CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

Final Examination

INSTRUCTIONS: Answer each question briefly and concisely. A yes or no answer shall
not be given any credit. Submit your answers either in PDF or Word at my e-mail
address: caloy1959@yahoo.com. Good Luck!

I.

Distilleria Felipe Segundo is famous for its 15-year old rhum, which it has produced and
marketed successfully for the past 70 years. Its latest commercial advertisement uses the line:
“Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse anyos?” Very soon, activist groups promoting women’s and
children’s rights were up in arms against the advertisement. All advertising companies in the
Philippines have formed an association, the Philippine Advertising Council, and have agreed to
abide by all the ethical guidelines and decisions by the Council. In response to the protest, the
Council orders the pull-out of the “kinse anyos” advertising campaign. Can Destilleria Felipe
Segundo claim that its constitutional right to freedom of expression is thus infringed? Reason
out your answers.

II.

Petitioner Ricky is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC Regional Office No. IV
and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) under the
“Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na” program of the CSC.

In 2007, an unsigned letter-complaint was received by respondent CSC Chairperson Karina

Constantino-David informing her that a CSC’s employee in Region 4 Office was lawyering for a person
with a pending case in the CSC. The letter says:

As a concerned citizen of my beloved country, I would like to ask from you personally if it is just alright for
an employee of your agency to be a lawyer of an accused gov’t employee having a pending case in the
CSC. I honestly think this is a violation of law and unfair to others and your office. I have known that a
person have been lawyered by one of your attorney in the region 4 office. He is the chief of the
Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na division. He has been helping many who have pending cases in the
CSC.

The next day, all the computers in the PALD were sealed and secured for the purpose of preserving
all the files stored therein. Several diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the hard disk of
PALD and LSD computers were turned over to Chairperson David. It was found that most of the files in
the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner,
numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative
cases in the CSC and other tribunals.

The CSC issued a Resolution against the petitioner and charging him with Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of R.A. No. 6713 (Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).

Petitioner Ricky filed an Omnibus Motion (For Reconsideration, to Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing
the formal charge as without basis having proceeded from an illegal search it having been copied from his
computer assigned to and being used by him which is beyond the authority of the CSC Chairman, such
power pertaining solely to the court. The CSC denied the omnibus motion.

Q. Whether the search was made against unreasonable searches and seizures under the
Constitution? What is a “scattered shot warrant”?

III.

Case No. 3335 was filed in the inferior court of January, the charge against Fama Jr.
had to be for slight physical injuries only, because according to the certification of the attending
physician, the injuries suffered by the offended party Viajar, would require medical attendance
from 5 to 9 days only "baring complications." When the first complaint was filed on April 15,
1975, only three days had passed since the incident in which the injuries were sustained took
place, there were yet no indications of a graver injury or consequence to be suffered by said
offended party. After Case No. 3335 had already been filed and the wound on the face of Viajar
had already healed, an alleged deformity became apparent and so another information was filed
this time for serious physical injuries.

Q. Whether the accused was placed in double jeopardy upon the filing of the second
information? Why?

IV.
 Beltran, as a defendant for the crime of Falsification, refused to write a sample of his
handwriting as ordered by the respondent Judge. The petitioner in this case contended that
such order would be a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination because such
examination would give the prosecution evidence against him, which the latter should have
gotten in the first place. He also argued that such an act will make him furnish evidence against
himself. 
Q.  Whether or not the writing from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner for the purpose
of comparing the latter's handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain documents
supposed to be falsified, constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and meaning of
the constitutional provision against self-incrimination? Reason out your answer. 

V.
Children who are members of a religious sect have been expelled from their respective
public schools for refusing, on account of their religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony
which includes playing by a band or singing the national anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and
reciting the patriotic pledge. The students and their parents assail the expulsion on the ground
that the school authorities have acted in violation of their right to free public education, freedom
of speech, and religious freedom and worship. Decide the case.
 VI.

Accused-appellant Crisologo alias “Amang,” a deaf-mute, was charged of robbery with

homicide. He was allegedly informed of the charge against him through sign language by
Special Policeman Munoz a childhood acquaintance. Mr. Munoz subsequently entered a plea of
guilty on behalf of the accused. Upon objection of counsel, however, this plea was disregarded
and arraignment was rescheduled until the Court could avail of the services of an expert in the
sign language from the school of the deaf and dumb. Apparently, no sign language expert or
representative ever arrived, the accused through a counsel de oficio waived the reading of the
information and pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded without any evidence being presented on his
part. Finally, without the services of an expert in sign language ever being utilized at any stage
of the proceedings, the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with
homicide.
Q. Whether or not the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation was violated?

VII.

Malandi was charged with the crime of adultery. The trial judge ordered Malandi to subject herself
into a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) test to determine whether or not she was pregnant and to prove and
determine the crime of adultery being charged against her. Malandi refused to such
physical examination interposing the defense that such examination was a violation of her right against
self-incrimination. Q. Will the refusal of Malandi violate her right against self-incrimination? Discuss.

VIII.
Mangagantso is charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Billang 22 (BP 22 for short) by
a creditor. Popularly known as the Bouncing Check Law. BP 22 punishes a person "who makes
or draws and issues any check on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of said check in
full upon presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment." The penalty prescribed for
the offense is imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than one year or a fine or not less
than the amount of the check nor more than double said amount, but in no case to exceed
P200,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Mangagantso
was later on convicted for violating the law. On appeal he raised the defense that he is being
punished for non-payment of a debt a violation of a constitutional guarantee against
imprisonment on account of debt.
Q. Does BP 22 violates the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt?