Constitutional Law by Prof.

Rafael De La Cruz III

The recent cases of the Supreme Court have abandoned and modified the previous rulings
of the Court.

 Villarosa v. People

Can an accused by convicted of violation of section 3(e) of RA 3019 through gross

inexcusable negligence, if what was alleged was “evident bad faith?”

Issue: The right of the accused to be informed of the accusations against him.

There was previous ruling in the Supreme Court stating that the culpa element is deemed
to be part of the dolo element. So even if the alleged is dolo, you can still be convicted of
culpa.

Sistoza v. Desierto (previous ruling)

Section 3(e), RA 3019 is committed by either by dolo or culpa and although the
Information may have alleged only one of the modalities of committing the offense, the
other mode is deemed included in the accusation to allow proof thereof.

“Deemed included” – Even if the alleged is a different modality, gross negligence is still
included in the allegation.

With this precedent, will the Supreme Court be bound to adhere to such ruling in
convicting the accused in the Villarosa v. People? It cannot.

So the effect of Sistoza v. Desierto, the separate concurring opinion is deemed to be part
of the majority opinion.

“The ruling on Sistoza v. Desierto, the other modes of committing the offence is deemed
included in the accusation thereof is considered as orbiter dictum”
- Why is it so? Sistoza v. Desierto is still in the level of preliminary investigation.
But in Villarosa v. People, trial is already over. So will a judge convict someone
of a crime not stated in the Information?
“An allegation of one modality without mention of the others necessarily means
the exclusion of those not mentioned.”
- 3 modes in section 3(e) of RA 3019: There’s nothing that prevents the prosecutor
or the office of the Ombudsman is alleging the 3 modes.

In the Villarosa v. People, what was alleged only was the “evident bad faith?” So the SC
says “without mention of the others necessarily means the exclusion of those not
mentioned.”

Ruling: The accused cannot be convicted of those not alleged in the Information.
Solar vs People

The right to information: The accused must be informed of the factual allegations against
him so he can sufficiently prepare his defense. This is also in compliance of the Bill of
Rights – the right to information.

 People v. Nocido

Section 5(B) of RA 7610 (EPSOSA)- Exploited in Prostitution or Subjected to Other

Sexual Abuse

v. Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8363.

Issue: WoN the accused can be convicted of Section 5(B) of RA 7610 (EPSOSA)

Dissenting opinion of Justice Caguioa

One cannot use Section 5(B) of RA 7610 for purposes of imposing the penalty thereof
(the penalty here is higher/graver). RPC should be used instead. One cannot be convicted
of Section 5(B) of RA 7610 even if it’s the one alleged, because the proper law to be
applied is Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8363.

Still, the majority opinion is that you can be convicted of Section 5(B) of RA 7610

 People of the Philippines v. Sapla

Issue: Can a police conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a vehicle on the sole basis of
an unverified tip relayed by an anonymous informant?

Exception to the warrantless search: Search of a moving vehicle

- This search should be directed to the vehicle itself and not to the person himself
who is driving the vehicle.
- Unless, there is a probable cause that led you to believe that such person may
have committed a crime.
- Is this based on a solitary information or solitary tip? Or is there any confluence
of external circumstance that will lead you to believe that this person might have
committed a crime?

Police officers saw a bag of marijuana in the said vehicle. However, the question is if this
is a valid or invalid search.

The SC looked into the solitary information or solitary tip, and they believed it was
unverified.
In other words, the police officers only searched the vehicle because of the (unverified)
solitary tip. There was no other confluence of external circumstance or probable cause
that the person may have actually committed a crime.
- There was no probable cause, thus, one cannot effect the intrusive search.

Precedent: People v. Comprado

The search conducted could not be classified as a search of moving vehicle. In this
particular type of search, the vehicle is the target and not the specific person.
- Remedy: The police should verify the tip. Once the tip is verified, this ruling is no
longer effective.
- Probable cause as an indispensable requirement for an extensive and intrusive
warrantless search.
o This probable cause cannot be bunked on an unverified solitary tip.

An unverified tip will not constitute as probable cause for purposes of conducting an
extensive and intrusive warrantless search.

 Saluday v. People

Issue: Can vasectomy of a person with disability equate to violation of RA 7610 or an

infringement of privacy right?

Is vasectomy considered as cruelty for purposes of RA 7610? Is there a constitutional

right to procreate?

Justice Marvic Leonen

“There is a constitutional right to procreate.”

So if one performs vasectomy, isn’t that a violation of the constitutional right of a person
with disability?

The cases was dismissed due to lack of personality to appeal.

 Sister Pilar Versoza v. People

Does the President possess the right to exercise freedom of expression? (Note of the
Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Andres Reyes Jr. In De Lima v. Duterte)

In the case of Davao City Water District v. Aranjuez, et al., the Court held that the
constitutional right to freedom of expression is not relinquished by those who enter
government service solely on account of their employment in the public.
- Regulatory mechanisms are not considered as prohibitory mechanisms. There’s
nothing that precludes the President to exercise his freedom of expression.
  DFA v. BCA International Corp.

Once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a “definite
proposition” on the part of the government. From this moment, the public’s right to
information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-propriety information leading
to such definite proposition.
- There is already a public concern.
- Did the Supreme Court remove the mantle of confidentiality? The answer is no.
- Non sequitur: However, it doesn’t mean that if there’s a definite proposition, the
confidentiality clause is repealed.

Confidential information is a limit to the subpoena powers of the Court.

Issue: Is it considered confidential or privilege information? Does it form part of the

deliberative process?

Contrary to the RTC’s ruling, there is nothing in our Chavez v. Public Estates Authority
ruling which states that once a “definite proposition” is reached by an agency, the
privilege character of a document no longer exists.

To protect the principle of the separation of powers is to give the mantle of

confidentiality, of secrecy. Because if everything is disclosed, then all the information
will be opened to the public and that puts the decision-making process of the government
at risk.

One must first get the consent of the other party when divulging an information. There is
no waiver of confidentiality.

Deliberative process which is confidential in nature and which is quintessential to the

executive privilege doctrine is a public policy

Can one waive a public policy? All waivers cannot be contrary to laws, morals, customs
and public policy.

There is a public policy involved in a claim of deliberative process privilege – “the policy
of open, frank discussion between subordinate and chief concerning administrative
action.” Thus, the deliberative process privilege cannot be waived. As we have held in
Akbayan v. Aquino (precedent), the deliberative process privilege is closely related to the
presidential communications privilege and protects the public disclosure of information
that can compromise the quality of agency decisions.”
If you want to achieve something you never have, you have to do a lot of things you have
never done before. Whatever your mind conceives, your body will achieve. Believe that
you can, and you’re halfway there.

Use your will because it’s something you have full control of.