Outline PPT From Bill of Rights

 Due Process
 When does life begin?
 Life commences upon “conception” that is upon fertilization. When the egg cell and sperms
meet, then there life begins. Hence, the obligation upon the State to “equally protect the life of
the mother and the life of an unborn from conception” prevents the legislature from legalizing
abortion (Imbong vs. Ochoa).
 Aspects of Due Process
 Substantive Due Process
 Cases on Substantive Due Process
 Procedural Due Process
 Judicial Due Process
 Cases on Procedural Due Process
 No.
 There is no law or rule which requires the investigating prosecutor to furnish a respondent with
copies of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents.
 The rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are limited to those granted by

procedural law.
 "rights conferred upon accused persons to participate in preliminary investigations concerning

themselves depend upon the provisions of law by which such rights are specifically secured,
rather than upon the phrase 'due process of law'.
 Estrada vs. Ombudsman, January 21, 2015
 Is administrative due process applicable in preliminary investigation?
 NO.
 This is because a preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding since the prosecutor
in a preliminary does not determine the guilt or innocence of the respondent (Estrada vs.
Ombudsman, Bondoc vs. Tan Tiong Bio, October 6, 2010).
 Equal Protection
 Equal Protection
 Note:
 The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of
the laws upon all citizens of the State. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to avoid the
constitutional prohibition against inequality, that every man, woman and child should be
affected alike by a statute. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate
operation on persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances
surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union, 158 Phil. 60).
 Valid Classification
 It must be based on substantial distinction.
 It must be germane to the purpose of law.
 It must not be limited to existing. conditions.
 It must apply equally to all members of the same class.
 Substantial Distinction
 Mendoza vs. People, October 19, 2011
 R.A. 9903 – granting condonation to employers with delinquent contributions or pending cases
for their delinquencies and who pay their delinquencies within the six (6)-month period from the
effectivity of the law.
 There is substantial distinction between those who paid delinquency within the period allowed
by law and those who paid outside the period.
 Quinto vs. Comelec, February 22, 2010
 As to government official considered deemed resigned upon the filing of certificate of candidacy.
 There is substantial distinction between elective and appointive government official.
 Goldenway Merchandizing Corporation vs. Equitable PCI, March 13, 2013
 Section 47, RA 8791 (General Banking Law of 2000) redemption period of property owners of
mortgaged real property.
 There is substantial distinction between juridical property owner of mortgaged real property and
that of natural person.
 Garcia vs. Drilon, June 25, 2013
 RA 9262 did not violate the equal protection clause by favoring women over men as victims of
violence and abuse. The distinction lies on the unequal power relationship between women and
men; the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the wide
spread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the
classification under the law.
 Imbong vs. Ochoa, April 8, 2014
 Government health workers are not considered “conscientious objectors.”
 “This is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause. The conscientious objection
clause should be equally protective of the religious belief of public health officers. There is no
perceptible distinction why they should not be considered exempt from the mandates of the
law. The protection accorded to other conscientious objectors should equally apply to all medical
practitioners without distinction whether they belong to the public or private sector.”
 Germane to the Purpose

of the Law
 Bureau of Customs Employees Assn. vs. Teves, December 6, 2011 .
 The system of rewards and sanctions provided for under the Attrition Law for the benefit of the
employees of BIR and BOC.
 They perform a special function which is to collect taxes, the life blood of the government.
 Not Limited to Existing Condition
 Ormoc Sugar Co., vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603
 1% per export sale on any and all production of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Co.,
Inc.
 Central Bank Employees Assn. vs. BSP, December 15, 2004
 If the statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, it validity, even though
affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed
condition. While RA 7653 started as a valid measure within the legislature’s power, we hold the
enactment of subsequent laws exempting all rank-in-file employees of other GFI leeched all
validity out of the challenged law.
 Central Bank Employees Assn. vs. BSP, December 15, 2004
 In the field of equal protection, the guarantee that no person shall be denied the equal
protection of the laws includes the prohibition against enacting laws that allow undesirable
discrimination, directly or indirectly.
 Serrano vs. Gallant
G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009
 Sec. 10. Money Claims. — . . . In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid
or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his
salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009
 The categories of OFW:
 OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts of less than one year; in case of illegal dismissal,
they are entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portion of their contract.
 OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts of one year or more; in case of illegal dismissal,
they are entitled to monetary award equivalent to only 3 months of the unexpired portion of
their contracts.

G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009
 The supreme Court ruled that the subject clause violates Section 1, Article III of the Constitution,
and Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII on labor as a protected sector.
 Cases
 (3) tests of judicial scrutiny to determine the reasonableness of classifications.
 The strict scrutiny test applies when a classification either (i) interferes with the exercise of
fundamental rights, including the basic liberties guaranteed under the Constitution, or (ii)
burdens suspect classes.
 The intermediate scrutiny test applies when a classification does not involve suspect classes or
fundamental rights, but requires heightened scrutiny, such as in classifications based on gender
and legitimacy.
 Lastly, the rational basis test applies to all other subjects not covered by the first two tests
(Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan vs. Quezon City, GR No. 225442, August 8, 2017) .
 Searches and Seizures
 Section 2 may be invoked only against the State
 Del Castillo vs. People, January 30, 2012
 The Barangay Tanod was considered as agents of person in authority under Article 388 of the
Local Government Code. Hence they are not considered to be private individuals.
 Requisites of a Valid Warrant

 It must be based upon probable cause
 Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge
 The determination must be made after examination under oath of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce
 It must be particularly describing the place to be searched or the person or things to be seized.
 Probable Cause
 Existence of probable cause is applicable both in the issuance of warrant of arrest and search
warrant.
 Probable cause in search warrant
◦ It is such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent
man to believe that the offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in place sought to be searched.

How is probable cause determined in the issuance of search warrant?
 It is determined by personally examining in the form of searching questions and answer, in

writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally
known to them (Section 5, Rule 126).
 Illustrative Cases
 Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA
 The police officer applied for the search warrant on the basis of the information they gathered
that Prudente has in his possession firearms and explosives.
 SC: The information which has become the basis of the application is hearsay. It should be based
on the personal knowledge of the applicant.
 Existence of Probable Cause
 Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. Although probable
cause implies only probability of guilt, it requires, however, more than suspicion.
 Thus, warrant cannot be issued on the basis of hearsay evidence.
 CFI vs. Alvarez, 64 Phil. 33
 Illustrative Cases
 Pendon vs.CA, November 16, 1990
 It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro
forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be established. The examining magistrate must not
simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and
justification of the application.

How is probable cause determined in the issuance of warrant of arrest?
 It can be determined on the basis of the personal examination by the judge of the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor (Soliven vs. Makasiar, Nov. 14, 1988).
 “Personally by the Judge”
 Placer vs. Villanueva
 Several information were filed by the prosecutors. The Judge asked them to submit the
supporting affidavits so that he could determine the existence of probable cause for the issuance
of warrant of arrest. The prosecutors refused on the ground that under the law, they have the
right to determine existence of probable cause.
 Judge not bound by the findings of probable by the prosecution.
 “Personally be the Judge”
 Okabe vs. Judge Gutierrez, May 27, 2004
 The judge issued warrant when what was submitted was only the Resolution of the Investigating
Prosecutor and Affidavits of the complainant. The prosecutor did not attached copies of the
affidavit of the witnesses for the complainant and the counter-affidavit of the respondent.
 The judge committed grave abuse of discretion.
 Problem
 Inasmuch as the investigating prosecutor has already conducted a preliminary investigation and
already found probable cause against the accused that he committed the crime charged to
which this Court agrees, let a warrant of arrest be issued against the accused.
 Duty of the Judge upon filing of an Information
 Issue warrant of arrest upon finding of probable cause
 Dismiss the case if the evidences on record do not establish probable cause.
 Order the prosecutor to submit evidence if he entertains doubt as the existence of probable
cause.
 (Section 5, Rule 112; People vs. Desmond, June 26, 2013)
 Only Judge Issues Warrant
 Salazar vs. Achacoso, March 14, 2000 – Art. 38 of the LC was declared unconstitutional as it
authorized the Secretary to order the arrest, search and seizure of those committing the crime of
illegal recruitment.
 Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, March 29, 1996 – the SC nullified the order of PCGG directing the
respondent to submit all bank documents relevant to the investigation being conducted by the
PCGG.
 “Only Judge Issues Warrant”
 Section 19 of RA 10175 (Cybercrime Law of 2012)
 Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. — When a computer data is prima facie found
to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block
access to such computer data.
 Disini vs. ES, Feb. 14, 2014
 Computer data may refer to entire programs or lines of code, including malware, as well as files
that contain texts, images, audio, or video recordings. Without having to go into a lengthy
discussion of property rights in the digital space, it is indisputable that computer data, produced
or created by their writers or authors may constitute personal property. Consequently, they are
protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, whether while stored in their personal
computers or in the service provider's systems.
 Disini vs. ES, Feb. 14, 2014
 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right to be secure in one's papers
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable. Further, it states that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge. Here, the Government, in effect, seizes and
places the computer data under its control and disposition without a warrant. The Department
of Justice order cannot substitute for judicial search warrant.
 Exception to the Rule
 Morano vs. Vivo, 20 SCRA 562 – it may be issued by administrative authorities only for the
purpose of carrying out a final finding of violation of law, like an order of deportation.
 The constitutional limitation contemplates an order of arrest in the exercise of judicial power as
a step preliminary or incidental to prosecution for a given offense.
 Determination of Probable Cause
 By the Judge both in warrant of arrest or searched warrant.
 In warrant of arrest, it is enough the Judge personally examines the report of the prosecutor and
the attached supporting affidavits and evidence. The Judge need not conduct examination by
way of searching questions to the complainant and its witnesses (Soliven vs. Makasiar; Enrile vs.
Salazar).
 Determination of Probable Cause
 Rule in Search Warrant

 Sec. 5, Rule 126 – the judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of
searching question and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce on facts personally known to them and attached to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits submitted.
 Search Warrant Must be Issued for one Specific Offense
 Section 4, Rule 126 – A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection
with one specific offense….
 If the search warrant was applied for violation of R.A. 9165 which contains different violations of
law, one search warrant may be issued for several violations thereof (People vs. Dichoso, June 4,
1993, People vs. Salanguit, April 19, 2001)
 Particularity of Description
 The place to be searched should likewise be particularly described. The description of the place
to be searched is sufficient if the officer with reasonable effort, ascertain the identity of the
place intended, and distinguish it from other places in the community (SPO4 Bienvenido Laud
vs. People, November 19, 2014).
 The place to be searched, as described in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the
police officer’s own personal knowledge of the premises or the evidence which they adduced in
support of their application for warrant (People vs. Court of Appeal, June 26, 1998).
 Paper Industries Corp of Phil. vs. Asuncion, May 19, 1999
 The compound subject of search warrant was made up of 200 offices, 15 plants, 84 staff houses,
1 air strip, 3 piers, 23 warehouses and 800 miscellaneous structures.
 The place is not particularly described. Searched warrant was invalidated.
 People vs. Tee, January 20, 2003
 “undetermined amount of marijuana.”
 The description is held to satisfy the requirement for particularity in a search warrant. A further
description would be unnecessary and ordinarily impossible, except as to such character, the
place, and the circumstances. The Court held that the description "illegally in possession of
undetermined quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of paraphernalia" particularizes the things to be seized.
 Worldwide Web Corp. vs. People, Jan. 13, 2014

 Search Warrant No. Q-01-3856, issued for violation of paragraph one (1) of Article 308 (theft) in
relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code against the accused to seize the following
 a) Computers or any equipment or device capable of accepting information, applying the

process of the information and supplying the results of this process;
 b) Software, Diskettes, Tapes or equipment or device used for recording or storing

information; and
 c) Manuals, application forms, access codes, billing statements, receipts, contracts,

communications and documents relating to securing and using telephone lines and/or
equipment.
 Worldwide Web Corp. vs. People, Jan. 13, 2014
 The requirement of particularity in the description of things to be seized is fulfilled when the
items described in the search warrant bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant
is sought.
 Furthermore, the Court also had occasion to rule that the particularity of the description of the
place to be searched and the things to be seized is required "wherever and whenever it is
feasible." A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute
detail. The warrant is valid when it enables the police officers to readily identify the properties to
be seized and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized.
 Valid Warrantless Arrest
 Section 5, Rule 113
 (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense;
 (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and
 (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
 Strong Projection
 Police officers saw two men rushing out from the house of the accused. Sensing that a crime was
committed, the police officers went to the house from where the two men went out. They
peeked at the window and saw the accused holding an improvised tooter and a pink lighter. They
went inside the house and arrested the accused. They filed a case for violation of Section 12,
Article II of RA 9165.
 Are the improvised tooter and a pink lighter admissible in evidence?
 Antiquera vs. People, December 11, 2013 – NO.
 Two elements required: 1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
had just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit; 2) such overt act is done
within the view of the arresting officer.
 People vs. Racho, August 3, 2010
 Arrest on the basis of tip or information is not enough. The following elements must be present:
1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he had just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit; 2) such overt act is done within the view of the
arresting officer.
 Hot Pursuit Arrest
 Illustrative Case
 Pestillos vs. Generoso, Nov. 10, 2014
 The victim reported the mauling incident to the police. The police officers responded. They were
able to interview the victim. The victim described the assailants. The police officers on the basis
of the description invited and the accused to the police station and eventually arrested them.
 With these facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered and which they have
personally observed less than one hour from the time that they have arrived at the scene of the
crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners, we deem it reasonable to conclude that the
police officers had personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners'
warrantless arrests.
 These circumstances were well within the police officers' observation, perception and evaluation
at the time of the arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police officers' personal
observation, which are within their personal knowledge, prompting them to make the
warrantless arrests.
 “Had just been committed”

 There must be large measure of immediacy between the time the offense was committed and
the time of the arrest and if there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the
commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured.
 Valid Warrantless Search
 1. When the right is voluntarily waived.
 2. When there is valid reason to stop-and-frisk.
 3. Search incidental to a lawful arrest.
 4. Search of vessel and aircraft.
 5. Search of moving vehicles
 6. Search to enforce sanitary and building regulations.
 7. Plain view doctrine
 8. Search under exigent and emergency circumstances
 1. Waiver of Right
 Requisites:
 It must appear first that the right exists.
 The accused must have actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of right.
 The accused had actual intention to relinquish the right.
 De Gracia vs. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689
 1. Waiver of Right
 Please take note:
 Consent to searched is not to be lightly inferred but must be shown by clear and convincing
evidence. It is the state which has the burden of proving that necessary consent was obtained
and it was voluntarily and freely given (Caballes vs. CA, January 15, 2002).
 Waiver of Right
 People vs. Gatward, February 7, 1997 – passenger of a plane checking in the airport. Section 9,
RA. 6265.
 Sales vs. People, 690 SCRA 141
 Aniag vs. Comelec, October 7, 1994 – consented searched cannot be presumed in the presence
of 14 armed police officers.
 Waiver of Right
 People vs. Victor Cogaed, July 30, 2014,

 The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than passive
conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is, thus, considered no
consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.
 Stop-and-Frisk
 Stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a
citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon (Manalili vs. CA, Terry vs. Ohio).
 Police officer is entitled to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such
persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
 Stop-and-Frisk Arrest
 Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 632 (1997)
 The police officers were initially informed about a place frequented by people abusing drugs.
When they arrived, one of the police officers saw a man with "reddish eyes and [who was]
walking in a swaying manner." The suspicion increased when the man avoided the police
officers. These observations led the police officers to conclude that the man was high on drugs.
These were sufficient facts observed by the police officers "to stop [the] petitioner [and]
investigate."
 People v. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811 (1996)
 Police officers noticed a man who appeared drunk. This man was also "wearing a camouflage
uniform or a jungle suit." Upon seeing the police, the man fled. His flight added to the suspicion.
After stopping him, the police officers found an unlicensed "homemade firearm" in his
possession. This court ruled that "[u]nder the circumstances, the government agents could not
possibly have procured a search warrant first."
 Please take note on Stop-and-Frisk Search
 Probable cause is not required in a stop-and-frisk search. But mere suspicion is not enough. It
has to be a genuine reason to serve the purpose of the stop-and-frisk. Police officer must not
rely on a single circumstance of suspicion. There should be "presence of more than one
seemingly innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal
activity.
 People vs. Cogaed, July 30, 2014
 Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest
 A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have
been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without search warrant.
 Potential Source of Bar Question
 Homer vs. People, September 2, 2015
 The police officer saw the accused crossing Roxas Blvrd. The police officer accosted the accused
and told him to cross on the designated area for crossing. The police officer saw the accused
picked up something from the ground. This elicited suspicion from the police officer and so he
frisked the accused. One small plastic sachet of shabu was recovered from the accused.
 Homer vs. People, September 2, 2015
 The sachet of shabu is inadmissible in evidence. It is not a case of search incidental to a lawful
arrest. The accused in this case was not arrested. When the police officer accosted the accused
and told the accused to cross on the designated area, there was no clear indication that he was
arrested. There was no intention on the part of the police officer to place the accused under his
custody.
 Thus if there is no arrest, search cannot be made, because search must not precede the arrest.
 Luz vs. People, February 29, 2012
 The police officer saw the accused driving without a helmet. The police officer flagged down the
accused for violating the municipal ordinance prohibiting driving without helmet. As the police
officer was issuing the ticket for his violation, he noticed the accused becoming uneasy, as if
trying to get something from this pocket. The police officer asked the accused to show the
contents of his pocket. There, he saw two (2) sachets of “shabu”
 Luz vs. People, February 29, 2012
 When the accused was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto,
arrested. There was no actual intention to place the accused under custody. If this is so, the
search of the accused preceded his arrest. Thus, there is no search incidental to a lawful arrest,
as the accused was never arrested.
 Plain View
 Requisites:
 (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion
or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
 (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and

 (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
 (People vs. Chi Chan Liu, January 21, 2015)
 Plain View
 Acting on the information that accused was selling drugs to tricycle drivers, police officers were
dispatched to conduct an operation.
 While at the place, the group waited for a tricycle going to, and coming from, the house of the
accused. After a few minutes, they spotted a tricycle carrying the accused coming out of the
house. The group chased the tricycle. After catching up with it, they requested accused to alight.
It was then that they noticed accused holding a match box.
 Plain View
 Police officers asked the accused if he could see the contents of the match box. Accused agreed.
While examining it, police officer found a small transparent plastic sachet which contained a
white crystalline substance. Suspecting that the substance was a regulated drug, the group
accosted the accused and the tricycle driver. The group brought the two to the police station.
 Plain View
 Sanchez vs. People, Nov. 19, 2014
 Measured against the foregoing standards, it is readily apparent that the seizure of the subject
shabu does not fall within the plain view exception. First, there was no valid intrusion. As already
discussed, Sanchez was illegally arrested. Second, subject shabu was not inadvertently
discovered, and third, it was not plainly exposed to sight. Here, the subject shabu was allegedly
inside a match box being then held by Sanchez and was not readily apparent or transparent to
the police officers.
 Caballes vs. CA, January 15, 2002
 Jurisprudence is to the effect that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed
to sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain
view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.
 Procedural Matters
 Objection by the accused to an arrest without a warrant must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived (People vs. Vallejo, Nov. 19, 2003).
 The waiver to question the illegality of arrest does not carry with it the waiver of the
inadmissibility of the evidence obtained during illegal arrest (People vs. Aruta, April 13, 1998).
 Posting of bail does not constitute waiver of irregularity of arrest (Sec. 26., Rule 114)
 Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
 Zulueta vs. CA, February 20, 1996

 The right may be invoked against the wife who went to the clinic of her husband and there took
documents consisting of private communications between her husband and his alleged
paramour.
 Anonymous letter against Atty. Miguel Morales, November 19, 2008
 Atty. Morales was a clerk of court who was charged of doing a “moon lighting.”
 One of the evidence used against him was the files of the pleading taken from the computer in
his office. The computer is his.
 The SC exonerated him because the evidences were declared inadmissible.
 Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College, September 29, 2014
 Angela Tan, a high school student at St. Theresa’s College (STC), uploaded on Facebook several
pictures of her and her classmates (Nenita Daluz and Julienne Suzara) wearing only their
undergarments. Thereafter, some of their classmates reported said photos to their teacher,
Mylene Escudero. Escudero, through her students, viewed and downloaded said pictures. She
showed the said pictures to STC’s Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action.
 Angela Tan, a high school student at St. Theresa’s College (STC), uploaded on Facebook several
pictures of her and her classmates (Nenita Daluz and Julienne Suzara) wearing only their
undergarments. Thereafter, some of their classmates reported said photos to their teacher,
Mylene Escudero. Escudero, through her students, viewed and downloaded said pictures. She
showed the said pictures to STC’s Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action. They were
expelled.
 Whether there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life,
liberty, or security of the minors involved in this case.
 Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her Online Social Networking (OSN)
activity, it is first necessary that said user, in this case the children of petitioners, manifest the
intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access
thereto or to limit its visibility.
 This intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of the OSN’s privacy tools. In
other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in cyber world, of the user’s
invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.
 “Exclusionary Rule”
 Any evidence obtained in violation of Section 3, or Section 2, Art. III shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceedings.
 2nd Par., Section 2, Art. III
 Freedom of Expression
 Restraint on Freedom
of Speech
 Content based vs. Content Neutral
 Content based regulation bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the
clear and present danger rule. It will pass constitutional muster only if justified by compelling
reason. In so testing its validity, the Court will apply strict scrutiny test.
 Content neutral regulation only showing of substantial government interest is required for its
validity. They are not subject to strictest form of judicial scrutiny but an intermediate approach –
something which is in the middle of rational basis test or strict scrutiny test.
 Chavez vs. Gonzalez, February 15, 2008
 DOJ and NTC issued a warning if TV and Radio stations plays the “Garci Tape”, their franchises
would be revoked.
 According to SC, it is a content-based regulation because the focus of the restraint is on the
content of the expression.
 Diocese of Bacolod vs. Comelec, January 21, 2015
 Is the regulation as to the size of tarpaulin where the expression is to be made considered as
content-based regulation or content-neutral?
 SC ruled that it is content-based. The form of expression is just as important as the information
conveyed that it forms part of the expression. Large tarpaulins, therefore, are not analogous to
time and place. They are fundamentally part of expression protected under Article III, Section 4
of the Constitution.
 Diocese of Bacolod vs. Comelec, January 21, 2015
 Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to support their position that they
had the power to regulate the tarpaulin. However, all of these provisions pertain to candidates
and political parties. Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any political party.
COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to
freedom of expression exercised by a non-candidate in this case.
 Restraint on Speech
 GMA Network vs. Comelec, September 2, 2014.
 It concerns the constitutionality of 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution limiting the broadcast and radio
advertisements of candidates and political parties for national election positions to an aggregate
total of one hundred twenty (120) minutes and one hundred eighty (180) minutes, respectively.
 Restraint on Speech
 GMA Network vs. Comelec, September 2, 2014.
 The assailed rule on "aggregate-based" airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly
restricts and constrains the ability of candidates and political parties to reach out and
communicate with the people. Here, the adverted reason for imposing the "aggregate-based"
airtime limits — leveling the playing field — does not constitute a compelling state interest
which would justify such a substantial restriction on the freedom of candidates and political
parties to communicate their ideas, philosophies, platforms and programs of government.
 SWS vs. Comelec, April 7, 2015
 Fair Election Act, Section 5.1
 Survey Firm is required to also publish information as to the name of the person, candidate,
party or organization who commissioned or paid for the survey.
 Comelec Resolution No. 9674
 SWS vs. Comelec, April 7, 2015
 What is regulated here is an election propaganda.
 Survey is an election propaganda. Since it is a form of election propaganda, it may be regulated

for the sake of state compelling interest and the state compelling interest is fair election, or
equal opportunities for public service (Section 26, Art. II)
 Disini vs. DOJ, Feb. 18, 2014
 Section 4 (c) (3) of Cyber Crime Law – Unsolicited Commercial Communications

 To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his emails,
even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him.
 Commercial speech is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of
protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is
nonetheless entitled to protection.
 The State cannot rob him of this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom
of expression. Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression.
 Freedom of Religion
 Two (2) aspects
 Intramural Religious Disputes
 It is clear that intramural disputes regarding religious dogma and other matters of faith are
outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities. These are questions that may be resolved by
religious authorities themselves, and among themselves only.
 However, where civil rights depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs, the
civil tribunal tries the civil right and nothing more, taking the ecclesiastical decision out of which
the civil right has arisen as it finds them, and accepting those decision as matters adjudicate by
another jurisdiction (Gonzales vs. Archbishop of Manila, 51 Phil. 420).
 Potential Source of
Bar Question
 Estrada vs. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006
 Petitioner was charged with and dismissed for immorality for living with a man other then her
husband. According to petitioner, their union was blessed and allowed by their Church by
executing a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness.”
Bar Question
 Estrada vs. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006
 Our constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for
accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise clause. Thus, in arguing
that respondent should be held administratively liable, the OSG failed to appreciate that
benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it
does not offend compelling state interest.
 Benevolent Neutrality
 The benevolent neutrality theory believes that accommodation of religion may be allowed, not
to promote the government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to
exercise their religion without hindrance. The purpose of accommodations is to remove a
burden on, or facilitate the exercise of religious profession (Estrada vs. Escritor).
Bar Question
 On the issue of the state sponsored population control program.
 The State is not precluded to pursue its legitimate secular objectives without being dictated
upon by the policies of any one religion. One cannot refuse to pay his taxes simply because it will
cloud his conscience. The demarcation line between Church and State demands that one render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.
Bar Question
 On the issue of the duty to refer.
 The law cannot compel the “religious objectors” to refer the patients to other medical
practitioners who can provide health care under the RH Law if this would offend their religious
belief.
 Again, the Court adopted the principle of benevolent neutrality in Escritor.
 Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC
 Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that "[n]o law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." At bottom, what our non-
establishment clause calls for is "government neutrality in religious matters." Clearly,
"governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality." We
thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize
the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
 Liberty of Abode
 Right to Information
 Chavez vs. PEA, July 9, 2002
 The right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of

the transaction. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if no contract is
consummated, or if one is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose defects.
 Right to Form Association

 Cases
 Right to Form Association
 When is there impairment?
 To fall within the prohibition the change must not only impair the obligation of the existing
contract, but impairment must be substantial. The must effect a change in the rights of the
parties with reference to each other , and not with respect to non-parties. (Philippine Rural
Electric Cooperatives Association vs. Sect. of DILG, June 10, 2003).
 Limitations
 Miranda Right
 Miranda Right
 Custodial Investigation
 Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in some significant way.
 It starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the
interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements.
 Police Line-Up
 Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by
the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage.
 This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to
the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who
gives a statement in the course of the line-up (People v. Amestuzo, 413 Phil. 500 (2001).
 Police Line-Up
 People vs. Escordial, January 16, 2002
 If the accused had become the focus of attention of the police after he had been pointed to by a
certain witness as the perpetrator of the crime, the said out-of-court identification will place the
accused to a custodial investigation.
 Statement during PI/Inquest
 People vs. Bokingco, January 19, 2011
 The right to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed 'critical stages' in
the criminal process. The preliminary investigation can be no different from the in-custody
interrogations by the police, for a suspect who takes part in a preliminary investigation will be
subjected to no less than the State's processes, oftentimes intimidating and relentless, of
pursuing those who might be liable for criminal prosecution.
 People vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95
 While in custody, the accused made admission to the new reporter and the media.
 The admission is admissible.
 People vs. Malngan, September 26, 2006
 The barangay tanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this particular instance, may be
deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article III, Section 12(1) and (3), of
the Constitution.
 Aquino vs. Paiste, GR 147782, June 25, 2008
 Amicable settlement executed before the NBI agents, with the assistance of counsel, is not and
does not partake of the nature of extra-judicial confession or admission but is a contract
between the parties within the parameters of their mutually recognized and admitted rights and
obligations.
 Aquino vs. Paiste, GR 147782, June 25, 2008
 Amicable settlement executed before the NBI agents, with the assistance of counsel, is not and
does not partake of the nature of extra-judicial confession or admission but is a contract
between the parties within the parameters of their mutually recognized and admitted rights and
obligations.
 Tanenggee vs. People, GR 179448, June 23, 2013
 In the present case, while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an uncounselled written
statement regarding an anomaly discovered in the branch he managed, the following are clear:
(1) the questioning was not initiated by a law enforcement authority but merely by an internal
affairs manager of the bank; and, (2) petitioner was neither arrested nor restrained of his liberty
in any significant manner during the questioning. Clearly, petitioner cannot be said to be under
custodial investigation and to have been deprived of the constitutional prerogative during the
taking of his written statement.
 Rights of the Accused During Custodial Investigation
 Competent and Independent
 People vs. Badula, 232 SCRA 565 – The City legal Officer is not independent.
 People vs. Januario, 267 SCRA 608 – Applicant in the NBI is not an independent counsel in the
investigation conducted by the NBI.
 People vs. Velarde July 18, 2002 – the mayor cannot be considered independent.
 “Preferably of his own choice”
 It does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is
exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling his
defense. If the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial investigation will be solely in
the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the interrogation by
simply selecting a lawyer who for one reason or another, is not available to protect his interest.
This absurd scenario could not have been contemplated by the framers of the charter (People
vs. Barasina, January 21, 1994)
 Right to Bail
 Is the person facing extradition proceedings allowed to post bail?
 YES
 In Govt. of Hongkong vs. Olalia, April 19, 2007, the SC ruled that that the right to bail is granted
by the Universal Declaration of Human rights of which the Philippine is a signatory. While not a
treaty, its principles, including the right to bail, are recognized as customarily binding upon the
members of the community. If the right to bail is granted to a deportee, there is no reason why
the right should be deprived of the extraditee.
 Right of the Accused
 Right of the Accused
 Presumption of Innocence
 Dumlao vs. Comelec
 One of the ground to disqualify a candidate is disloyalty to the State. The filing of a crime in
relation thereof is considered prima facie evidence of such fact.
 The Court declared such provision of law unconstitutional.
 Right to Counsel: CI vs. Trial
 The right to counsel during trial is immutable. It cannot be waived while the right to counsel
during custodial investigation, may be waived provided the waiver is in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
 Right to be Informed
 Pielago vs. People, March 13, 2013

 An order providing for the change of the designation in the Information from crime of acts
lasciviousness in relation to Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 to the crime of rape through sexual assault is
not violative of his right to be informed.
 Allegations control over the designation.
 People vs. Arcillas, July 30, 2012
 The rape of a female over 12 years but under 18 years of age by the common-law spouse of her
mother is qualified rape. Yet, the crime is only simple rape, although the State successfully
proves the common-law relationship, where the information does not properly allege the
qualifying circumstance of relationship between the accused and the female. This is because the
right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is
inviolable.
 People vs. Pangilinan, November 14, 2011
 That on or about 1995 up to about June 2001 at Barangay Apsayan, Municipality of Gerona,
Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally commit
acts of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA, a minor subjected to sexual abuse. The accused
is the stepfather of AAA who was born on January 29, 1988.
 A reading of the allegations in the above-quoted Information would show the insufficiency of the
averments of the acts alleged to have been committed by appellant. It does not contain the
essential facts constituting the offense, but a statement of a conclusion of law. Thus, appellant
cannot be convicted of sexual abuse under such Information without violating his right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
 Take note also that the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against an
accused cannot be waived for reasons of public policy. Hence, it is imperative that the
complaint or information filed against the accused be complete to meet its objectives. As such,
an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been
committed
 BUT:
 Failure to object to the multiple offenses in the criminal information during the arraignment is
deemed a waiver of the right.
 Therefore, the accused may be convicted of as many offenses charged in the information and
proved during the trial (Dimayacyac vs. CA, May 18, 2004).
 Supposing the Information charged is homicide, but during trial what was proved is murder, can
the accused be convicted of murder?
 Supposing the Information is Murder, but what was proved is Homicide, may the accused be
acquitted?
 When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that
proved, and the offense charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the
accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of
the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
 An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint information, constitute the
latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.
 Speedy, Impartial, Public Trial
 People vs. Opida, 142 SCRA 295
 The conviction was reversed after the SC found the trial judge biased and had obviously
prejudged the accused on the basis his appearance and criminal record.
 Right against Self-Incrimination
 Scope
 The kernel of the right is against not all compulsion but testimonial compulsion.
 The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a

prohibition of the use physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an
exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material.
 Illustrations
 US vs. Tan – where a person charged with rape may be examined for gonorrhea.
 Villaflor vs. Summers – involving examination of the woman charged with adultery to determine
whether he is pregnant.
 BUT: the rule is different if the accused is asked to write to determine his handwriting (Beltran
vs. Samson)
 Social Justice Society vs. DBB, Nov. 3. 2008***J.Velasco.
 Mandatory drug testing to candidates is unconstitutional.
 Students may subjected to random and suspicionless mandatory drug-testing.
 The same is true with private and public employees.
 But mandatory drug testing for a person charged with an offense whose penalty is not less 6
year and 1 day is declared unconstitutional.
 De la Cruz vs. People, July 23, 2014***CJ.Sereno.
 The drug test in Section 15 of RA 9165 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any
unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. 9165.
 Trail in Absensia
 Double Jeopardy
 Double Jeopardy
 Dismissal of the Action
 Effect
 If the elements of double jeopardy are present, the accused may not be prosecuted anew for the
original offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the
original complaint or information.
 Possible Source of Bar Question
 Aguilar vs. Judge Modesto-San Pedro, Nov. 17, 2010
 The accused was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries. Now, he
is being charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property. Both
cases arose from the same incident.
 Possible Source of Bar Question
 Aguilar vs. Judge Modesto-San Pedro, Nov. 17, 2010

 Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime, its Consequences on Persons and Property are Material
Only to Determine the Penalty. Therefore, Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence
Bars Subsequent Prosecution for the Same Quasi-Offense.

Outline PPT From Bill of Rights

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Outline PPT From Bill of Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

 Due Process

 When does life begin?

 Aspects of Due Process

 Substantive Due Process

 Cases on Substantive Due Process

 Procedural Due Process

 Judicial Due Process

 Cases on Procedural Due Process

 Procedural Due Process

 The rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are limited to those granted by

 "rights conferred upon accused persons to participate in preliminary investigations concerning

 Estrada vs. Ombudsman, January 21, 2015

 Procedural Due Process

 Is administrative due process applicable in preliminary investigation?

 It must be based on substantial distinction.

 It must be germane to the purpose of law.

 It must not be limited to existing. conditions.

 It must apply equally to all members of the same class.

 Mendoza vs. People, October 19, 2011

 Quinto vs. Comelec, February 22, 2010

 There is substantial distinction between elective and appointive government official.

 Goldenway Merchandizing Corporation vs. Equitable PCI, March 13, 2013

 Garcia vs. Drilon, June 25, 2013

 Imbong vs. Ochoa, April 8, 2014

 Government health workers are not considered “conscientious objectors.”

 Germane to the Purpose

 Bureau of Customs Employees Assn. vs. Teves, December 6, 2011 .

 Not Limited to Existing Condition

 Ormoc Sugar Co., vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603

 Not Limited to Existing Condition

 Central Bank Employees Assn. vs. BSP, December 15, 2004

 Not Limited to Existing Condition

 Central Bank Employees Assn. vs. BSP, December 15, 2004

 Serrano vs. Gallant

 The categories of OFW:

 Serrano vs. Gallant

 (3) tests of judicial scrutiny to determine the reasonableness of classifications.

 Searches and Seizures

 Section 2 may be invoked only against the State

 Del Castillo vs. People, January 30, 2012

 Requisites of a Valid Warrant

 Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge

 Probable cause in search warrant

 It is determined by personally examining in the form of searching questions and answer, in

 Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA

 Existence of Probable Cause

 Thus, warrant cannot be issued on the basis of hearsay evidence.

 CFI vs. Alvarez, 64 Phil. 33

 Pendon vs.CA, November 16, 1990

 “Personally by the Judge”

 Placer vs. Villanueva

 Judge not bound by the findings of probable by the prosecution.

 “Personally be the Judge”

 Okabe vs. Judge Gutierrez, May 27, 2004

 The judge committed grave abuse of discretion.

 Duty of the Judge upon filing of an Information

 Issue warrant of arrest upon finding of probable cause

 (Section 5, Rule 112; People vs. Desmond, June 26, 2013)

 Only Judge Issues Warrant

 “Only Judge Issues Warrant”

 Section 19 of RA 10175 (Cybercrime Law of 2012)

 Disini vs. ES, Feb. 14, 2014

 Disini vs. ES, Feb. 14, 2014