UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

Baguio City

COLLEGE OF LAW

OUTLINE OF CASES AND OTHER READING

MATERIALS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
(Bill of Rights)
May 2015

Prepared by:

ATTY. LARRY D. GACAYAN

Professor
(Constitutional Law Review, Constitutional Law I &
Constitutional Law II )

PRE-BAR REVIEWER/LECTURER

CPRS PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER

(Baguio City, Cagayan de Oro City, Zamboanga City, Iloilo
City, Ozamis City, Iligan City, Tacloban City and Davao
City)

EXCELLENT PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER

(Baguio City, Naga City, Cebu City and Tacloban City)

POWERHAUS PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER

(Baguio City, Manila, Naga City, Tacloban City, Santiago
City, [Isabela], San Fernando City, [LU] and Tagbilaran
City)

HOLY TRINITY COLLEGE PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER

(General Santos City)

COSMOPOLITAN BAR REVIEW CENTER

(Baguio City)

UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN PRE-BAR REVIEW

CENTER
University of Pangasinan
Dagupan City
 2

INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS:

1. This outline shall be the guide to the semester's

study of the subject. The student may also obtain a
copy of the latest edition of The 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines : A Commentary,
by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., or Constitutional Law
by JUSTICE ISAGANI CRUZ, or any other author,
for supplemental reading.

2. However, All CASES AND LAWS listed in the

outline should be read in the ORIGINALS. They will
be the basis for class recitations.

CHAPTER I

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE

STATE
(Police Power)

1. Read:

a. YNOT VS. IAC, 148 SCRA 659

b. ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL VS. MAYOR OF MANILA, July
31, 1967;
c. WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION VS. CITY OF MANILA,
January 20, 2009
d. CITY OF MANILA VS. JUDGE LAGUIO, 455 SCRA 308
e. JMM Promotions vs. CA, 260 SCRA 319
f. ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ, 101 Phil. 1155 (Read the
case of Rep. Gerardo Espina vs. Exec. Secretary Zamora,
September 21, 2010 in relation to the Retail Trade
Nationalization Law)
g. US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85
h. VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983
i. AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195
j. TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. BOT, 119 SCRA 597
k. BAUTISTA VS. JUINIO, 127 SCRA 329
l. Gancayco vs. City Govt. of Quezon City and MMDA, GR
No. 177933, October 11, 2011
m. ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS.
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, 175 SCRA 343
n. DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533
o. VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21, 1987
p. PRC vs. De Guzman, et al., June 21, 2004;

2
 3

q. DIDIPIO VS. GOZUN, 485 SCRA 586 (Distinctions

between police power and power of eminent domain and
taxation)

5-a. Not a valid exercise of police power

a. CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY VS. ERICTA,

122 SCRA 759

b. DELA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569

CHAPTER II

DUE PROCESS

1. Requisites of judicial due process.

a. BANCO ESPANOL VS. PALANCA, 37 Phil. 921

b. SENATOR JINGGOY ESTRADA VS. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
c. UYBUCO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 211703, December 10,
2014
d. ALEJANDRO ALMENDRAS VS. ALEXIS ALMENDRAS,
G.R. No. 179491, January 14, 2015
e. MALIKSI VS. COMELEC, March 12, 2013 and
f. MALIKSI VS. COMELEC, April 13, 2013

2. Read also:

g. IMELDA MARCOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, October 6,

1998
h. DELGADO VS. CA, November 10, 1986
i. Consulta vs. People, February 12, 2009
j. People vs. Opida, June 13, 1986
k. MORTERA VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 188104, April 23,
2010
l. RODRIGUEZ VS. JUDGE BLANCAFLOR, GR No.
190171, March 14, 2011
m. TUBULA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No. 154042, April
21, 2011
n. JOSE CATACUTAN VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
GR No. 175991, August 31, 2011
o. Tan vs. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010
p. TAN VS. JUDGE TABIN, MTC 4, Baguio City, AM MTJ
-09-1729, January 20, 2009
q. Sec. Of Justice vs. Judge Lantion, 343 SCRA 377
r. DBP VS. CA, January 29, 1999
s. MATUGUINA VS. CA, 263 SCRA 490
t. PEOPLE VS. CA, 262 SCRA 452

3
 4

u. JAVIER VS. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194

v. AZUL VS. CASTRO, 133 SCRA 271
w. PADERANGA VS. AZURA, 136 SCRA 266
x. DAVID VS. AQUILIZAN, 94 SCRA 707
y. LORENZANA VS. CAYETANO, 78 SCRA 485
z. ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING VS. CA, 94 SCRA 261
aa. ANZALDO VS. CLAVE, 119 SCRA 353
bb. SINGSON VS. NLRC, 273 SCRA 258
cc.MAYOR ALONTE VS. JUDGE SAVELLANO, 287 SCRA
245

3. Procedural due process before administrative bodies

a. HEIRS OF JOSE DELISTE VS. LAND BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES, GR No. 169913, June 8, 2011
b. LYNVIL FISHING VS. ARIOLA, GR No. 181974, February
1, 2012
c. WALDO FLORES VS. MONTEMAYOR, GR No. 170146,
June 8, 2011
d. MONICO IMPERIAL, JR. VS. GSIS, GR No. 191224,
October 4, 2011
e. CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY VS. EXECUTIVE
SEC., G.R. No. 184869, September 21, 2010
f. ATTY. ROMEO ERECE VS. MACALINGAY, ET AL., G.R.
No. 166809, April 22, 2008
g. DATUFAX MANGUDADATU VS. HRET, December 18,
2008;
h. DEP ED VS. CUANAN, December 16, 2008
i. ANG TIBAY VS. CIR, 69 Phil. 635
j. AMERICAN TOBACCO VS. DIRECTOR, 67 SCRA 287
k. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. NLRC, 263 SCRA 53

4. Procedural due process in disciplinary actions against students

a. GUZMAN VS. NU, 142 SCRA 706

b. BERINA VS. PMI, September 30, 1982
c. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY VS. COURT OF APPEALS,
December 19, 2007

5. .Due process in the dismissal of employees

a. PLDT vs. Tiamzon, 474 SCRA 761

b. MGG Marine Services vs. NLRC, 259 SCRA 664
c. Philippine Savings Bank vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 409
d. RAYCOR AIR CONTROL VS. NLRC, 261 SCRA 589
e. WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES VS. NLRC, 263 SCRA
174
f. SAMILLANO VS. NLRC, 265 SCRA 788
g. STOLT-NIELSEN VS. NLRC, 264 SCRA 307
h. GARCIA VS. NLRC, 264 SCRA 261

4
 5

6. In administrative proceedings, does due process require that

a party be assisted by counsel?

LUMIQUED VS. EXENEA, 282 SCRA 125

7. Is there violation of the right to due process if there is no

notice and hearing but the situation does not fall under the four
kinds of situational due process, i.e., judicial, administrative, labor
and student due process?

JOSE ATIENZA VS. COMELEC, MANUUEL ROXAS

III, FRANKLIN DRILON and NEREUS ACOSTA, G.R. No.
188920, February 16, 2010

CHAPTER III

THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

1. The scope of the equal protection clause, 95 SCRA 420

2. Equal protection of the law, 13 SCRA 266

3. Requisites for a valid classification-

Read:

1. People vs. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12

2. Read again, Association of Small Landowners vs. Sec. of
Agrarian reform, July 14, 1989

4. Equal protection in general-

Read:

1. IMBONG VS. OCHOA, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014;

2. BIRAOGO VS. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF
2010, GR No. 192935, December 7, 2010
3. JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO VS. DOJ & COMELEC, GR No.
199082, September 18, 2012
4. ELEAZAR QUINTO VS. COMELEC, February 22, 2010;
5. GUTIERREZ VS. DBM, G.R. No. 153266, March 18, 2010
6. PAGCOR VS. BIR, GR No. 172087, March 15, 2011
7. Roma Drug vs. RTC of Guagua, April 16, 2009;
8. P. vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56
9. MELDA MARCOS VS. CA, 278 SCRA 843
10. HIMAGAN VS. PEOPLE, October 7, 1994
11. PHIL. JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. PRADO, November 11,
1993
12. Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420
13. PANFILO LACSON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, January 20,
1999

5
 6

14. BASCO VS. PAGCOR, May 14, 1991

15. TATAD VS. SECRETARY OF ENERGY, 281 SCRA 330
16. Taxicab Operators vs. BOT, September 30,l982
17. Bautista vs. Juinio,127 SCRA 329
18. Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392
19. Villegas vs. Hiu, 86 SCRA 270
20. Ceniza vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 763
21. UNIDO vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 38
22. Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433(Read also the
dissenting opinion of Justice Makasiar
23. Sison vs. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654
24. Citizens Surety vs. Puno, 119 SCRA 216
25. Peralta vs. COMELEC, 82 SCRA 30
26. Hawaiian-Phil. Co. vs. Asociacion, 151 SCRA 306
27. Ormoc Sugar Co. vs. Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603
28. Flores vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484

CHAPTER IV

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISION

Read:

Sections 18, 19 and 26 of RA No. 9372, the Human

Security Act or the Anti-Terrorism Law

Requisites of a valid search warrant

UY VS. BIR, 344 SCRA 36

a. The place to be searched in the warrant is controlling

PEOPLE VS. CA, 291 SCRA 400

b. Validity of a warrantless search and seizure as a result of an

informers tip.

1. PEOPLE VS. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 626

2. PEOPLE VS. MONTILLA, 284 SCRA 703
3. PEOPLE VS. RACHO, GR No. 186529, August 3, 2010
4. P VS. CLAUDIO, 160 SCRA 646
5. P. VS. AMINNUDIN Y AHNI, July 6,1988
6. PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT, 198 SCRA 401

c. General or roving warrants

Read:

1. Stonehill vs. Diokno,June 19,1967

6
 7

2. Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823

3. Secretary of Justice vs. Marcos, 76 SCRA 301
4. Castro vs. Pabalan, April 30,l976
5. Asian Surety vs. Herrera,52 SCRA 312
6. Collector vs. Villaluz, June 18,1976
7. Viduya vs. Verdiago, 73 SCRA 553
8. Dizon vs. Castro, April 12, 1985
9. People vs. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169
10. Lui vs. Matillano, May 27, 2004

c. Define probable cause. Who determines probable cause?

Two (2) kinds of probable cause

1. MICROSOFT CORPORATION VS. FARAJALLAH, GR

No. 205800, September 10, 2014;
2. ANTONIO LEVISTE VS. JUDGE ALAMEDA, RTC
MAKATI, G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010
3. BORLONGAN VS. JUDGE LIMSIACO, GR No. 143591,
May 5, 2010

Read also:

a. ROBERTS VS. CA, 254 SCRA 307

b. SKEECHERS, USA, INC. VS. PACIFIC, GR NO.
164321, March 23, 2011
c. MILLER VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, GR No.
165412, May 30, 2011
d. PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO, July 10, 1994
e. DE LOS SANTOS VS. MONTESA, 247 SCRA 85
f. VICENTE LIM VS. HON. FELIX

1. Amarga vs. Abbas, 98 Phil. 739

1-a. 20th Century Fox vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655
1-b. Quintero vs. NBI, 162 SCRA 467
1-c. The Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force vs.
CA, GR No. 83578, March 16, 1989
1-d. Soliven & Beltran vs. Makasiar, November 18,
1988 (Note that this was widely criticized)
1-e. Pendon vs. CA, Nov. 16, 1990
1-f. P. vs. Inting, July 25, 1990
1-g. Umil vs. Ramos, et al., July 9, 1990 with the
Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration in November, 1991
1-h. Paderanga vs. Drilon, April 19, 1991
2. Department of Health vs. Sy Chi Siong,
Inc., GR No. 85289, February 20, 1989
2-a. P. vs. Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465
2-b. Placer vs. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463
3. Tolentino vs. Villaluz,July 27,1987
4. Cruz vs. Gatan, 74 SCRA 226
5. Olaes vs. P., 155 SCRA 486

7
 8

6. Geronimo vs. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435

7.JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS. JUDGE JAIME
SALAZAR, ET AL., G.R.NO. 92163, June 5, 1990

d. Warrantless searches and seizures--when valid

or not. Is "Operation Kapkap" valid? Warrantless search of
alleged obscene magazines.

Read:

PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE, G.R. No. 87059, June, 1992

PEOPLE VS. GO, 354 SCRA 338
PITA VS. CA, 178 SCRA 362

Warrantless Search and seizure by a private person.

PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA, 301 SCRA 66

SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL VS. SOLUTA, 482 SCRA
660
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANDRE MARTI
G.R. NO. 81561, January 18, 1991

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE:

1. Search made incidental to a valid arrest

a. PEOPLE VS. SPO4 SANGKI ARA, December 23,

2009
b. PEOPLE VS. PENAFLORIDA, G.R. No. 175604,
April 10, 2008
c. Moreno vs. Ago Chi, 12 Phil. 439
d. PEOPLE VS. ANG CHUN KIT, 251 SCRA 660
e. PEOPLE VS. LUA, 256 SCRA 539
f. PEOPLE VS. Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679
g. NOLASCO VS. PANO, 139 SCRA 541

2. Search of moving vehicles

a. PEOPLE VS. BELEN MARIACOS, G.R. No. 18861,

June 16, 2010
b. ESPANO VS. CA, 288 SCRA 588
c. Carrol vs. US, 267 US 132
d. PEOPLE VS. LO HO WING, 190 SCRA 122
e. PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT, 198 SCRA 401
f. MUSTANG LUMBER VS. CA, 257 SCRA 430

3. Seizure of goods concealed to avoid duties/taxes

a. Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857

b. Pacis vs. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16
c. HIZON VS. CA, 265 SCRA 517

8
 9

d. PEOPLE VS. QUE, 265 SCRA 721

4. Seize of evidence in plain view

a. PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ, 341 SCRA 25

b. MICLAT, JR. VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 176077, August 31,
2011
c. ELENITA FAJARDO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 190889,
January 10, 2011
d. FAJARDO VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 190889, January 10,
2011
e. Harris vs. US, 390 US 234
f. PEOPLE VS. DAMASO, 212 SCRA 547
g. PEOPLE VS. VELOSO, 252 SCRA 135
h. PEOPLE VS. LESANGIN, 252 SCRA 213

5. When there is waiver of right or gives his consent;

a. PEOPLE VS. BAULA, 344 SCRA 663

b. VEROY VS. LAYAGUWE, 210 SCRA 97
c. De Garcia vs. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689
d. Lopez vs. Commissioner, 65 SCRA 336
e. PEOPLE VS. DAMASO, 212 SCRA 547

6. STOP & FRISK

a. SUSAN ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 182010,

August 25, 2010
b. PEOPLE VS. POSADAS, 188 SCRA 288
c. MANALILI VS. PEOPLE, October 9, 1997
d. MALACAT VS. CA, 283 SCRA 159

Read also:

a. EDDIE GUAZON, ET AL. VS. MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE

VILLA, ET AL., GR NO. 80508, January 30, 1990
b. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL, ROLANDO DURAL and
RENATO VILLANUEVA. MANOLITA UMIL and NICANOR
DURAL, FELICITAS SESE VS. FIDEL RAMOS, ET AL. and
companion cases, G.R. No. 81567, July 9, 1990

If the judge finds that there's probable cause, must he issue

a warrant of arrest as a matter of course?

Read:

1. Samulde vs. Salvani, September 26, 1988

2. GOZO VS. TAC-AN, 300 SCRA 265

9
 10

Place to searched indicated in the warrant is different what

the police had in mind when applied for a warrant:

PEOPLE VS. CA, 291 SCRA 400

Searching questions

Read:

a. DR. NEMESIO PRUDENTE VS. THE HON. EXECUTIVE

JUDGE ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, RTC 33, Manila &
People of the Philippines, GR No. 82870, December 14,
1989 (En Banc)
b. HUBERT WEBB VS. DE LEON, 247 SCRA 650

Read also:

1. Alvarez vs. CFI, 64 Phil. 33

2. Luna vs. Plaza, 26 SCRA 313
3. De Mulata vs. Irizari, 62 SCRA 210
4. Marinas vs. Siochi, 104 SCRA 423
5. Roan vs. Gonzales, 145 687
6. Mata vs. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388
7. Corro vs. Lising, 137 SCRA 541
8. Nolasco vs Pano, 147 SCRA 509
9. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
10. P. vs. Burgos, September 14,1986
11. P. vs. Aminnudin Y Ahni, July 6,1988
12. Ponsica vs. Ignalaga, July 31,1987
13. Aberca vs. Ver, April 15,1988
14. Panganiban vs. Cesar, 159 SCRA 599

Warrantless searches and seizures--when valid

or not.

Read:

1. RICARDO VALMONTE VS. GEN RENATO DE

VILLA, GR No. 83988, September 29, 1989

Read also the RESOLUTION ON THE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION dated JUNE 15, 1990, 185 SCRA 665

2. People vs. Malmstedt, June 19, 1991

Read also:

1-a. Rizal Alih vs. Gen. Castro, June 23,1987

1-b. P s. Cendana, October 17, 1990
1-c. P. vs. Castiller, August 6, 1990
1-d. P. vs. Olaes, July 30, 1990

10
 11

2. Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857

3. Roldan vs. Arca, 65 SCRA 336
4. P. vs. CFI, 101 SCRA 86
5. Pacis vs. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16
6. Lopez vs. Commisioner, 65 SCRA 336
7. P vs. Cruz, 165 SCRA 135
8. Nolasco vs. Pano, 147 SCRA 509 & 139 SCRA
152
9. P vs. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646
10. PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO, July 10, 1994

May a non-judicial officer issue a warrant of arrest?

Read:

1. Harvey vs. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, June 26,

1988
2. Moreno vs. Vivo, 20 SCRA 562
3. Lim vs. Ponce de Leon, 66 SCRA 299
4. HORTENCIA SALAZAR VS. HON TOMAS
ACHACOSO, G.R. NO. 81510, March 14, 1990 (En
banc)
5. PRESL ANTI-DOLLAR SALTING TASK FORCE
CASE, March 16, 1989

Properties subject to seizure

Read:

1. Sec. 2, Rule 126,1985 Rules on Crimial Procedure, as

amended
2. ESPANO VS. CA, 288 SCRA 558

Warrantless searches and arrests

Read:

1. P. vs. Bati, August 27, 1990

1-a. Manuel et al., vs. Judge Tirso Velasco, GR No. 84666,
February 9, 1989
1-b. Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile,121 SCRA 47 & 137
SCRA 647
1-c. P. vs. Maspil, Jr., August 20, 1990 (Compare with P. vs.
Aminnudin, July 6, 1988, supra)
1-d. Posadas vs. CA, Aug. 2, 1990
1-e. P. vs. De la Cruz
1-f. P. vs. Ortiz, Dec. 3, 1990
1-g. Rolito Go vs. CA, Feb. 11, 1992
1-h. People vs. Mati, January 18, 1991
2. Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, 121 SCRA 538
2-a. P vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1

11
 12

2-b. People vs. de la Cruz, 184 SCRA 416

2-c. Gatchalian vs. Board, May 31, 1991
2-d. People vs. Sucro, March 18, 1991
2-e. PEOPLE VS. SOLAYAO, 262 SCRA 255
2-f. PEOPLE VS. CUISON, 256 SCRA 325
2-g. PEOPLE VS. DAMASO, 212 SCRA 547
2-h. POSADAS VS. CA, 258 SCRA 188
2-i. PEOPLE VS. JUATAN, 260 SCRA 532 (Buy-bust
operation)
3. Sec. 6, Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, as amended

Effect posting bail or entering a plea or failing to file a motion to

quash, if the arrest was illegal

Read:

1. STEPHEN SY VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 182178, August 15,

2011
2. PEOPLE VS. GALVEZ, 355 SCRA 246
3. Callanta vs. Villanueva, 77 SCRA 377
4. PEOPLE VS. NAZARENO, 260 SCRA 256
5. FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 263 SCRA 222
6. PEOPLE VS. NAZARENO, 260 SCRA 256
7. PEOPLE VS. LAPURA, 255 SCRA 85
8. PEOPLE VS. SILAN, 254 SCRA 491

Penalty for illegal arrest

Read:

Palon vs. NAPOLCOM, May 28, 1989

p. Judicial pronouncements on illegally seized evidence, 106

SCRA 336

q. The exclusionary rule,155 SCRA 494

n. What is the status of a document obtained through

subpoena?

Read:

Dianalan vs. Pros., Office of the Tanodbayan, Nov. 27, 1990

r. Search warrant for pirated video tapes

1. Century Fox vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655

2. COLUMBIA PICTURES VS. CA, 261 SCRA 144

12
 13

CHAPTER IV-A

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

READ: Sections 7 and 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Law

Read:

1. DISINI VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, GR No. 203335,

February 18, 2014;
2. OPLE VS. TORRES, July 23, 1998
3. ZULUETA VS. CA, February 10, 1996
4. KMU VS. ERMITA, & BAYAN MUNA VS. ERMITA, April
19, 2006 & June 20, 2006
5. SABIO VS. GORDON, October 17, 2006
6. Read also Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 27, 28 and 35 of RA
No. 9372, the Human Security Act or the Anti-Terrorism
Law.

CHAPTER V

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS,

EXPRESSION, etc.

1. Rule on criticisms against acts of public officers

Read:

1. Espuelas vs. People, 90 Phil. 524

2. US vs. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731
3. P. vs. Perez, 45 Phil. 599
4. Mercado vs. CFI, 116 SCRA 93
5. Baguio Midland Courier vs. CA & Ramon Labo, Jr., 444
SCRA 28
6. LOPEZ VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 172203, February 14, 2011
7. RE: PETITION FOR RADIO & TV COVERAGE OF THE
MULTIPLE MURDER CASES AGAINST MAGUINDANAO
GOV. XALDY AMPATUAN, ET AL., A.M. No. 10-15-5-SC,
June 14, 2011;
8. DISINI VS. DOJ, February 18, 2014, GR No. 203335.

2. Freedom of the press, in general

Read:

1. PABLITO V. SANIDAD VS. COMELEC,

G.R. NO. 90878, January 29, 1990

13
 14

Read also:

1. In re: Ramon Tulfo,March 19, 1990

1-a. In re: Atty. Emil Jurado, July 12, 1990
1-b. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
2. Corro vs. Lising, 137 SCRA 448
3. Babst vs. NIB, 132 SCRA 316
4. Elizalde vs. Gutierrez,76 SCRA 448
5. Policarpio vs. Manila Times, 5 SCRA 148
6. Lopez vs. CA, 34 SCRA 116
7. New York Times vs. Sullivan,376 U.S.254
8. Liwayway Publishing vs. PCGG, April 15,l988

3. Freedom of expression in general

Read:
1. FORTUN VS. QUINSAYAS, GR No. 194578, February,
2013 Adiong vs. Comelec, March 31, 1992
1-a. National Press Club vs. Comelec, March 5, 1992. Real
also the dissenting and separate opinions of the justices.
1-b. Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 7960-707 &
Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, GR No. 80578, February 1, 1989
1-c. Eastern Broadcasting vs. Dans,137 SCRA 628
2. Newsweek vs. IAC, 142 SCRA 171
3. Kapisanan vs. Camara Shoes, 11 SCRA 477
4. IN RE: Atty. Tipon, 79 SCRA 372
5. Lacsa vs. IAC, May 23,1988
6. Kapunan vs. De Villa, December 6, 1988

4. Not within the protection of the freedom of expression clause

of the Constitution

1. Obscenity; test of

Read:

a. P. vs. Kottinger, 45 Phil. 352

b. P vs. GO PIN, August 8, 1955
c. Miller vs. California, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419
d. Ginsberg vs. New York,390 U.S. 629
e. Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362

2. Libel or slander; test of-

Read:

a. Lopez and Manila Times cases, supra

b. Quisumbing vs. Lopez, 96 Phil. 510

3. Cases under sub-judice

14
 15

Read:

P. vs. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265

4. WHEN THE COMMENT/STATEMENT HAS THE

TENDENCY TO OBSTRUCT, IMPEDE, OR INSULT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Read: GOV. ENRIQUE GARCIA VS. MANRIQUE, GR No.

186592, October 10, 2012

5. Freedom of assembly and to petition the government for

redress of grievances

Read:

1. IBP VS. MAYOR ATIENZA, G.R. No. 175241, February 24,

2010
1-a. Gesite vs. CA, 444 SCRA 28
1-b. Bayan vs. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1
1-c. Randy David vs. Ermita, 489 SCRA 160
2. Evangelista vs. Earnshaw, 57 Phil 255
3. Primicias vs. Fuguso, 80 Phil. 71
4. De la Cruz vs. Ela, 99 Phil. 346
5. Navarro vs. Villegas, 31 SCRA 731
6. Philippine Blooming Mills Case,51 SCRA 189
7. Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553;see guidelines
8. Ruiz vs. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233
9. Villar vs. TIP, 135 SCRA 705
10. Malabanan vs. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359
11. Carpio vs. Guevara, 106 SCRA 685
12. Nestle' Phils. vs. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542
13. Arreza vs. Araneta University Foundation, 137 SCRA
94

6. Freedom from prior restraint

Read:

1. Newsounds Broadcasting Network vs. Hon. Ceasar Dy, April

2, 2009
1-a. Bro. Eliseo Soriano vs. MTRCB, April 29, 2009 (Read also
the dissenting opinion of Justice Antonio Carpio)
1-b. MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN, 448 SCRA 575
1-c. Gonzales vs. Kalaw Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
2. New York Times vs. U.S., 403 U.S. 713
3. Near vs. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697
4. Times Film vs. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43
5. Freedman vs. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51

15
 16

7. Clear and present danger and dangerous tendency rule

Read:

1. Cabansag vs. Fernandez, 102 Phil. 152

2. Read again the Reyes and Ruiz cases, supra
3. Read again Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 7960-
707& Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, GR No. 80578, February 1,
1989

8. The balancing-of-interest test

Read:

AYER PRODUCTION VS. JUDGE CAPULONG, JUAN PONCE

ENRILE, ET AL., 160 SCRA 861

Read also:

1. Lagunzad vs. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476

2. Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S. 652, including the
criticism on this test by Justice Holmes
3. See also Zaldivar case above

9. OVERBREADTH AND VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE:

PEOPLE VS. SITON, G.R. No. 160364, September 18, 2009

CHAPTER VI

THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT
OF RELIGION CLAUSE

1. Religious freedom in relation to impairment of contracts and

the right to join associations, 36 SCRA 445

2. Read:

1.IMBONG VS. OCHOA, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014

1.a. ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8,
2010
1-b. Estrada vs. Escritur, 408 SCRA 1 and 492 SCRA 1
1-c. Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201
2. Garces vs. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
3. INK vs. Gironella, 106 SCRA 1
4. American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 398
5. Pamil vs. Teleron, November 20, 1978
6. Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope, 59 SCRA 54
7. German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514
8. Gerona vs. Sec. of Education, 106 Phil. 11

16
 17

9. EBRALINAG VS. SUPT. OF CEBU, March 1, 1993

CHAPTER VII

THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO TRAVEL

1. The constitutional as well as human right to travel, 129 SCRA

2. Read:

1. FR. ROBERT REYES VS. CA & SEC. RAUL GONZALES,

G.R. No. 182161, December 3, 2009
2. FERDINAND MARCOS, ET AL. VS. HON. RAUL
MANGLAPUS, ET AL., G.R. NO. 88211, September 15,
1989 and the Resolution of the Motion for
Reconsideration dated October 27, 1989
3. Silverio vs. CA, April 8, 1991

Read also:

1.Caunca vs. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851

2. Kwong vs. PCGG, December 7,l987
3. Manotoc vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149
4. Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778
5. Roan vs. Gonzales, supra.
6. Salonga vs. Hermoso, 97 SCRA 121
7. Read also the Ferdinand Marcos Cases of August &
October, 1989

CHAPTER VIII

THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO INFORMATION

1. Read:

1. HAZEL ANTOLIN VS. ATTY. ABELARDO DOMONDON,

ET AL., GR No. 165036, July 5, 2010
2. PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. GOV. OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL (THE
MEMORANDUM ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CASE)

17
 18

3. AKBAYAN VS. THOMAS AQUINO, July 16, 2008 (The

JPEPA CASE)
4. RE: REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE 2008 STATEMENT
OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND PERSONAL DATA
SHEET OF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, A.M.
No. 09-8-6-SC, June 13, 2012
5. Sabio vs. Gordon, 504 SCRA 74
6. Valmonte vs. Belmonte, GR No. 74930, February
13, 1989 in relation to the Right to Privacy
7. Legaspi vs. CSC, 150 SCRA 53
8. Brilliantes vs. Chang, Aug. 14, 1990
9. Canlas vs. Vazquez, July 3, 1990
10. Aquino-Sarmiento vs. Manuel Morato, November 13,
1991
11. Drilon vs. Ermita, April 20, 2006
12. Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 44
13. Bantay Republika vs. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 1
14. Baldoza vs. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14
15. Lantaco vs. Lllamas, 108 SCRA 50
16. Subido vs. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383
17. GONZALES VS. NARVASA, 337 SCRA 733

CHAPTER IX

THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO FORM AND JOIN
ASSOCIATIONS

1. Freedom of Association, 100 SCRA 100

2. The fundamental right of self-organization,108 SCRA 390

3. The right of self-organization of managerial employees,47

SCRA 434

4. Read:

1. In re: ATTY. EDILLON, 84 SCRA 554

2. Tarnate vs. Noriel, 100 SCRA 93
3. Samahan ng Manggagawa vs. Noriel, 108 SCRA 381
4. Villar vs. Inciong, April 20,l983
5. P. vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382
6. P. vs. Ferrer, 56 SCRA 793 (Read the dissenting opinion
of Justice FERNANDO in both cases)

CHAPTER X

18
 19

THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

1. The inherent power of eminent domain, 93 SCRA 663

2. Who may exercise it? How about a barangay?

Read:

1. Barangay Matictic vs. Elbinias, 148 SCRA 83

3. Procedure for the exercise of said power and when may a writ
of possession be issued in favor of the government

BIGLANG-AWA VS. JUDGE BACALLA, 354 SCRA 562

CITY OF ILOILO VS. JUDGE LEGASPI, 444 SCRA 269
REPUBLIC VS. JUDGE GINGOYON, 478 SCRA 474
REPUBLIC VS. HOLY TRINITY, April 14, 2008
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. CA, 441 SCRA 637
Gabatin vs. Land Bank of the Philippines , 444 SCRA 176

4. Basis of just compensation

Read:

1. HACIENDA LUISITA VS. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN

REFORM COUNCIL, GR NO. 171101, APRIL 24, 2012
2. CITY OF ILOILO VS. JUDGE SESANA, G.R. No. 168967,
February 12, 2010
3. NAPOCOR VS. BERNAL, December 15, 2010

a. NPC vs. Jocson, February 25, 1992

a-1. Ansaldo vs. Tantuico, Aug. 3, 1990
b. Mun. of Makati vs. CA, Oct. 1, 1990
c. Reublic vs. IAC, 185 SCRA 572
d. Mun. of Talisay vs. Ramirez, 183 SCRA 528
e. NPC vs. CA, 129 SCRA 665
f. Maddumba vs. GSIS, 182 SCRA 281

Read also:

Meaning of just compensation in eminent domain

proceedings, 29 SCRA 868

NHA vs. Reyes, 123 SCRA 245

BERKENKOTTER VS. CA, December 14, 1992
Manotok vs. CA, May 21,1987
EPZA vs. Dulay, April 29,l987
Lagunzad vs. CA, 154 SCRA 199

19
 20

When it is considered for "public use":

6. Sumulong vs. Guererro, 154 SCRA 461

7. Republic vs. CA, 154 SCRA 428
8.Cosculluela vs. CA, 164 SCRA 393

5. Requisite of "taking" in eminent domain cases

Read:

1. Rep. vs. Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336

2. Ignacio vs. Guererro, 150 SCRA 369
3. Garcia vs. CA, 102 SCRA 597

5-a. Requisites before Writ of Possession is issued by the court

a. BIGLANG-AWA VS. BACALLA, 354 SCRA 562

b. CITY OF ILOILO VS. JUDGE LEGASPI
c. REPUBLIC VS. GINGOYON
d. REPUBLIC VS. HOLY TRINITY REALTY & DEVT. CORP.,
G.R. No. 172410, April 14, 2008

6. Not a valid exercise of eminent domain

Read:

1. City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil.349

2. De Knecht vs. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660
3. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CRISTINA DE
KNECHT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 87335,
February 12, 1989

3-a. Limitations of the power of expropriation, 3 SCRA

706

7. When shall we base the computation of the value of the property

expropriated: at the time of taking or at the time of the institution of
the expropriation proceedings?

8. Eminent domain cases, in general

Read:

1. City of Baguio vs. NAWASA, 106 Phil. 144

2. Garcia vs. CA, 102 SCRA 620
3. Municipality of Daet vs. CA, 93 SCRA 503
4. Salas vs. Jarencio, 46 SCRA 734
5. Arce vs. Genito, Feb. 27, 1976
6. Guido vs. RPA, 84 Phil. 847
7. Rep. vs. Baylosis, 96 Phil. 461

20
 21

8. Mataas na Lupa vs. Dimayuga, 130 SCRA 30

9. San Diego vs. Valdellon, 80 SCRA 305
10. Haguisan vs. Emilia, 131 SCRA 517
11. Heirs of Ardona vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220
12. Commissioner vs. Burgos, March 31,1980
13. Republic vs. Juan, 92 SCRA 29

7. Remedies of the landowner if the government fails to use

the land expropriated for the purpose for which it was
intended

1. MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

VS. LOZADA, JR., G.R. No. 176625, February 25, 2010
2. DE OANO VS. REPUBLIC, GR No. 168770, February 9,
2011

CHAPTER XI

THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE

1. Read:

1. Kabiling, et al., vs. NHA, December 18,l987

2. Clements vs. Nolting, 42 Phil. 702
3. Co vs. PNB, 114 SCRA 842
4. Lozano vs. Martinez,146 SCRA 323
5. Rutter vs. Esteban,93 Phil. 68
6. Ilusorio vs. CAR, 17 SCRA 25
7. Ortigas vs. Feati Bank, 94 SCRA 533
8. Ganzon vs. Insierto, 123 SCRA 713
9. Del Rosario vs. De los Santos, March 21, 1968
10. Abella vs. NLRC, 152 SCRA 140
11. PVBEU vs. PVB, 189 SCRA 14

CHAPTER XII

RIGHTS DURING
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

1. The summary of the rights of an accused during custodial

investigation (from the time of arrest or invitation)

PEOPLE VS. MAHINAY, February 1, 1999

PEOPLE VS. LAUGA, March 15, 2010
PEOPLE VS. FELIXMINIA, March 20, 2002

21
 22

PEOPLE VS. FIGUEROA, 335 SCRA 349

PEOPLE VS. DUENAS, 426 SCRA 666
PEOPLE VS. JOSE TING LAN UY, JR., 475 SCRA 248
PEOPLE VS. SAMOLDE, 336 SCRA 32

1-a. When there is no need to inform the accused/suspect of his

rights.

1. PEOPLE VS. JUDGE RUBEN C. AYSON, RTC 6,

BAGUIO CITY, 175 SCRA 216
2. PEOPLE VS. MAQUEDA, 242 SCRA 565
3. KIMPO VS. CA, 232 SCRA 53
4. PEOPLE VS. ORDONO, 334 SCRA 673
5. PEOPLE VS. ZUELA, 323 SCRA 589
6. PEOPLE VS. ENDINO, 353 SCRA 307
7. PEOPLE VS. BARIQUIT, 341 SCRA 600
8. PEOPLE VS. DANO, 339 SCRA 515
9. PEOPLE VS. MAYORGA, 346 SCRA 458
10. PEOPLE VS. PATUNGAN, 354 SCRA 413
11. PEOPLE VS. CABILES, 284 SCRA 199

2. Guidelines for police investigation: when it is deemed to have

started

Read:

Escobedo vs. Illinois, 378 US 478

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436
P. vs. Duero, 104 SCRA 379
PEOPLE VS. BARIQUIT, 341 SCRA 600

2-a. Duties of the Police or Arresting Officers

Immediately after arrest:

MORALES-MONCUPA VS. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, 121 SCRA

538

Read:

1. P. vs. Matos-Viduya, Sept. 11, 1990

1-a. P vs. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289
2. P vs. Duhan, 142 SCRA 100
3. P vs. Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2
4. People vs. Lasac, 148 SCRA 630
5. P vs. Ramos, 122 SCRA 312

2-b. Requisites of a valid confession

PEOPLE VS. TUNIACO, G.R. NO. 185710, January 10,

2010

22
 23

3. To be informed of the Right to remain silent; cases in particular

Read:

1. Constitutional right to remain silent,104 SCRA 391

1-a. People vs. Marcos Jimenez, Dec. 10, 1991
1-b. P. vs. Aspili, November 21, 1990
1-c. People vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216
1-d. P. vs. Pinlac, 165 SCRA 675
1-e. People vs. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47
1-f. Gamboa vs. Judge Cruz, 162 SCRA 675
1.g. People vs. Agustin, 240 SCRA 541
2. P. vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465
3. P vs. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109
4. Draculan vs. Donato, 85 SCRA 266
5. P. vs. Borromeo, June 29,l983
6. P vs. Camalog, GR No. 77116, January 31, 1989
(Including the duty of Police Officers in connection with
said right)
7. P vs. Cui, Jr., 162 SCRA 220

3-a. How about if the accused gives an spontaneous statement

before he could be advised of his right to remain silent/ Factors
indicating voluntariness?

Read:

PEOPLE VS. VILLARINO, March 15, 2010

PEOPLE VS. PIA, 229 Phil. 577 (1986)
Aballe vs. People, 183 SCRA 196
PEOPLE VS. DANO, 339 SCRA 515
PEOPLE VS. MAYORGA, 346 SCRA 458
PEOPLE VS. TAMPUS, MARCH 28, 1980

3-b. When shall the constitutional rights of the accused as

mentioned above demandable? During police line-up?

Read:

1. P VS. USMAN HASSAN, 157 SCRA 261

2. GAMBOA VS. JUDGE CRUZ, 162 SCRA 642
3. DE LA TORRE VS. CA, 294 SCRA 196
3. PEOPLE VS. HATTON
4. PEOPLE VS. MACAM, 238 SCRA 306

Read: 1. The right to counsel, 57 SCRA 481

In places where there are no lawyers:

PEOPLE VS. DECIERDO, 149 SCRA 496

23
 24

In General:

PEOPLE VS. ESPIRITU, February 2, 1999

PEOPLE VS. AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA 541
PEOPLE VS. CAMPOS, 202 SCRA 387
PEOPLE VS. OLVIS, 154 SCRA 541
PEOPLE VS. OBRERO, 332 SCRA 190
PEOPLE VS. JEREZ, 285 SCRA 393
PEOPLE VS. REYES, March 17, 2009
PEOPLE VS. CAPITLE, GR No. 175330, January 12, 2010
PEOPLE VS. BOKINGO, GR No. 187536, August 10, 2011
PEOPLE VS. JUANERIO, 267 SCRA 608
PEOPLE VS. JIMENEZ, GR No. 82604, December 10, 1991

1-a. P vs. Nolasco, 163 SCRA 623

1-b. P vs. Hernandez, 162 SCRA 422
1-c. P. vs. Ampo-an, July 4, 1990
1-d. P. vs. Saludar, July 31, 1990
1-e. P. vs. Kidagan, August 20, 1990
1-f. Estacio vs. Sandiganbayan, 183 SCRA 12
1-g. P. vs. Buenaflor, 181 SCRA 225
2. P vs. Tampus, 96 SCRA 624
3. P vs. Taylaran, 108 SCRA 373
4. P vs. Tawat, 129 SCRA 431
5. P vs. Marcos, 147 SCRA 204 (Note that this decision is
widely criticized by constitutionalists)
6. P vs. Ladrera, 150 SCRA 113
7. P. Nulla, 153 SCRA 471
8. P vs. Marquez, 153 SCRA 700
9. P vs. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513
10. P vs. Caguioa, January 17, 1980
ll. P vs. Pecardal, 145 SCRA 624
12. P vs. Lasac, 148 SCRA 624
13. P vs. Pena, 80 SCRA 589
14. P vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 516

How about if the lawyer who assisted him during custodial

investigation is a public attorney who was not chosen by the
accused himself but given to him free of charge?

Read:

P. vs. Alegria, September 28, 1990

Could the Fiscal also represent the accused during custodial

investigation to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution that the
accused is assisted by counsel?

Read:

24
 25

P. vs. Matos-Viduaya, September 11, 1990

PEOPLE VS. JANUARIO, 267 SCRA 608
PEOPLE VS. OBRERO, 332 SCRA 190

5. Right to remain silent and to counsel and the right to be

informed of such rights; cases in general/when does these rights
demandable? Effect of its non-observance by the investigator

Read:

1. P vs. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123

1-a. P vs. Lasanas, 152 SCRA 27
1-b. P vs. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513
1-c. P vs. Capitin, 165 SCRA 47
1-a. Gamboa vs. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642
1-b. P vs. Hizon, 163 SCRA 760
1-c. P vs. Velasco, 110 SCRA 319
2. Diokno vs. Enrile, 110 SCRA 140
3. Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, 121 SCRA 538
4. P vs. Rojas, January 8, l987
5. P vs. Santiago, January 7,1987
6. P vs. Decierdo, 149 SCRA 496

5-a. Is the right to counsel indispensable in non-criminal

proceedings?

Read:

1. Nera vs. Auditor Genral, 164 SCRA 1

6. Presumptions on extrajudicial confessions(that official acts were

regularly performed as against the presumption against waiver of
constitutional rights)

Read:

1. P vs. Duero, 104 SCRA 379

2. P vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 516
3. P vs. Abano, 145 SCRA 555
4. P vs. Tolentino, 145 SCRA 597
5. P vs. Salig, 133 SCRA 59
6. P vs. Cruz, 133 SCRA 426
7. P vs. Prudente,, 133 SCRA 651
8 P vs. Trinidad, 162 SCRA 714, when the presumption of
regularity does not apply
9. PEOPLE VS. SAMOLDE, 336 SCRA 632

7. Who can object to the admissibility of an extrajudicial

confession?

Read:

25
 26

1. Stonehill vs. Diokno, supra

2. P vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 576
3. P. vs. loveria, July 2, 1990

8. Inadmissible as evidence

a. The doctrine of the "fruit of the poisoned tree"

b. The exclusionary rule, 145 SCRA 700

Read:

1. P vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 516

2. P vs. Alcaraz,136 SCRA 74
3. Does it also include the confession of a witness, not the
accused?

Read:

1. P vs. Bombesa, 162 SCRA 402

2. p. vs. Yutuc, July 26, 1990

9. Sec. 12(2)

Read:

1. Dizon vs. Gen. Eduardo, May 3,1988

2. P vs. Eligino, August 11,1988
3. Contado vs. Tan, April 15, 1988

10. Extrajudicial confession; when admissible or inadmissible;

REQUISITES OF A VALID EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION

Read:

PEOPLE VS. ORDONO, 333 SCRA 673

PEOPLE VS. MANTES, 299 SCRA 562
PEOPLE VS. OLIVAREZ, 299 SCRA 635

1. The admissibility of an extrajudicial confession in a

criminal prosecution,142 SCRA 110

2. Admissibility of an extrajudicial confession,135

SCRA 419 and 10 SCRA 520

3. Inadmissibility of an admission obtained by force,

114 SCRA 234

4. Confession as evidence against the accused, 96

SCRA 637

26
 27

Read:

5. P vs. Camalog, January 31, 1989

5-a. P vs. Capulong, 160 SCRA 533
5-b. P vs. Lagahan, December 8, 1988
5-c. P vs. Dino, 160 SCRA 197
5-d. P vs. Caramonte, 94 SCRA 150
5-e. P vs. Enciso, 160 SCRA 728
5-d. P vs. Abano, 145 SCRA 565
5-e. P vs. Quizon, 142 SCRA 362
5-f. P vs. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513
5-g. P vs. Robles, 104 SCRA 450
5-h. P vs. Eligino, 164 SCRA 260
5-i. P vs. Abejero, May 17,l980
5-j. P. vs. Bagano, 181 SCRA 34
5-k. P. vs. Estevan, 186 SCRA 184
5-l. P. vs. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184
5-m. P. vs. Flores, 186 SCRA 303
5-n. P. vs. Jungco, 186 SCRA 714
5-o. P. vs. Arsenio, 184 SCRA 205
6. P vs. Villanueva, 128 SCRA 488
7. P vs. Dejaresco, 129 SCRA 576
8. P vs. Tuvera, 130 SCRA 169
9. P vs. Maternal, 130 SCRA 625
10. P vs. Nilos, 127 SCRA 207
11. P vs. Sanchez, 132 SCRA 103
12. P vs. Pizarro, 131 SCRA 418
13. P vs. Sabilano, 132 SCRA 83
14. P vs. Veloso, 148 SCRA 60
15. Magtoto vs. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4
16. P vs. Gapasin, 145 SCRA 178
17. P vs. Palo, 147 SCRA 178
18. P. vs. De Jesus, 145 SCRA 521
19. P vs. Pia, 145 SCRA 581
20. P vs. Encipiado, 146 SCRA 478
21. P vs. Canumay, 130 SCRA 301
22. P vs. Marino, 130 SCRA 595
23. P vs. Natipravat, 145 SCRA 483
24. P vs. Cruz, 133 SCRa 426--when confession is valid
25. P. vs. De La Cruz, 183 SCRA 763---when confession is
inadmissible but accused is still liable

11. Evidence of lack of voluntariness

Read:

1. P vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 516

2. P vs. Abayon, 114 SCRA 197

27
 28

12. Is the testimony of the arresting officer on the alleged oral

confession of the accused admissible?

Read:

1. P vs. Dy, 158 SCRA 111

CHAPTER XIII

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL

1. The right to bail, 104 SCRA 372

Is bail available in extradition cases?

1. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS. JUDGE LANTION, 322

SCRA 160
2. US GOVERNMENT VS. JUDGE PURGANAN & MARK
JIMENEZ, 389 SCRA 623
3. RODRIGUEZ VS. PRESIDING JUDGE, 483 SCRA 290
4. HONGKONG VS. JUDGE OLALIA, JR., 521 SCRA 470

Is recognizance allowed after conviction by final judgment?

ATTY. ADALIM-WHITE VS. JUDGE BAGTAS, 475 SCRA

175

2. Bail, 81 SCRA 188

3. Read:
Excessive bail:

1. PEOPLE VS. BUCALON, G.R. No. 176933, October 2, 2009

2. De la Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1

2-a. Pestano vs. Judge Velasco, July 3, 1990

2-b. P. vs. Donato, June 5, 1991
2-c. Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38
3. Marcos vs. Cruz, 67 and 70 Phil.
4. Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312
5. P vs. IAC, January 10,1987, 147 SCRA 219
6. Manotoc vs. CA, May 30,1986
7. Garcia vs. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143
8. P vs. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522

4. See Section 10, Rule 114, 2000 Rules on Criminal

Procedure
a. Procedure when prosecutor does not object to the petition
for bail in capital offenses:

28
 29

PEOPLE VS. AGBAYANI, 284 SCRA 315

MARZAN-GELACIO VS. JUDGE FLORES, 333 SCRA 1

CHAPTER XIV

DUE PROCESS
IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

1. In general:

1. P vs. Terrobias, 103 SCRA 321

2. Presumption of innocence, 54 SCRA 56

Read also:

PEOPLE VS. ANGUS, August 3, 2010

ERIBERTO MASANGKAY VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 164443,
June 18, 2010
PEOPLE VS. MALBOG, October 13, 2000
PEOPLE VS. TUMAMBING, GR No. 191261, March 2, 2011
PEOPLE VS. QUINTAL, GR No. 184170, February 2, 2011
PEOPLE VS. PAILANO, GR No. 43602, January 31, 1989
MALILLIN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008
PEOPLE VS. DELOS SANTOS, 355 SCRA 415
PEOPLE VS. SATURNO, 355 SCRA 578
P. vs. Bernardino, January 28, 1991
1-a. P vs. Flores, 165 SCRA 71
1-b. Aguirre vs. P., 155 SCRA 337
1-c. P. vs. Guinto, 184 SCRA 287
1-d. P. vs. Solis, 182 SCRA 182
1-e. P. vs. Capilitan, 182 SCRA 313
2. Alonso vs. IAC, 151 SCRA 552
3. P vs. Lopez, 74 SCRA 205
4. P vs. Quiason, 78 SCRA 513
5. P vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450
6. P vs. Poblador, 76 SCRA 634
7. Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392

3. Presumption of innocence in the order of trial

Read:

1. Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322

2. Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan, July 10,l986
3.Sec. 3(3), Rule 119 , 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure , as amended.

29
 30

3-a. Presumption of innocence in drugs cases/Obligations of

arresting officers/Chain of Evidence Rule

PEOPLE VS. UMIPANG, April 25, 2012

PEOPLE VS. CLIMACO, GR No. 199403, June 13,
2012
PEOPLE VS. UMIPANG, GR No. 190321, April 25,
2012
PEOPLE VS. NASARA, GR No. 188328, August 25,
2010
PEOPLE VS. PALOMA, GR No. 178544, February 23,
2011
PEOPLE VS. ROBLE, GR No. 192188, April 11, 2011
PEOPLE VS. ROSELLE SANTIAGO, GR No. 191061,
February 9, 2011
PEOPLE VS. DELOS REYES, GR No. 174774, August
31, 2011
PEOPLE VS. FERMIN, GR No. 179344, August 3,
2011
PEOPLE VS. GARRY DE LA CRUZ, GR No. 185717,
June 8, 2011
PEOPLE VS. NAVARETTE, GR No. 184170, February
2, 2011
PEOPLE VS. ULAT, GR No. 180504, October 5, 2011
PEOPLE VS. ALCUIZAR, GR No. 189980, April 6,
2011
PEOPLE VS. HERMOGENES DE GUZMAN, GR No.
19225, July 11, 2012PEOPLE VS. PAJARIN, G.R. No.
190460, January 12, 2011
PEOPLE VS. LORENZO, G.R. No. 184760, April 23,
2010
PEOPLE VS. SAPIA ANDONGAN, G.R. No. 184595,
June 29, 2010
PEOPLE VS. RONALDO DE GUZMAN, March 26,
2010
JULIUS CACAO VS. PEOPLE, January 22, 2010
PEOPLE VS. KIMURA and KIZAKI, April 27, 2004
PEOPLE VS. PARTOZA, May 8, 2009
PEOPLE VS. MARIAN CORECHE, August 14, 2009
BONDAD VS. PEOPLE, December 10, 2008
PEOPLE VS. OBMIRANIS, December 16, 2008
MALLILLIN VS. PEOPLE, April 30, 2008
PEOPLE VS. MONALYN CERVANTES, March 17,
2009

3-b. Effect of inconsistent testimonies of arresting/searching

officers

30
 31

1. PEOPLE VS. MAROARAO, GR No. 174369, June 20, 2012

2. LEJANO VS. PEOPLE & PEOPLE VS. HUBERT WEBB,
December 14, 2010
3. AGUSTIN VS. PEOPLE, April 30, 2008
4. ULEP VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 183849, June 11, 2011

3-c. The equipoise rule

PEOPLE VS. DE LOS SANTOS, 355 SCRA 415

PEOPLE VS. SATURNO, 355 SCRA 578

4. Other cases -

Read:

1. P vs. Opida, June 13,1986

2. P vs. Tempongko, October 2,1986
3. P vs. Drammayo, 42 SCRA 59
4. P vs. Fernando, 145 SCRA 151
5. P vs. Tolentino, 145 SCRA 597
6. Castillo vs. Filtex, September 30,1983
7. Dumlao vs. COMELEC, supra

5. Right to counsel-during trial

1. Reason behind the requirement

2. Obligation of the judge to an accused who appears in

court without a lawyer to assist him

Read:

1. PEOPLE VS. HILARIO, G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008

1-a.HILARIO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 167756, April 8, 2008
1-b. P vs. Holgado,85 Phil. 752
1-c.. Delgado vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357
1-d. CONSULTA VS. PEOPLE, FEBRUARY 12, 2009
2. P vs. Cuison, 193 Phil. 296
3. PEOPLE VS. YAMBOT, 343 SCRA 20
4. PEOPLE VS. NADERA, 324 SCRA 490
5. PEOPLE VS. BERMAS, April 21, 1999

5-a. The right to be heard by himself and counsel

Read:

1. P vs. Dischoso, 96 SCRA 957

6. The right to be present during trial

Read:

31
 32

1. Aquino vs. Military Commission, 63 SCRA 546

2. P vs. Judge, 125 SCRA 269
3. Waiver of the defendant's presence in a criminal
prosecution,77 SCRA 430

7. The right to a speedy trial

a. Read Admin. Circular No. 4 of the Supreme Court

dated September 22, 1988
b. Department of Justice Circular No. 27, dated
September 16, 1988

c. When shall this right starts

Read:

1. P vs. Orsal, 113 SCRA 226

d. To what proceedings is this right available

Read:

1. Caballero vs. Alfonso, 153 SCRA 153

e. In general

Read:

The right to speedy trial, 28 SCRA 601

1.ROQUERO VS. CHANCELLOR OF UP MANILA, March 9,

2010
1.a. MONICO JACOB VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No.
162206, November 17, 2010
1.b. GAAS VS. MITNUG, G.R. No. 165776, April 30, 2008
1-c PEOPLE VS. TAMPAL, 244 SCRA 202
1-d. PEOPLE VS. LEVISTE, 255 SCRA 238
1-e. SUMBANG VS. GEN. COURT MARTIAL, 327 SCRA
227
1.f. BLANCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 346 SCRA 108
1-g. DANTE TAN VS. PEOPLE, April 21, 2009
2. Conde vs. Rivera, 59 Phil. 650
3. Ventura vs. People, Nov. 6,1976
4. Martin vs. Ver, July 25, 1983
5. Bermisa vs. CA, 92 SCRa
6. Luneta vs. Mil. Com., 102 SCRA 56
7. P vs. Baladjay, 113 SCRA 284
8. P vs. Araula, 111 SCRA 598
9. Regaspi vs. Castillo, 69 SCRA 160
10. Acevedo vs. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247

32
 33

11. Nepumuceno vs. Secretary,108 SCRA 658

12. Tatad vs. SB, 159 SCRA 70
13. P vs. CFI of Rizal, 161 SCRA 249
14. P vs. Laya, 161 SCRA 327
15. Salcedovs. Mendoza, 88 SCRA 811
16. DUTERTE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 289 SCRA 721
18. ANGCHANGCO VS. OMBUDSMAN, 269 SCRA 301

8. The right to an impartial trial

Read:

1.GACAYAN VS. PAMINTUAN, 314 SCRA 682, September 17,

1999
1.a. PEOPLE VS. MORTERA, April 23, 2010
1. b. P vs. Opida, June 13,1986
1-c. P vs. Tuazon, 159 SCRA 317
2. Olaguer vs. Chief of Staff, May 22, 1987
3. Mateo, Jr. vs. Villaluz,90 SCRA 16
4. P vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120
5. Dimacuha vs. Concepcion, 117 SCRA 630

9. Right to a public trial

Read:

1. Garcia vs. Domingo, July 25,1973

2. P vs. Tampus, March 28,1980

10. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of

accusation, 68 SCRA 464

Read:
PEOPLE VS. MANANSALA, April 3, 2013
PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ, GR No. 175602, January 18, 2012
PEOPLE VS. NAZARENO, G.R. No. 167756, April 8, 2008
MARK SOLEDAD VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 184274, February
23, 2011
ABELLANA VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 174654, August 17, 2011
DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
December 16, 2008
PEOPLE VS. PARAZO, 310 SCRA 146
PEOPLE VS. LARENA, 309 SCRA 305
Sales vs. CA, 164 SCRA 717
1-a. P vs. Crisologo, 150 SCRA 653
1-b. P vs. Corral, 157 SCRA 678
1-c. P vs. Resavaga, 159 SCRA 426
1-d. Formilleza vs. SB, 159 SCRA
2. P vs. Labado, 98 SCRA 730
3. Ko Bu Lin vs. CA, 118 SCRA 573
4. P. vs. Cabale, 185 SCRA 140

33
 34

5. People vs. Regala, April 27, 1982

11. The right to meet witnesses face to face or the right of

confrontation

Read:

1. DELA CRUZ VS. PAPA, December 8, 2010

1. a. vs. Talingdan, Nov. 9, 1990
1-b. P vs. Villaluz, October 20, 1983
2. P vs. Valero, 112 SCRA 661
3. P vs. Bundalian, 117 SCRA 718
4. Talino vs. Sandiganbayan, March 16,1987
5. P vs. Seneris, 99 SCRA 92
6. Ortigas, JR. vs. Lufthansa, 64 SCRA 610
7. Toledo vs. People, 20 SCRA 54
8. P vs. Bardaje, 99 SCRA 388
9. P vs. Santos, 139 SCRA 383
10. Soliman vs. Sandiganbayan, 145 SCRA 640
11. P vs. Lacuna, 87 SCRA 364
12. P vs. Clores, 100 SCRA 227
13. Carredo vs. People, 183 SCRA 273
14. Fulgado vs. CA, 182 SCRA 81

12. Trial in absentia

Read:

1. Borja vs. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 420

2. Nolasco vs. Enrile, 139 SCRA 502
3. P vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163; Note the purpose
of this provision)
4. P vs. Judge Prieto, July 21,1978
5. Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1
6. Carredo vs. People, 183 SCRA 273

13. Right to secure witnesses and production of evidence.

Read:

1. Cavili vs. Hon. Florendo, 154 SCRA 610

2. Fajardo vs. Garcia, 98 SCRA 514

14. Duty of the judge to the accused before trial

a. PEOPLE VS. AGBAYANI, 284 SCRA 315

CHAPTER XV

HABEAS CORPUS

34
 35

Read:

1In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of

Ferdinand Marcos, etc, GR No. 88079, May 18, 1989 and
August & October, 1989.

1-a. Harvey vs. Santiago, supra

2. Cruz vs. Juan Ponce Enrile, April 15,1988
3. Abadilla vs. Fidel Ramos, December 1,1987

CHAPTER XVI

THE RIGHT
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

1. Self-incrimination, 24 SCRA 692

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. PDEA, November 3, 2008

ATTY. MANUEL LASERNA VS. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD,

November 3, 2008

PEOPLE VS. BANHIT, 339 SCRA 86

PEOPLE VS. CONTINENTE, 339 SCRA 1

2. Read

1. Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663

2. Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294, read
including the concurring and dissenting opinions
3. Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62
4. Beltran vs. Samson, 50 Phil. 570
5. Bagadiong vs. Gonzales, 94 SCRA 906
6. BASECO vs. PCGG, supra
7. Isabela Sugar vs. Macadaeg, 98 Phil. 995
8. Fernando vs. Maglanoc, 95 Phil. 431
9. US vs. Tang Teng, 23 Phil. 145
10. P vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244
11. P vs. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513
12. P vs. Boholst-Amadore, 152 SCRA 263
13. P vs. Rosas, 148 SCRA 464
14. P vs. Ruallo, 152 SCRA 635
15. P vs. Policarpio, 158 SCRA 85( Compare with the
Rosas & Boholst cases)
16. P vs. Lumayok, 139 SCRA 1
17. Cabal vs. Kapunan, Jr. December 29, 1962

35
 36

CHAPTER XVII

THE RIGHT AGAINST

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

1. Read:

1. Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131

2. Caunca vs. Salazar, supra

CHAPTER XVIII

RIGHT AGAINST
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

a. Is the Death Penalty already abolished by the 1987

Constitution?

LEO ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

Read:

1. P vs. Gavarra, 155 SCRa 327

2. P vs. Masangkay, 155 SCRA 113
3. P vs. Atencio, 156 SCRA 242
4. P vs. Intino, September 26, 1988
5. People vs. Munoz, 170 SCRA 107

b. Is death as a penalty a cruel or unuasual punishment?

Read:

1. P vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647

2. P vs. Villanueva,, 128 SCRA 488
3. Veniegas vs. People, 115 SCRA 79
4. P vs. Camano, 115 SCRA 688

2. On the death penalty whether it was abolished or not

Read:

a. P vs. Idnay, 164 SCRA 358

36
 37

CHAPTER XIX

RIGHT AGAINST
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

1. Read:

1. Lozano vs. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323

Ajeno vs. Incierto, 71 SCRA 166

CHAPTER XX

THE RIGHT
AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Requisites present before this right can be invoked

Double jeopardy, 102 SCRA 44 and 12 SCRA 561

When the act is punished by both a law and an ORDINANCE:

PEOPLE VS. JUDGE RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292

Double Jeopardy in general:

Read:

1. BAUTISTA VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SHARON

CUNETA-PANGILINAN, October 26, 2012
2. PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN & IMELDA MARCOS,
GR No. 153304, February 7, 2012
3. JASON IVLER VS. JUDGE PEDRO, November 17,
2010
4. LEJANO VS. PEOPLE & PEOPLE VS. HUBERT
WEBB, JANUARY 18, 2011
5. DAYAP VS. SENDIONG, JANUARY 29, 2009
6. PEOPLE VS. DOMINGO, MARCH 2, 2009
7. PEOPLE VS. ALMARIO, 355 SCRA 1
8. PEOPLE VS. VELASCO, 340 SCRA 207
9. VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 151258, February
1, 2012
10. YSIDORO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No.
190963, February 6, 2012
11. PEOPLE VS. ATIENZA, GR No. 171671, June
18, 2012

37
 38

12. CEREZO VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 185230, June

1, 2011
13. PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No.
174504, March 21, 2011

Other Cases:

1. P vs. Duero, 104 SCRA 379

2. CUDIA VS. CA, 284 SCRA 173
3. CUISON VS. CA, 289 SCRA 159
2. P vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 516
3. P vs. Abano, 145 SCRA 555
4. P vs. Tolentino, 145 SCRA 597
PEOPLE VS. BALISACAN, 17 SCRA 1119
PEOPLE VS. GALANO, 75 SCRA 193
PEOPLE VS. MOLERO, September 24, 1986
5. P vs. Salig, 133 SCRA 59
6. P vs. Cruz, 133 SCRA 426
7. P vs. Prudente,, 133 SCRA 651
8 P vs. Trinidad, 162 SCRA 714, when the presumption of
regularity does7, 1966
2. P vs. City Court,154 SCRA 175
3. Galman vs. Pamaran, 144 SCRA 43
4. P vs. Molero, 144 SCRA 397
5. P vs. Quibate, 131 SCRA 81
6. P vs. Obania, June 29,1968
7. Dionaldo vs. Dacuycuy, 108 SCRA 736
8. P vs. Judge Hernando, 108 SCRA 121
9. Esmena vs. Judge Pogoy, 102 SCRA 861
10. Mazo vs. Mun. Court, 113 SCRA 217
11. Andres vs. Cacdac, 113 SCRA 217
12. Buerano vs. CA, 115 SCRA 82
13. P vs. Militante, 117 SCRA 910
14. P vs. Fuentebella, 100 SCRA 672
15. Lazaro vs. P, 112 SCRA 430
16. Flores vs. Enrile, 115 SCRA 236
17. Bernarte vs. Sec. ,116 SCRA 43
18. Ko Bu Lin vs. CA, 118 SCRA 573
19. P vs. Duran, 1075 SCRA 979
20. P vs. Cuevo, 104 SCRA 312
21. Jimenez vs. Military Commission, 102 SCRA 39
22. P vs. Liwanag, 73 SCRA 473
23. P vs. Araula, January 30, 1982
24. P vs. Baladjay, March 30, 1982
25. P vs. City Court of Silay, 74 SCRA 247
28. P vs. Pilpa, 79 SCRA 81
29. P vs. Gloria, December 29, 1977
30. P vs. Galano, 75 SCRA 193
31. Tacas vs. Cariasco, 72 SCRA 527
32. P vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77
33. P vs. Consulta, 70 SCRA 277

38
 39

34. P vs. Inting, 70 SCRA 289

35. De Guzman vs. Escalona, 97 SCRA 619
36. P vs. Pablo, 98 SCRA 289
37. Cruz vs. Enrile, 160 SCRA 700
38. Tangan vs. P, 155 SCRA 435
39. P vs. Quezada, 160 SCRA 516
40. Canizano vs. P, 159 SCRA 599
41. Bustamante vs. Maceren, 48 SCRA 144

5. May the government appeal a judgment of acquittal or for the

increase of the penalty imposed?

Read:

1. PEOPLE VS. DOMINGO, March 2, 2009

1-a. Central Bank of the Philippines vs. CA, GR No.
41859, March 8, 1989
1-b. P vs. Montemayor, January 30, 1969, 26 SCRA 687
2. P vs. Ruiz,81 SCRA 455
3. US vs. Yam Tung Way, 21 Phil. 67
4. P vs. Ang ho Kio, 95 Phil. 475

6. The "Supervening Fact Doctrine."

Read:

1. 76 SCRA 469
2. P vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260
3. P vs. Villasis, 46 O.G. 268
4. Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766
5. P vs. Buling, 107 Phil. 712
5-a. P vs. Adil, 76 SCRA 462
5-b. P. vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601
6. P vs. City Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637
7. Read also Sec. 7, Rule 117, 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure

CHAPTER XXI

RIGHT AGAINST EX-POST FACTO LAW,

BILL OF ATTAINER, ETC.

Read:

1. Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433

2-LACSON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, January 20, 1999
2.a. Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429
3. Sevilleja vs. COMELEC, 107 SCRA 141
4. P vs. Ferrer, 46 & 56 SCRA
5. Tan vs. Barrios, October 18, 1990

39
 40

CHAPTER XXII

CITIZENSHIP

1. Effect of naturalization in another country

Read:

a. Ramon Labo, Jr. vs. Comelec, July 3, 1992

a.-1 RAMON LABO JR. VS. COMELEC, GR No. 86564,
August 1, 1989
b. Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, June 23, 1989
c. Board of Commissioners vs. De la Rosa and William
Gatchalian, May 31, 1991
d. Aznar vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703

1-a. Effect of naturalization of wife and minor children

Read:

1. Burca vs. Republic,51 SCRA 248

2. Reyes vs. Deportation Board,May 30,1983

2. Effect on the citizenship of an alien woman married to a

Filipino citizen

Read:

1. Moy Ya Lim vs. Comm. on Immigration, 41 SCRA 292

3. Effect on the citizenship of a Filipino woman on her marriage

to an alien.

Read:

1. Rep. vs. Tandayag, 117 SCRA 637

4. Procedure for repatriation

Read:

1. P vs. Avengoza, 119 SCRA 1

5. Cancellation of certificate of naturalization

Read:

1. Schneider vs. Rusk, 377 US 163

40
 41

2. Republic vs. Cokeng, 23 SCRA 559

3. Republic vs. Cokeng, 34 SCRA 668
4. Chan Teck Lao vs. Republic, 55 SCRA 1
5. Rep. vs. Guy, 115 SCRA 244

*****************************************************

41