)]

XVIII. PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

• Art. II, Sec. 15

• Art. VII, Sec. 18
389) Villavicencio vs. Lukban [39 Phil. 778 (1919)]
390) Moncupa vs. Ponce Enrile [141 SCRA 223 (1986)]
391) Lansang vs. Garcia [42 SCRA 448 (1971)]
392) Chavez vs. Court of Appeals [24 SCRA 420 (1971)]