CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II REVIEWER
SECTION 1 HIERARCHY applying their academic and disciplinary
Philippine Blooming Mills
Human Rights and Right to life are superior
to right to property.
GENERAL
Tupas vs. C.A.
Observance of both substantive and
procedural rights is equally guaranteed by
due process.
JUDICIAL
El Banco Espaol vs. Palanca
The failure of the clerk to send the notice to
the defendant by mail did not destroy the
jurisdiction of the Court and that such
irregularity did not infringe the requirement
of due process of law.
PUBLICITY AND TV COVERAGE
Webb vs de Leon
To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity,
there must be an allegation and proof that
the judges have been unduly influenced (not
simply might be), by the barrage of publicity.
EXTRADITOIN PROCEEDINGS
Sec of Justice vs. Lantion
Individuals are bereft of the right to notice
and hearing during the evaluation stage of
the extradition process because it is sui
generis.
Govt of US vs Purganan
The detention of a potential extraditee prior
the conclusion of the extradition proceedings
does not amount to a violation of his right to
due process. Subsequent opportunity to be
heard is enough.
ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE
The proceedings in student discipline may be
summary and cross examination is not an
essential pat thereof. (Guzman vs. N.U.).
The contract between the school and student
is not an ordinary contract(Non vs. Dames).
The school has the right to determine the
continuance of the schooling of a student
Page 1 of 54
standards.(Garcia vs. L.I.T.). However,
penalties imposed by the schools must be
commensurate to the offenses committees
(Malabanan vs. Ramento).
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS
Lao Gi vs. C.A.
A deportation proceeding affects freedom
and liberty of a person. The Rules of Criminal
Procedure is applicable in deportation
proceedings.
REGULATIONS: FIXING RATES AND
REGULATION OF PROFESSION
Philcomstat vs. Alcuaz(quasi-judicial)
As a general rule, notice and hearing are not
essential to the validity of administrative
action where the administrative body acts in
the exercise of executive, administrative, or
legislative functions, but where a public
administrative body acts in a judicial or
quasi-judicial matter, and its acts are
particular and immediate rather than general
and prospective, the person whose rights or
property may be affected by the action is
entitled to notice and hearing.
Maceda vs. ERB(quasi-legislative)
Price fixing is considered as exercising quasi-
legislatice function.
Corona vs. UHPAP
Profession is a property right
DISMISSAL
Salaw vs. NLRC
Right to Counsel is a right even in civil and
administrative proceedings. Labor Code
granted the right to counsel.
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
Castillo-Co vs. Barbers
A preventive suspension can be decreed or
an official under investigations after changes
are brought and even before the charges are
brought even before the charges are heard
Constitutional Law II Reviewer
since the same is not in the nature of
penalty, but merely a preliminary step in an
administrative investigation. Suspension is
not a punishment or penalty for the acts of
dishonesty and misconduct in office, but only
as a preventive measure.
STATUTE
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
When a statute lacks a comprehensible
standard, it violates due process for failure to
accord persons, especially persons targeted
by it, fair notice of conduct to avoid, and it
leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
carrying out its provisions and becomes an
arbitrary flexing of government muscles
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
If a person (in any stage, of any nature) has
been deprived of a step in a proceeding, the
SC will not ordinarily reverse the decision, if
the petitioner did not file a motion for
reconsideration. Failure to file, cures the
defect.
SURETYSHIP
Surety is bound to answer all the liabilities of
the principal. There is no need to inform the
principal if the surety failed to appear in the
proceedings as long as he has been informed
of the liability.
APPEAL
Telan vs. CA
Client is not bound to the negligence of a
fake lawyer.
CLOSURE PROCEEDINGS
Closure Proceedings are valid exercise of
police power of the state to protect the
public.
BIDDINGS
There must be a bidding!
UDHA-RA 7279
Art 13- Procedure of Eviction
No Urban poor dweller will be evicted except
in a just and humane manner.
Page 2 of 38
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Churchill vs. Rafferty
Police power cannot interfere with private
property for purely aesthetic purposes.
People vs Fajardo
The state may not under the guise of police
power, permanently divest owners of the
beneficial use of their property and practically
confiscate them solely to preserve or assure
the aesthetic appearance of the community.
Ermita-Malte vs. City Mayor
The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in
the interest if public health, or of the public
order and safety, or otherwise within the
proper scope of the police power.
Ynot vs IAC
If the movement and not the slaughter is
banned and carabaos are arbitrarily
confiscated, then that what constitute
violation of due process of law.
Balacuit vs. CFI
The legislature may not under the guise of
protecting the public interest, arbitrarily
interfere with private business for it is a
property right of the owner. Theaters,
cinematographs and other exhibitions cannot
be considered as public utilities.
Agustin Vs. Edu
Promoting safe transit upon and avoid
obstruction on roads and streets is a valid
governmental interest.
Magtajas vs. Prce Properties Corp.
An ordinance must not contravene the
constitution or any statutes.
Bennis vs. Michigan
The State is not required to compensate the
owner for property which it has already
lawfully acquired under the exercise of
governmental authority other than the power
of eminent domain.
Cruzan vs. Missouri Department of
Health
Constitutional Law II Reviewer
The due process requirement does not
require the state top accept the substitute
judgment of close family members in the
absence of substantial proof that their views
reflect the patients. however, it may require
clear and convincing evidence of the patients
wishes, it may also choose to defer only
those wishes rather than confide the
decisions to close family members.
JMM Promotion and Management vs. CA
Profession is a legitimate subject of police
power. So long as professionals and other
workers meet reasonably regulatory standard
no such deprivation of property exists.
Ople vs. Torres
A statute must satisfactorily show the
presence of compelling state interest and
that the law, rule or regulation is narrowly
drawn to preclude abuses.
Montesclaros vs. COMELEC
Public officers is not a property right but a
privilege and a public trust.
Pilipinas Kao vs. CA
The absence of publication is fatal as held in
Taada vs. Tuvera. Even if a Manual of
Operation is internal in nature, if its effects
reach out other than its employees then it
must be published.
Philsa vs. Sec of Labor
In Taada vs. Tuvera, it was said that all
statutes including those of local application
and private laws shall be published as a
condition for their effectivity. Covered by this
rule are presidential decrees, executive
orders, administrative rules and regulations
in so far they enforce or implement existing
law pursuant to a valid delegation.
Interpretative regulations and letter of
instructions issued by administrative
superiors need not be published. Whether or
not the circular addresses a small group or
not, the fact that it is an administrative
circular which enforces laws, makes
publication imperative.
Page 3 of 38
EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW
People vs. Cayat
A classification to be reasonable
(1) must rest on substantial distinctions;
(2) must be germane to the purposes of
the law;
(3) must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and
(4) must apply equally to all members of
the same class.
Ichong vs. Hernandez
The difference in status between citizens and
aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable
classification in the exercise of police power.
The Supreme Court held that the disputed
law was enacted to remedy a real actual
threat and danger to national economy posed
by alien dominance and control of the retail
business and free citizens and country from
such dominance and control.
Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong Pao Ho
There is no logic in exacting the payment of
fifty pesos from aliens who have already
secured a clearance for employment. Fee is
unreasonable, because it is excessive and it
fails to consider substantial differences in the
situation of the aliens required to pay it. The
same amount is collected from every alien,
whether he is casual or permanent, part-time
or full-time, a lowly employee or a highly
paid executive.
Dumlao vs. Comelec
Employees attaining that age are subject to
compulsory retirement because of the need
for new blood.
Goesart vs. Cleary
Gender is a valid classififcation.
Ormic Sugar Co. vs. Treasurer of Ormoc
City
Tax must not be passed for a specific entities
only for it will not be applicable to future
conditions as well.
Basco vs. Pagcor(gambling)
Constitutional Law II Reviewer
The equal protection clause does not mean
that all occupations called by the same name
are treated the same way.
Republic vs Sandiganbayan
Dismissal of a case against one defendant
must apply to other of no reasonable
differences exist.
Binay vs. Domingo
Different groups may receive different
treatments. Statutes have been passed
giving rights and benefits to the disabled and
the less fortunate.
NPC vs. de Guzman
The PC before the effectivity of RA 6975 were
already retitrable at the age of 56 while the
local police force plan their retirement which
should be earlier than usual because of the
new law.
Tolentino vs, Sec of Finance
Inequalities which result from the singling
out of one particular class for taxation or
exemption infringe no constitutional
limitation. There is a difference between a
homeless poor and the homeless less
poor because the second group or middle
class can afford to rent houses in the
meantime that they cannot buy yet their own
houses. The two social classes are thus
differently situated in life.
Himagan vs.People
The PNP officers are treated differently from
other classes of persons charged criminally
or administratively insofar as preventive
suspension is concerned. It was said that
policeman who carry weapon and the badge
of law which can be used to harass or
intimidate witnesses against them needs to
be suspended in order to protect his victim
and the witnesses against him.
Almonte vs. Vasquez
The office of the ombudsman is different fro
other investigatory and prosecutory agencies
if the government because the subject of its
jurisdiction are public officials who through
Page 4 of 38
official pressure and influence can quash,
delay or dismiss investigations held against
them.
The Conference of Maritime Manning
Agencies vs. POEA
Te dissimilarities between land-based and
sea-based Filipino overseas workers in terms
of work environment, safety, dangers and
risks to life and limb and accessibility to
social, civic and spiritual activities.
Regala vs. Sandiganbayan
It is unfair to exempt a similarly situated
litigant from prosecution without allowing the
same exemption to others.
Sison Jr. vs. Ancheta
Taxpayers who are recipients of
compensation income are set apart as a
class. As they do no have to pay overhead
expenses, they are not entitled to make
deductions fro income tax purposes which is
not the caw of professionals in practice of
their calling and businessmen. In the case of
the latter, there is no uniformity in the cots
or expenses necessary to produce their
income.
Marcos vs. CA
The need to continue the prosecution of
those who had already committed acts of the
mandatory destabilization. There is a
distinction between individuals doing acts
when such acts are still illegal than those
people who did similar acts when such acts
are no more illegal.
Philippine Judges Association vs. Pardo
There is no basis however why all the
departments, it would be the judiciary that
has been denied of the franking privilege.
General Milling Corporation vs. Torres
There is a difference in a resident and non-
resident alien.
Chavez vs. PCGG
Special grant of tax exemption in favor of
Marcos heirs will constitute class legislation.
Constitutional Law II Reviewer
TELEBAP vs. Comelec
The law do not single out radio and television
station to provide free time. The are
important differences in the characteristics of
the two media. Radio and television has more
impact on people than newspapers.
Tiu vs CA
There are substantial differences between the
big investors who are lured to establish their
industries in the secured area compared to
business operators outside the area.
On one hand, we are talking of billion-peso
investments, on the other, definitely none of
such magnitude. The first can give economic
impact that is national in scope, the other,
merely local.
Soriano vs. C.A.
Payment of civil liability is not made a
condition precedent to probation but is a
condition for his continued enjoyment of the
same. Probation is not an absolute right. It is
a mere privilege whose grant rests upon
discretion of the trial court.
Aguinaldo vs. Comelec
Incumbent running for the same position are
not considered resigned because the
intention of the laws is to allow them to
continue serving their constituents and avoid
disruption on the delivery of essential
services. Thus, running for different positions
are considered resigned because they are
considered to have abandoned their present
position by their act of running for other
posts.
International School Alliance of
Educators vs. Quisumbing
If an employer accords employees the same
position and rank, the presumption is that
these employees perform equal work.
De Guzman vs. Comelec
Singling out of election officers ensure the
impartiality of election officials by preventing
them from developing familiarity of election
officials by preventing them from developing
Page 5 of 38
familiarity with the people of their place of
assignment. The purpose of the law is to
break an important link in the chain of
corruption. It is safe to say that without the
complicity of such officials, large-scale
anomalies in the registration of voters can
hardly be carried out.
People vs. Mercado
The death penalty law applies to all persons
and to all classes of persons rich, poor,
educated or uneducated, religious or non-
religious. No particular group or classes of
persons are identified by the law against
whom the death penalty shall be exclusively
imposed.
People vs. Jalosjos
The performance of legitimate and even
essential duties by public officers has never
been an excuse to free a person validly in
prison. Functions and duties of the office are
not substantial distinctions, which lift the
accused from the class of prisoners
interrupted in their freedom and restricted in
liberty of movement.
Philreca vs Sec of DILG
There is reasonable classification under the
LGC to justify the different tax treatment
between electric cooperatives that are
registered with the NEA and those under
CDA.
Farias vs Executive Secreatary.
Substantial distinctions exist between
appointive and elective officials. The former
occupy their office by virtue of the mandate
of the electorate. They are elected to an
office foe a definite term and may be
removed only upon stringent conditions. On
the other hand, appointive officials hold their
office by virtue of their designation by an
appointing authority.
SUMMARY OF SECTION 1
Proceedings
1.Civil
2.Criminal
Constitutional Law II Reviewer
3.Quasi-Judicial/ Administrative
4.Deportation
5.Extradition Proceedings
6.Academic
Standard:
El Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca
De Guzman vs. N.U. (cited in ADMU v
Capulong)
Ang Tibay vs. C.I.R.
Lao Gi v. Court of Appeals
Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
EL BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO VS.
PALANCA
As applied to a judicial proceeding, the
requirement of due process is satisfied if the
following conditions are present:
1. There must be a court or tribunal
clothed with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it:
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired
over the person or the defendant or
over the property which is the subject
of the proceedings
Jurisdiction over the person is acquired
by;
a. voluntary appearance of a party
in court in submission to its
authority
b. coercive power of legal process
exerted over the person
Jurisdiction over property is acquired
by:
a. seizure of the property under
legal process, whereby it is brought
into the actual custody of the law
b. institution of legal proceedings
wherein, under special provisions of
the laws, the power of the court
over the property is recognized and
made effective
3. The defendant must be given an
opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment must be rendered upon
lawful hearing
ANG TIBAY VS. C.I.R.
The following are the cardinal primary rights,
which must be respected in proceedings,
Page 6 of 38
which is administrative or quasi-judicial in
character;
1. The right to hearing, including the right
to present ones case and submit
evidence.
2. The tribunal must consider the
evidences presented
3. The decision must be supported
4. the evidence must be substantial
5. The decision must be based on the
evidence presented at the hearing or
contained at the record
6. The tribunal must act on its own
independent consideration
7. The board/body must render decisions
in such manner that the parties in
proceedings can know the various
issues involved, and the reason for the
decision rendered
LAO GI VS. COURT OF APPEALS
Although the deportation proceeding does
not partake of the nature of a criminal action,
the constitutional right of a person to due
process shall not be denied. The Rules of
Criminal Procedure in the Rules of Court are
applicable to deportation proceedings
because it affects freedom and liberty of the
person
Minimum Standards:
1. Determine if theres sufficient cause to
charge deportation
2. inform of the charges/ specific grounds
for deportation
3. Hearing under the Rules of Procedure
presented by the CID Commissioner
4. Order based on the determination of
CID Commissioner
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS. LANTION
An extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is
not a criminal proceeding, which will call into
operation all the rights of the accused as
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
GUZMAN VS. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
The proceedings in student discipline may be
summary and cross examination is not an
essential pat thereof. There are withal
Constitutional Law II Reviewer
minimum standards which must be met to
satisfy the demands of procedural due
process and these are that:
1. The students must be informed in
writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them
2. They shall have the right to answer the
charges against them, with the
assistance of counsel, if desired
3. They shall be informed of the evidence
against them
4. They shall have the right to adduce
evidence in their own behalf
5. The evidence must be duly considered
by the investigating committee or
official designated by the school
authorities to hear and decide the case.
Note: The proceedings in student discipline
may be summary and cross examination is
not an essential pat thereof. (Guzman vs.
N.U.). The contract between the school and
student is not an ordinary contract(Non vs.
Dames). The school has the right to
determine the continuance of the schooling
of a student applying their academic and
disciplinary standards.(Garcia vs. L.I.T.).
However, penalties imposed by the schools
must be commensurate to the offenses
committees (Malabanan vs. Ramento).

Page 7 of 38
 SECTION 2-FREEDOM FROM SPEECH

EXCEPTION: If search is reasonable

A. With a valid B. Without a valid C. Wihtout warrant D. Of other nature or

warrant warrant (by a private purpose
individual)
Requirements: (1) Incidental to (1) Subpoena duces
(1) issued upon lawful arrest (Sec (1) SOP (People vs. tecum
probable cause 12, Rule 126 of Marti) (2) Administrative
(2) personally Rules of Court) (2) Security Check Ispection
examined by the (2) Plain view (People vs
judge (3) Moving vehicle Bongcarawan)
(3) Examined under (4) Consented
oath and affirmation warantless searches
(4) Particularly (5) Customs
describing the place Searches
to be searched and (6) Stop and Frisk
the persons or things (7) Exigent and
to be seized(Section Emergency
2 ArticleIII) Circumstances
(5) warrant must not
be for more than one
offense (Revised
Rules of Court)

A(1) Issued upon probable cause Presentation of master tapes is not an

Probable Cause for search- such facts and
circumstances that would lead a discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought
in connection of the offense are in the place
sought to be searched.
Existence of probable cause is determined
by the facts of each case
It must be probable cause of something
specific (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
It must be defined in relation to the action
which it justifies
Mere conclusions of law do not establish
probable cause (Corro vs. Lising) (Burgos
vs. Chief of Staff)
absolute requirement for a search warrant
to issue (Columbia Pictures
Entertainment)
In search warrants, proof of probable
cause for a warrant need not point to a
specific offender (Webb vs. de Leon)
On the spot tip + surveillance +
suspicious action + refusal to open bag
(People vs. Tangliben)
Information about a drug addict + reddish
eyes + walking in swaying manner +
avoids a policeman (Manlili vs CA)
Tip + bulge + suspicious failure to
produce passport + description of a
Caucasian (People vs. Malmstedt)
 Specific description fits the confidential
information (People vs. Bagista)
When the smell of marijuana emanated
from the plastic bag.
Intelligence report of a deep penetration
agent (People vs. Lo Ho Wing)
A(2) Personally examined by the judge
The judge must conduct the examination
personally and not thorough commissioner
or deputy clerk of court (Bache case)
The judge may personally evaluate the
report and supporting documents
submitted by the fiscal. (Soliven vs.
Makasiar)
The judge cannot rely solely on the
certification of the fiscal in the absence of
necessary documents that will support
such certification (Lim vs. Felix)
Only the judge can determine the
probable cause for issuance of a warrant
(Salazar vs. Achacoso) (exception:
deportation of aliens; [Harvey vs.
Santiago])
A(3) Examined under oath and affirmation
Oath- an outward pledge given by person
taking it that his attestation or promise is
made under immediate sense of
responsibility to God. (Alvarez vs. CFI)
Affirmation- a solemn and formal declaration
that an affidavit is true, this being
substituted for an oath in certain cases.
Here, there is no invocation of God or a
supreme being.
A(4) Particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be
seized
Must be specific as the circumstances will
allow (People vs. Rubio)
Must be conclusion of fact not of law
(People vs Rubio)
Things described must be limited to those
which bear direct relation to the offense
for which the warrant is being issued
(Revised Rules of Court)
Must not be too general (Stonehill vs.
Diokno)
Page 9 of 36
B(1) Incidental to lawful arrest
Arrest must precede that search; the
process cannot be reversed (Malacat vs. CA)
Exception: A search substantially
contemporaneous with an arrest can precede
the arrest if the police have probable cause
to make the arrest at the outset of the
search (People vs. Tudtud citing 68 Am.Jur
2d)
B(2) Plain view
Requirements:
(1) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duty.
(2) The evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who have the right
to be there.
(3) The evidence must be immediately
apparent
(4) Plain view justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search (People vs.
Valdez) (See Roan vs. Gonzales)
B(3) Moving vehicle
-The important thing is that there was
probable cause to conduct the warantless
search (Caballes vs. CA)
- or search is conducted in exceptional
circumstances (i.e. checkpoints) (Valmonte
vs. de Villa)
Requirements for Checkpoints:
(1) Existence of exceptional circumstances
(2) conducted on a fixed area
(3) inspection limited to visual search
(4) occupants mot subjected to physical or
body search (Caballes vs. CA)
B(4) Consented warantless searches
Requirements for effective waiver of rights:
(1) it must appear that the right exist
(2) the person involved had knowledge,
actual or constructive of the existence of
such right.
(3) Said person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right.
(4) It must be understood to cover only what SEARCH WARRANT OF
is included within the terms of the language WARRANT ARREST
(Veroy vs. Layague) The applicant must The applicant must
show: show:
B(5) Customs Searches 1. that the items 1. probable cause that
Imported goods remain under the jurisdiction sought are in fact an offense has been
of Bureau of Customs as importation is not seizable by virtue of committed; and
terminated. (Tariff and Customs Code). BOC being connected 2. that the person to
acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported with criminal be arrested committed
goods, for the purposes of enforcement of activity; and it
customs laws, from the moment the goods 2. that the items
are actually in its possession or control. will be found in the
(Papa vs. Mago) place to be
searched.
B(6) Stop and Frisk The judge must The judge need not
2 Fold interest in stop and frisk conduct a personal, conduct a personal
(1) Crime prevention and detection searching examination of the
(2) Self- preservation examination of the applicant and his
-mere suspicion or hunch will not validate applicant and his witnesses. He may rely
stop and frisk. (Malacat vs. CA) witnesses on the affidavits of the
-a genuine reason must exist, in light of the witnesses and the
police officers EXPERIENCE and surrounding recommendation of the
conditions, to warrant the belief that the prosecutor.
person detained has weapons concealed Presciption: 10 days Prescription: Until
about him. (People vs. Solayao, Posadas vs. served
CA)

B(7) Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

People vs De Gracia
People vs. Bolasa

D Good cause for production of documents

must be established. Documents cannot be
used to incriminate the other party. Also, the
documents must be particularly described
(Material and Oklahoma cases)
There must exist reasonable governmental
interest in administrative inspection. Only
reasonableness of need to conduct periodic,
area-wide inspection is needed.

Note: What may be the subject of a

search warrant?
Personal property, which is:
1. subject of the offense,
2. stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or
fruits of the offense, or
3. used or intended to be used as the means
of committing an offense.

Page 10 of 36
 SECTION 2: FREEDOM FROM ARREST
EXCEPTION: If arrest is reasonable
A. With Warrant
Requirements:
(1) issued upon probable cause
(2) personally examined by the judge
(3) Examined under oath and affirmation
(4) Particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be
seized(Section 2 ArticleIII)
(5) warrant must not be for more than one
offense (Revised Rules of Court)
No Fiscal, so the judge personally
investigates
-Municipal trial court
-Municipal circuit trial court
-Metropolitan circuit court (non-NRC)
With Fiscal, so the judge looks into
certification and examines the records
Process:
-Fiscal makes a determination of probable
cause (called certification)
-Judge looks into the certification must
have affidavits
-Judge personally examines the records
-Judge is not bound to Fiscals determination
Page 11 of 36
B. Without Warrant
Rule 113, Sec 5 Rules of Court
(a) when in his presence, the presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or attempting to commit
an offense;
(b) when an offense has in fact been
committed and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it;
(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 temporarily confined while
case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
B(a) when in his presence, the presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or attempting to commit
an offense;
-an offense is committed in the presence or
within the view of an officer, when the officer
SEES the offense, although at a distance, or
HEARS the disturbances created thereby and
PROCEEDED AT ONCE to the scene thereof
(US vs. Samonte)
B(b) when an offense has in fact been
committed and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it;
Personal knowledge
-Finding lifeless body with stab wounds and an informant pointed to the accused as the
assailant. Bloodstains in the accuseds pants were found to be the same blood type as that
found on the fatal knife. (People vs. Jayson citing People vs. Jayson)
- Policemen went to the scene of the crime and found a piece of wood and concrete hollow
block used by the killer. A neighbor who witnessed the killing pointed to the accused as the
assailant (People vs. Jayson citing People vs. Garente)
- Policemen received a report and immediately responded. One of the victims pointed to the
4 persons one of which was wearing his jacket. When they were approached they ran to
different directions. (People vs. Jayson citing People vs. Acol)
- When the policemen conducted a surveillance

Note: Illegality of arrest may be cured when:

-accused voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by pleading not guilty without
questioning the illegality of his arrest.(People vs. Escordial)

SEC 3: PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION

EXCEPTIONS

Lawful order of the court When Public or Order requires prescribed by law

Note: To come under exclusionary rule, the evidence must be obtained by government
agents and not by private individuals acting on their own.

People vs. Marti

Inspection of the individual was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part
of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of
Customs.

People vs. Bongcarawan

Even if the vessel security is armed and tasked to maintain peace and order, he is still a
private employee and does not discharge any governmental function.

BUT
Zulueta vs. CA
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them breaking the
drawers and cabinets of the other. A person, by contracting marriage does not shed his/her
right to privacy as an individual.

[Why are the articles admissible in Marti, Bongcarawan, and Mendoza but not in Zulueta
case?]

Page 12 of 36
Page 13 of 36
 SECTION 4 PRIOR RESTRAINT
BURGOS SR. vs. CHIEF OF STAFF
DOCTRINE: Closure is in the nature of
restraint or censorship abhorrent to the
freedom of the press guaranteed under the
fundamental law and constitutes virtual
denial of petitioners freedom to express
themselves in dissent.
NEAR vs. MINNESOTA
DOCTRINE: Censorship or prior restraint is
done by suppressing publication and
punishing as contempt further publication.
In determining the extent of constitutional
protection, it has been generally, if not
universally considered that it is the chief
purpose of the guaranty of freedom of press
is to prevent previous restraints of
publication. The prior restraint principle is
not an unbending rule but admitted
exceptions such as when the nation is at war,
as primary requirements of decency,
incitement to acts of violence and overthrow
of government.
FREEDMAN vs. MARYLAND
DOCTRINE: Non-criminal process, which
requires the prior submission of a film to a
censor, avoids constitutional infirmity only if
it takes place under procedural safeguards
designed to obviate the dangers of a
censorship system.
STANDARD FOR CENSORSHIP TO BE
VALID:
1. The burden of proving that the film is
unprotected expression must rest on
the censor.
2. While the State may require advance
submission of all films, in order to
proceed effectively to bar all showings
of unprotected films, the requirement
cannot be administered in a manner
which would lend an effect of finality to
the censors determination whether a
film constitutes a protected expression
because only a judicial determination in
an adversary proceeding ensures the
necessary sensitivity to freedom of
expressiononly a procedure requiring
a judicial determination suffices to
impose a valid final restraint.
3. The procedure must also assure a
prompt final judicial decision to
minimize the deterrent effect of an
interim and possibly erroneous denial
of a license.
NEW YORK TIMES CO. vs. US
DOCTRINE: Any system of prior restraints of
expression bears a heavy
presumption against its
constitutional validity. The
Government thus carries the
burden of showing justification for
the enforcement of such restraint.
TOLENTINO vs. SECRETARY OF FINANCE
DOCTRINE: The press is not exempt to the
taxing powers of the state, the law granted
the press a privilege, the could take back
such a privilege any time. In withdrawing
the privilege, the law merely subjects the
press to the same tax burden to which other
businesses have ling ago been subjected, The
VAT is not a license tax and therefore, not a
form of prior restraint. It is not a tax on the
exercise if the privilege, much less a
constitutional right. It is imposed on the
sale, barter, lease or exchange of goods or
properties or the sale or exchange of
services.
ALEXANDER vs. US
DOCTRINE: The Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act merely forfeits the
assets of Alexander so as to prevent him
from using such assets to finance his illegal
adult entertainment business. There is no
prior restraint in this case for prior restraint
describes order forbidding certain
communications that are issued before the
communications occur. The order does not
impose any legal impediment on Alexanders
ability to any expressive activity. Alexanders
assets were forfeited for they were related to
past racketeering violations and thus differ
from materials seized or restrained on
suspicion of being obscene. Obscenity is
judicially determined.
IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs. CA
DOCTRINE: The Boards of Review for
Moving Pictures and Television has the power
to screen review and examine all television
programs. The exercise of religious freedom
can be regulated by the state when it will
bring about the clear and present danger of
some substantial evil, which the state is duty
bound to prevent. However, there is no
showing of the type of harm the tapes will
bring. Prior restraint on speech cannot be
justified by hypothetical fears but only by the
showing of a SUBSTANTIVE and IMMINENT
EVIL.
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
PEOPLE vs. PEREZ
DOCTRINE: The attack on Governor-General
Wood exceeds the bounds of free speech and
common decency. There was a seditious
tendency, which could easily produce
disaffection among the people and a state of
feeling incompatible with a disposition to
remain loyal to the government and obedient
to the laws. This case is an example of the
application of the dangerous tendency rule
where all it requires, for speech to be
punishable is that there is a rational
connection between speech and evil
apprehended.
DENNIS et al. vs. US
DOCTRINE: In determining whether a
circumstance would constitute clear and
present danger, the court must inquire
whether in each case the gravity of the evil,
discounted by its improbability, justifies an
invasion of free speech to avoid the danger.
The question in every case is whether
the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such nature as
to create a clear and present danger that
they will bring about the substantive
evils that Congress has a right to
prevent. It is a question of proximity
and degree. Certainly, an attempt to
overthrow the government even though
doomed from the outset because of
inadequate numbers is a sufficient evil that
the congress should prevent. Clear and
present danger is not dependent on the
probability of success of attempted overthrow
and the congress may act even through
attempt is doomed from the outset because
of inadequate number or power of the
revolutionist.
EASTERN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION (DYRE) vs. DANS JR.
DOCTRINE: All forms of communication are
entitled to the broad protection of the
freedom of expression clause. Necessarily,
however, the freedom of television and radio
broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope
than the freedom accorded to newspaper and
print media due to its overwhelming reach
and influence. The clear and present danger
test, therefore, must take the particular
circumstances of broadcast media into
account. The supervision of radio stations-
whether by government or through self-
regulation by the industry itself calls for
thoughtful, intelligent and sophisticated
handling. The government has a right to be
protected against broadcasts which incite the
listeners to violently overthrow it.
GONZALEZ vs. COMELEC
DOCTRINE: There should be no previous
restraint on the communication of views or
subsequent liability whether in libel suits,
prosecution for sedition, or action for
damages, or contempt proceedings unless
there be a clear and present danger of
substantive evil that Congress has a right to
prevent. In the case of Cabansag vs.
Fernandez, the court held that there are two
tests that are acceptable criterion for
permissible restriction of the freedom of
speech, expression, assembly etc. These are
the 'clear and present danger' rule and the
'dangerous tendency' rule. The first means
that the evil consequence of the comment or
utterance must be 'extremely serious and the
degree of imminence extremely high' before
the utterance can be punished. The danger to
be guarded against is the 'substantive evil'
sought to be prevented."
The dangerous tendency rule on the other
hand provides that if the words uttered
create a dangerous tendency, which the state
has a right to prevent, then such words are
punishable. It is not necessary that some
definite or immediate acts of force, violence,
or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient
that such acts be advocated in general terms.
Nor is it necessary that the language used be
reasonably calculated to incite persons to
acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness. It is
sufficient if the natural tendency and
probable effect of the utterance were to bring
about the substantive evil, which the
legislative body seeks to prevent.
AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD. vs.
JUDGE IGNACIO M. CAPULONG
DOCTRINE: The case of Lagunzad cannot
be applied in this case because in Lagunzad
the case was filed after the film was
completed; therefore there is no PRIOR
restraint on the right of free expression. In
our present case, the respondent filed the
complaint while the film is in production. The
respondent judge (Capulong) should not
have restrained the petitioners from
completing the film because any measure of
PRIOR restraint is invalid. Neither the
respondent nor the trial judge cannot assert
any violation of right since the movie has not
yet been completed.
The invalidity of measure of prior restraint
does not mean that no subsequent liability
may lawfully be imposed upon a person
claiming to exercise such constitutional
freedoms. The respondent Judge should have
stayed his hand, instead of issuing an ex-
parte Temporary Restraining Order one day
after filing of a complaint by the private
respondent and issuing a Preliminary
Injunction twenty (20) days later; for the
projected motion picture was as yet
uncompleted and hence not exhibited to any
audience. Neither private respondent nor the
respondent trial Judge knew what the
completed film would precisely look like.
There was, in other words, no "clear and
present danger of any violation of any right
to privacy that private respondent could
lawfully assert.
SPEECH AND ELECTORAL PROCESS
SANIDAD vs. COMELEC
DOCTRINE: The evil sought to be prevented
by RESOLUTION NO. 2167 is the possibility
that a franchise holder may favor or give any
undue advantage to a candidate in terms of
advertising space or radio or television time.
However, this should not be construed to
mean that the Comelec has also been
granted the right to supervise and regulate
the exercise by media practitioners
themselves of their right to expression during
plebiscite periods. Media practitioners
exercising their freedom of expression during
plebiscite periods are neither the franchise
holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are
no candidates involved in a plebiscite.
Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution
No. 2167 has no statutory basis. In the case
of Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, L-32546, Oct. 16,
1970, where the constitutionality of the
prohibition of certain forms of election
propaganda was assailed, the court ruled
that the prohibition is valid for it seeks to
prevent the perversion and prostitution of the
electoral apparatus. However, the evil sought
to be prevented in an election is not present
in a plebiscite. In a plebiscite, votes are
taken in an area on some special political
matter unlike in an election where votes are
cast in favor of a specific candidate.
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB vs. COMELEC
DOCTRINE: The objective of Section 11 is to
equalize, as far as practicable, the situations
of rich and poor candidates by preventing the
rich candidates from enjoying the undue
advantage offered by huge campaign war
chests. Though the rights of freedom and
speech are of special importance in a
democratic polity, they are not unlimited
because they are not the only important and
relevant values. Equality of opportunity to
proffer oneself for public office is also clearly
an important value. Therefore, no
presumption of invalidity arises with respect
to exercises of supervisory or regulatory
authority on the part of the COMELEC for
purposes of securing equal opportunity
among candidates for political office,
although such may result in some limitation
of the rights of free speech and free press.
Section 11 (b)-does not restrict either the
reporting of or the expression of belief or
opinion or comment upon the qualifications
and programs and activities of any and all
candidates for office-constitutes the critical
distinction which must be made between the
instant case and that of Sanidad vs.
Commission on Elections.
BLO UMPAR ADIONG vs. COMELEC
DOCTRINE: The COMELEC's prohibition on
posting of decals and stickers on "mobile'
places whether public or private except in
designated areas provided for by the
COMELEC itself is null and void on
constitutional grounds for it unduly infringes
on the citizen's fundamental right of free
speech enshrined in the Constitution since
there is no public interest substantial enough
to warrant the kind of restriction involved in
this case. The determination of the limits of
the Government's power to regulate the
exercise by a citizen of his basic freedoms in
order to promote fundamental public
interests or policy objectives is always a
difficult and delicate task. The so-called
balancing of interests-individual freedom on
one hand and substantial public interests on
the other-is made even more difficult in
election campaign cases because the
Constitution also gives specific authority to
the Commission on Elections to supervise the
conduct of free, honest, and orderly
elections.
The posting of decals and stickers in mobile
places like cars and other moving vehicles
does not endanger any substantial
government interest. There is no clear public
interest threatened by such activity so as to
justify the curtailment of the citizen's right of
free speech and expression. Under the clear
and present danger rule not only must the
danger be patently clear and pressingly
present but the evil sought to be avoided
must be so substantive as to justify the
limitation. Moreover, the freedom of
expression curtailed by the questioned
prohibition is not so much that of the
candidate or the political party. The provision
is so broad that it encompasses even the
private citizens private property and the
freedom to convince others to agree with
him.
OSMEA vs. COMELEC
DOCTRINE: What is involved here is simply
a regulation of time, place and manner.
Section 11B is merely regulatory. Any
restriction of speech is only incidental and it
is no more than necessary to achieve the
purpose of promoting equality of opportunity.
What makes this regulation reasonable is
that it applies only to the election period.
For content-neutral restrictions such as the
case at bar, the OBrien test must be used.
The OBrien test provides that a government
regulation is sufficiently justified if
a) it is within the constitutional power of
the Government,
b) if it furthers an important or substantial
governmental interest;
c) if the governmental interest is
unrelated to the suppression of free
expression;
d) and if the incident restriction on alleged
First Amendment freedoms is no
greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest.
Unlike the case of Sanidad where prohibiting
columnist in a plebiscite must have a
compelling reason to support it, the
restrictions that are content-neutral are not
censorial. 11B is not concerned with the
content of the speech thus, it needs only a
substantial governmental interest to support
them. The clear and present danger test is
not a remedy to all free speech problems.
Since 11B is merely regulatory, the
compelling reason to be determined by the
clear and present danger test should not be
used. Applying the OBrien test, we find that
RA 6646 is a valid exercise of the power of
the state to regulate media of communication
to ensure equal opportunity.
COMMERCIAL SPEECH
FRIEDMAN vs. ROGERS
DOCTRINE: To enjoy protection, commercial
speech must not be false or misleading.
RUBIN vs. COORS BREWING CO.
DOCTRINE: The congress enacted FAAA in
order to establish national rues governing the
distribution production and importation of
alcohol however, it did not pass the HUDSON
test therefore, it is unconstitutional:
Hudson Test (Central Hudson Gas vs.
Public Service Commission):
Requirements:
1. speech must no be false
or misleading or proposing an
illegal activity
2. the governmental interest
sought to be served by the
regulation must be substantial
3. the regulation must be
directly advance the governments
interest
4. the regulation must not
be overboard
CINCINNATI vs. DISCOVERY NETWORK,
ET. AL.
DOCTRINE: Respondents do not challenge
their characterization as "commercial
speech." Nor do respondents question the
substantiality of the city's interest in safety
and esthetics. It was, therefore, proper for
the District Court and the Court of Appeals to
judge the validity of the city's prohibition
under the standard we set forth in Central
Hudson and Fox. The city failed to meet its
burden of establishing a "reasonable fit"
between its legitimate interests in safety and
esthetics and its choice of a limited and
selective prohibition of news racks as the
means chosen to serve those interests. The
city's news rack policy is neither content
neutral nor, "narrowly tailored." Thus,
regardless of whether or not it leaves open
ample alternative channels of
communication, it cannot be justified as a
legitimate time, place, or manner restriction
on protected speech.
CITY OF LADUE vs. GILLEO
DOCTRINE: The ordinance prohibiting the
placing of signs which pose distinctive
societal problems violates the residents right
to free speech. While said signs are subject
to the municipalitys police power, any
regulation may be challenged on the ground
that it restricts too little speech because its
exemptions discriminate on the basis of
signs message or on the ground that it
prohibits too much protected speech.
Although there is valid interest in minimizing
visual clutter, the ordinances has almost
completely foreclosed an important and
distinct medium of expression to political,
religious or personal messages. Prohibitions
foreclosing entire media may be completely
free of content or viewpoint discrimination,
but such measures can suppress too much
speech by eliminating a common means of
speaking. The ordinance cannot be justified
as time, place manner restriction since
handbills and newspaper advertisements are
inadequate substitutes for important medium
such as the posters that were prohibited by
Ladues ordinance.
UNPROTECTED SPEECH
LIBEL
POLICARPIO vs. MANILA TIMES
DOCTRINE: Newspapers must enjoy a
certain degree of discretion in determining
the manner in which a given event should be
presented to the public, and the importance
to be attached thereto as a news item, and
that its presentation in a sensational manner
is not per se illegal. Newspaper may publish
news items relative to Judicial, legislative or
other official proceedings, which are not of
confidential nature, because the public is
entitled to know the truth with respect to
such proceedings, which, being official and
non-confidential, are open to public
consumption. But, to enjoy immunity, a
publication containing derogatory information
must be not only true, but, also, fair, and. It
must be made in good faith and without any
comments or remarks. Such fairness and
good faith is not present in the case at bar.
The omissions in the newspaper report,
which contributed to the unfair picture
created, is to be termed as libel by
negligence. If the publisher is unaware,
when under the facts the truth could have
been verified, the publisher is guilty of
negligence and was liable for libel, malice
being an essential element in libel (Take
note: Fr. Bernas dissents to this view).
BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORP. vs. NOEL
DOCTRINE: The law against libel is
protective of reputation according to
community standards and not according to
personal or family standards
LOPEZ vs. CA
DOCTRINE: In preparation of stories, press
reporters and edition usually have to race
with their deadlines; consistently with good
faith and reasonable care, they should not be
held to account to a point of suppression, for
honest mistake or imperfection in the choice
of words (Quisumbing V. Lopez). For liability
to arise without offending the press freedom,
there is the test to meet: statements was
made with 'actual malice'- ie. knowledge that
it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not (NY times v.
Sullivan). In the case at bar, Quisumbing v.
Lopez is not squarely in point. Here there
was no pressure of a daily deadline, no
occasion to act with haste as the picture was
published in a weekly magazine. Moreover,
the requirement of reasonable care is not
satisfied. Hence petitioner is liable for libel.
LIBEL OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PUBLIC
FIGURES
NEW YORK TIMES vs. SULLIVAN
DOCTRINE: The constitutional guarantee
prohibits a public official from recovering
damages for a defamatory falsehood relating
to his official conduct unless he proves that
the statement was made with actual malice
that is, with knowledge that is was false or
with reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not. (STANDARD: Bars media
liability for defamation of a public official
absent proof that the defamatory statements
were published with knowledge of their
falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth)
ROSEBLOOM vs. METROMEDIA
DOCTRINE: The general rule is that there is
profound national commitment to the
principle that debate on public issues should
be uninhabited, robust, and wide open. If a
matter is a subject of public interest, it
cannot suddenly become less so merely
because a private individual is involved, or
because in some sense the individual did not
voluntarily choose to become involved. The
publics primary interest is in the event; the
public focus is on the conduct of the
participant and the content, effect and
significance of the conduct, not the
participants prior anonymity. There is
constitutional protection to all discussion and
communication involving matters of public or
general concern is extended without regard
to whether the persons involved are famous
or anonymous but the commitment to robust
debate on public issues cannot be displaced.
GERTZ vs. ROBERT WELCH, INC.
DOCTRINE: A publisher or broadcaster of
defamatory falsehoods about an individual
who is neither a public official nor a public
figure may not claim the New York Times
protection against liability for defamation on
the ground that the defamatory statements
concern an issue of public or general interest.
To extend the New York Times standard to
media defamation of private persons
whenever an issue of general or public
interest is involved would be unfair for
private individuals characteristically have less
effective opportunities for rebuttal than do
public officials and public figures, thus, they
are more vulnerable to injury from
defamation. New York Times standard is
inapplicable to private individuals. (Overruled
Rosebloom Case)
HUSTLER MAGAZINE AND LARRY FLYNT
vs. JERRY FALWELL
DOCTRINE: In order to protect the free flow
of ideas and opinions on matters of public
interest and concern, the constitution
prohibits public figures and public officials
from recovering damages for the tort of
intentional infliction of emotional distress by
reason of the publication of a caricature such
as the ad parody at issue without showing in
addition that the publication contains a false
statement of fact which was made with
"actual malice." The State's interest in
protecting public figures from emotional
distress is not sufficient to deny
Constitutional protection to speech that is
patently offensive and is intended to inflict
emotional injury when that speech could not
reasonably have been interpreted as stating
actual facts about the public figure involved.
The rule in TIMES case is extended to
PRIVATE SECTOR PUBLIC FIGURES (e.g.
newscaster, political analyst etc).
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT
PUBLIC OFFICIALS IS PROHIBITED
FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES UNLESS
IT BE PROVEN THAT THERE IS ACTUAL
MALICE
IN RE: JURADO (CORRUPTION IN THE
JUDICIARY)
DOCTRINE: Freedom of speech and of
expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is
not absolute and that freedom of expression
needs on occasion to be adjusted to and
accommodated with the requirements of
equally important pubic interest. One of the
fundamental pubic interests is the
maintenance of the integrity and orderly
functioning of the administration of justice.
The protection and maintenance of freedom
of expression itself can be secured only
within the context of a functioning and
orderly system of dispensing justice which is
as important as is the maintenance of an
unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the
rights of the citizens is the maintenance of
the independence of the Judiciary.
IN RE: JURADO (CASE OF ENRILE vs.
SALAZAR)
DOCTRINE: A publication relating to judicial
action in a pending case which tends to
impede embarrass or obstruct the court and
constitutes a clear and present danger to the
administration of justice is not protected by
the guarantee of press freedom and in
punishable as contempt. To constitute
contempt, the publication must have been
made under the circumstance as would be
calculated to imperil the fair and orderly
functioning of the judicial process, not
remotely or probably, but immediately, and it
must constitute a clear and resent danger to
the administration of justice which danger
must be serious and substantial.
TIMES DOCTRINE APPLIED IN
PHILIPPINE CASES
VASQUEZ vs. CA
DOCTRINE: An allegation is considered
defamatory if it ascribes to a person the
commission of a crime which tends to
dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt,
or which tends to blacken the memory of one
who is dead. The requisites for libel are: (a)
the allegation of a discreditable act or
condition concerning another; (b) publication
of the charge (c) identity of the person
defamed; and (d) existence of malice. The
RPC provides that if the defamatory
statements is made against a public official
(in this case, a baranggay official) with
respect to the discharge of his official duties
and functions and the truth of the allegation
is shown, the accused will be entitled to an
acquittal.
BORJAL vs. CA
DOCTRINE: It is essential in a libel suit that
the victim be identifiable although it is not
necessary that he be named. It is also not
sufficient that the offended party recognized
himself as the person attacked but it must be
shown that at least a third person could
identify him as the object of the libelous
publication.
The questioned articles dealt with matters of
public interest. The conference, the
composition of its members, and the manner
by which it intended to be funded prove that
its activities are imbued with public interest.
In New York Times v. Sullivan the court ruled
that honest criticisms on the conduct of
public officials are insulated from libelous
judgments. The guarantees of freedom of
speech and press prohibit a public official
from recovering damages for defamatory
falsehood relating to his official conduct
unless he proves that the statement was
made with actual malice. The burden of
proving malice lies on the plaintiff.
VICARIO vs. CA
DOCTRINE: The petitioners act of
distributing copies of an article from The
Inquirer stating that graft charges were filed
against Judge Sidro cannot be considered as
malicious. Again, the doctrine of Times
should be applied. Unless it is proven that
there is actual malice, a public official cannot
recover damages. According to the RPC,
every defamatory imputation is presumed to
be malicious, even if it be true, if no good
intention and justifiable motive for making it
is shown. A fair and true report, made in
good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other
official proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, or of any statement,
report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed
by public officers in the exercise of their
functions. Such circumstances are not
present in the case at bar.
JALANDONI vs. DRILON
DOCTRINE: TIMES Doctrine is applicable to
Philippines cases thereby; a PCGG
Commissioner also comes under this rule.
OBSCENITY
MILLER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DOCTRINE: In testing for obscenity, the
basic guidelines for the tier of facts must be:
(1) whether the average person, applying
contemporary community standards would
find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest, (2) whether the work
depicts or describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable state law, and (c) whether the
work, taken as a whole lacks serious literary,
artistic, political or scientific value. By
community standards (in guideline number
1), it means standards of a specific
community, which do not really vary from
other communities. To require a national
community standard is futile and unrealistic.
GONZALES vs. KALAW KATIGBAK
DOCTRINE: The ruling in Miller should be
applied in Philippine movies. The law frowns
on obscenity since it is utterly w/o redeeming
social importance. However, determining
which is obscene is quite difficult. Obscene
material is that which deals with sex in a
manner appealing to prurient interest. What
is seen or perceived by an artist is entitled to
respect, unless there is a showing that the
product of his talent rightfully may be
considered obscene. This ruling however, is
limited to the concept of obscenity applicable
to motion pictures. A less liberal approach is
given for television since everyone, including
children have easier access to television
whereas people would have to pay if they
would like to view movies.
PITA vs. CA
DOCTRINE: People vs. Kottinger laid down
test for Obscenity: whether the tendency of
the matter charged as obscene, is to deprive
or corrupt those whose minds are open to
such immoral influences and into whose
hands a publication or other article charged
as being obscene may fall OR whether a
picture is obscene or indecent must depend
upon the circumstances of the case, that it
shocks the ordinary and common sense of
men as an indecency. Gonzalez vs. Kalaw
Katigbak held a more specific test, whether
to the average person, applying
contemporary standards, the dominant
theme of the material taken as a whole
appeals to prurient (sexual desire) interest,
and that it is a judicial question. Both the
Kottinger and Kalaw cases also adhere to
contemporary community standards. There
is no question that state has rt. to suppress
freedom of expression is not without
restraint. However, such restraints must be
based on standards provided by courts.
To bar the exercise of the right, there must
be a clear and present danger that would
warrant State interference that a danger
must not only be (1) clear, but also (2)
present, to justify state action. There must
be objective and convincing, not subjective
or conjectural, proof of the existence of such
clear and present danger, not relying solely
on authoritys own appraisal of what the
public welfare, peace or safety may require.
And the burden to show the existence of
grace and imminent danger, and obscenity
that would justify adverse action lies on the
authorities. Also there was neither lawful
court order nor search and seizure warrant.
What mayor or authorities must do is to
secure such warrant and convince the court
or judge with jurisdiction that the materials
sought to be seized are obscene, and pose
a clear and present danger of an evil
substantive enough to warrant State
interference and action.
BARNES vs. GLENN THEATER
DOCTRINE: The Court used the OBrien
test: a government regulation is sufficiently
justified if:
It is within the constitutional power of
the Government,
It furthers an important or substantial
government interest,
Governmental interest is unrelated to
the suppression of free expression and
The incidental restriction on alleged
First Amendment freedoms is no greater
than is essential to the furtherance of that
interest.
The Court found that Indianas public
indecency statute is justified despite its
incidental limitations on some expressive
activity. Applying OBrien:
The traditional police power of the
State is defined as the authority to
provide for the public health, safety and
morals. The statute reflected moral
disapproval of people appearing in the
nude among strangers in public places.
The public indecency statute furthers a
substantial government interest in
protecting order and morality
What Indiana prohibited was not
dancing as a communicative element but
simply its being done in the nude.
Indianas requirement that the dancers
wear at least pasties and a g-string is
modest and the bare minimum necessary
to achieve the States purpose.
FCC V. PACIFICA FOUNDATION
DOCTRINE: Stricter rules on obscenity must
be followed for radio especially because of its
pervasive quality and because of the interest
in the protection of children. The prohibition
against censorship denies the Commission
any power to edit proposed programs in
advance and to excise material considered
inappropriate for the airwaves. HOWEVER,
the prohibition has never been construed to
deny the commission the power to review the
content of COMPLETED broadcasts in the
performance of its regulatory powers. The
commission has the right to take not of past
program content when considering a
licensees renewal application, as such is not
censorship.
RENTON vs. PLAYTIME THEATERS
DOCTRINE: Zoning legislation dealing with
adult entertainment that does not ban adult
theaters altogether is not invalid being
properly analyzed as a form of time, place
and manner of regulation. Content-neutral
time, place and manner regulations are
acceptable so long as they are designed to
serve a substantial government interest an
do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues
of communication.

BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. FRASER
DOCTRINE: The first amendment does not
prevent the school district from disciplining
students in giving offensively lewd and
indecent speech at a school assembly. The
use of an offensive form of expression may
not be prohibited to adults making a political
point but it does not follow that the same
latitude must be permitted to children in
public school. It is highly appropriate
function of public school education to prohibit
the use of vulgar and offensive terms in
public discourse. It is well within the power
of the school to prohibit vulgar language to
be used by its students.
HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT vs.
KUHLMEIER
DOCTRINE: Schools had the authority to
censor if it could affect the education of
others. This case ruled that the censorship in
the schools was only acceptable if it were for
valid educational purpose. Stricter rules
should be followed for speech in school
because of the nature of the community that
is involved and the relationship between
school and parents.
ASSEMBLY and PETITION
EXTENT OF THE POWER OF THE STATE
TO REGULATE PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES
NAVARRO vs. VILLEGAS
DOCTRINE: The mayor possessed
reasonable discretion to determine or specify
the streets of public places to be used for the
assembly in order to secure convenient use
thereof by other and provide adequate and
proper policing to minimize the risk of
disorder and maintain public safety and
order.
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS vs. PBM
DOCTRINE: The primacy if human rights,
freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly
and petition for redress of grievances-over
property rights should be sustained. To
regard the demonstration against the police
officers, not against the employer, as
evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining
and hence a violation of the CBA and a cause
for the dismissal from employment of the
demonstrating employees, stretches unduly
the compass of the CBA, is a potent means of
inhibiting speech and therefore inflicts a
moral as well as mortal wound on the
constitutional guarantees of free-expression
of peaceful assembly and petition.
REYES vs. BAGATSING
DOCTRINE: In the absence of a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil to a
legitimate public interest, there was no
justification then to deny the exercise of the
constitutional rights of free speech and
peaceable assembly. These rights are
assured by our Constitution and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. It is settled law
that as to public places, especially so as to
parks and streets, there is freedom of
access. Nor is their use dependent on who is
the applicant for the permit, whether an
individual or a group.
MALABANAN vs. RAMENTO
DOCTRINE: Disciplinary action may be taken
against students for conduct, which
materially disrupts class work or involves
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights
of others. Such was the conduct of the
students in this case. However considering
the importance of the right of assembly and
petition, the penalty imposed (in this case,
suspension of one year) should be lighter
than the usual penalty.
TOLENTINO vs. SEC of FINANCE
ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC
DOCTRINE: An exit poll is a species of
electoral survey conducted by qualified
individuals for the purpose of determining the
probable result of an election by
confidentially asking randomly selected
voters whom they have voted for. There is
nothing wrong with holding exit polls. As a
matter of fact, it can be considered as a valid
exercise of the freedoms of speech and
press. It is true that although freedom of
speech and press are guaranteed, they are
not immune to regulation by the state in the
exercise of police power. COMELEC cannot
justify their ban on exit poll for the very
nature of the survey is reflective of the
general sentiment of a group or community
of people. Second, the exit poll will not
replace the official counting of the COMELEC.
Lastly, the credibility and integrity of
elections are not at stake here contrary to
the contention of respondent. All of the
respondents reasons to ban the exit poll
were merely speculations and assumptions.
Moreover, the COMELEC cannot give an
alternative channel of communication to
gather the type of information that an exit
poll can gather. COMELEC cannot show a
substantial state interest therefore, their
order, which in effect suppresses the freedom
of speech and communication of the
petitioner, cannot be held valid.
PADER vs. PEOPLE
DOCTRINE: Defamatory words will fall under
one or the other, depending not only upon
their sense, grammatical significance, and
accepted ordinary meaning judging them
separately, but also upon the special
circumstances of the case, antecedents or
relationship between the offended party and
the offender, which might tend to prove the
intention of the parties at that time. Reyes
vs. People, SC ruled that the expression
putang ina mo is a common enough
utterance in the dialect that it is often
employed, not really to slander but rather to
express anger or displeasure. In fact, more
often, it is just an expletive that punctuates
ones expression of profanity.
SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS, INC. And
KAMAHALAN PUBLISHING CORP V.
COMELEC
DOCTRINE: Test to be employed to
determine validity of section 5.4 of RA 9006
(Fair Elections Act), which provides that
publication of surveys affecting national and
local candidates shall be prohibited 15 days
before the national election and 7 days
before local elections. (United States vs. O
Brien). Government regulation is sufficiently
justified if:
1. if it is within the constitutional power of
the government
2. if it furthers an important substantial
government interest
3. if the governmental interest is
unrelated to the suppression of free
expression;
4. if the incidental restriction on the
alleged First Amendment freedoms is no
greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest
Sec 5.4 fails to meet criterion (3) because
the causal connection of expression to be
asserted governmental interest makes such
interest not unrelated to the suppression of
free expression. By prohibiting the
publication of election survey because of the
possibility that such publication might
undermine the integrity of the election, sec
5.4 actually suppresses a whole class of
expression, while allowing the expression
concerning the same subject matter by
newspaper columnists, radio and TV
commentators, armchair theorists, and other
opinion makers. The prohibition may be for a
limited time, but the curtailment of the right
of expression is direct, absolute and
substantial.
Even if the governmental interest sought to
be promoted is unrelated to the suppression
of speech and the resulting restriction of free
expression is only incidental, sec 5.4
nonetheless fails to meet criterion (4)
namely, that the restriction be not greater
than is necessary to further the
governmental interest.
Sec 5.4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a
prior restraint on the freedom of expression,
(2) it is a direct and total suppression of a
category of expression even though such
suppression is only for a limited period, and
(3) the governmental interest sought to be
promoted can be achieved by means other
than the suppression of freedom of
expression.
 SECTION 4 SUMMARY

CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION

PRIOR RESTRAINT SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT

1. Definition: Censorship or prior restraint is done 1. Test to be considered
by suppressing publication and punishing as (a) Dangerous Tendency Rule
contempt further publication. (Near vs. (People vs. Perez) : for speech to
Minnesota) be punishable is that there is a
2. There is presumption of Invalidity rational connection between speech
3. Exemption to the presumption and evil apprehended.
a. Near vs. Minnesota (b) Clear and Present danger
(1) War (Dennis vs. US; Gonzalez vs.
(2) Obscenity COMELEC, Eastern Broadcasting
(3) Incitement to acts of violence Corporation (DYRE) VS. DANS
and overthrow of government. JR; Ayer Productions vs.
b. NPC vs. COMELEC : There is no Capulong).
presumption of invalidity arises with (c) Balancing of Interest
respect to exercises of supervisory or (Adiong vs. COMLEC)
regulatory authority on the part of the (d) Regulation of time, space
COMELEC for purposes of securing equal and manner (content neutral
opportunity among candidates for political restrictions): OBrien Test
office, although such may result in some (Osmena vs. COMELEC)
limitation of the rights of free speech and
free press. OBRIEN TEST
4. Movie Censorship a. it is within the constitutional
a. Freedman vs. Maryland power of the Government,
b. if it furthers an important or
STANDARD FOR CENSORSHIP TO BE VALID: substantial governmental interest;
a. The burden of proving that the film is d. if the governmental interest is
unprotected expression must rest on the unrelated to the suppression of
censor. free expression;
b. While the State may require advance e. and if the incident restriction on
submission of all films, in order to proceed alleged First Amendment freedoms
effectively to bar all showings of unprotected is no greater than is essential to
films, the requirement cannot be the furtherance of that interest.
administered in a manner which would lend
an effect of finality to the censors
determination whether a film constitutes a
protected expression because only a judicial
determination in an adversary proceeding
ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom
of expressiononly a procedure requiring a
judicial determination suffices to impose a
valid final restraint.
c. The procedure must also assure a prompt
final judicial decision to minimize the
deterrent effect of an interim and possibly
erroneous denial of a license.
 b. Gonzalez vs. Katigbak.

5. Constitutional Safeguards
a. government carries the burden of showing
justification (NEW YORK TIMES CO. vs.
US)
b. Obscenity is judicially determined
(Alexander vs. US)
c. Prior restraint is to be justified only by
showing of substantive and imminent evil
(INC vs. CA).
6. Some forms of prior restraint (Both not existing
in the case of Alexander vs. US and Tolentino
vs. Secretary of Finance)
a. tax
b. licenses

OTHER FORMS GUARATEED BY THE SECTION 4

COMMERCIAL SPEECH

GENERAL RULE: To enjoy protection, commercial speech must not be false or misleading.
(FRIEDMAN vs. ROGERS)

TEST: HUDSON TEST (Central Hudson Gas vs. PSC; RUBIN vs. COORS BREWING CO.)
1. speech must no be false or misleading or proposing an illegal activity
2. the governmental interest sought to be served by the regulation must
be substantial
3. he regulation must be directly advance the governments interest
4. the regulation must not be overboard

CASES: CINCINNATI vs. DISCOVERY NETWORK, ET. AL., CITY OF LADUE vs. GILLEO

ASSEMBLY and PETITION

TEST; CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER

CASES:

NAVARRO vs. VILLEGAS

PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS vs. PBM
REYES vs. BAGATSING

EXCEPTION:
a) in School: MALABANAN vs. RAMENTO
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC
PADER vs. PEOPLE
SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS, INC. And KAMAHALAN PUBLISHING CORP V.
COMELEC
EXCEPTION TO THE CONSITUTIONAL GUARNATEE: UNPROTECTED SPEECH
LIBEL
1. Definition: The omissions in the
newspaper report, which contributed to
the unfair picture created, is to be termed
as libel by negligence. If the publisher is
unaware, when under the facts the truth
could have been verified, the publisher is
guilty of negligence and was liable for
libel, malice being an essential element in
libel. (Policarpio vs CA)
Nature of Libel:: The law against libel is
protective of reputation according to
community standards and not according to
personal or family standards (BULLETIN
PUBLISHING CORP. vs. NOEL)
2. TEST: there is actual malice (Lopez vs
CA)
3. Exemption: Public Officials and Public
figures)
General RULE: The constitutional guarantee
prohibits a public official from recovering
damages for a defamatory falsehood relating
to his official conduct unless he proves that
the statement was made with actual malice
that is, with knowledge that is was false or
with reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not. (STANDARD: Bars media
liability for defamation of a public official
absent proof that the defamatory
statements were published with knowledge
of their falsity or in reckless disregard of the
truth (NEW YORK TIMES vs. SULLIVAN)
Philippines Cases: VASQUEZ vs. CA;
BORJAL vs. CA, VICARIO vs. CA,
JALANDONI vs. DRILON
a) Debate in public and public
OBSCENITY
1. Guideline: In testing for obscenity,
the basic guidelines for the tier of
facts must be: (1) whether the
average person, applying
contemporary community standards
would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient
interest, (2) whether the work depicts
or describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable state law,
and (c) whether the work, taken as a
whole lacks serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value. By
community standards (in guideline
number 1), (MILLER vs. STATE OF
CALIFORNIA)
2. TEST:
a. People vs. Kottinger: whether
the tendency of the matter
charged as obscene, is to
deprive or corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral
influences and into whose
hands a publication or other
article charged as being
obscene may fall OR whether a
picture is obscene or indecent
must depend upon the
circumstances of the case, that
it shocks the ordinary and
common sense of men as an
indecency.
b. Gonzalez vs. Katigbak: Obscene
material is that which deals
with sex in a manner appealing
 information are given to prurient interest. What is
importance and more seen or perceived by an artist is
weight (ROSEBLOOM vs. entitled to respect, unless there
METROMEDIA) is a showing that the product of
b) Private person is his talent rightfully may be
constitutionally protected considered obscene..
(GERTZ vs. ROBERT WELCH, c. Clear and present danger (Pita
INC) vs. CA)
c) The rule is extended to d. O Brien (Barnes vs. Glen
Private Sector Speech Theater)
(HUSTLER MAGAZINE AND
LARRY FLYNT vs. JERRY 3. Constitutional mechanisms
FALWELL) a. stricter standard on radio (FCC
Exception to the general Rule: In re vs. Pacifica)
Jurado cases b. Content-neutral time, place and
manner regulations are
acceptable so long as they are
designed to serve a substantial
government interest an do not
unreasonably limit alternative
avenues of communication.
(RENTON vs. PLAYTIME
THEATERS)
c. Schools (Hazel Wood and
Brethel Cases)

SECTION 5: NO LAWS SHALL BE MADE GARCES vs. ESTENZO

RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF Fiestas, although religious in origin, have a
REHABILITATION, OR PROHIBITING secular aspect to them, which can be
THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, THE FREE legitimate object of state interest. A
EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF municipal corporation has a dual character,
RELIGIOUS PROFESSION AND proprietary and governmental. The purchase
WORSHIP, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION of the state is valid, seeing it as a proprietary
OF PREFERENCE, SHALL FOREVER BE act of the municipality, Not every
ALLOWED. NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL governmental activity which gives the
BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXERCISE OF expenditure of public funds and which was
CIVIL OR POLITICAL RIGHTS. religious tint is violative of the constitution.

IN ORDER FOR A LAW TO COMPLY WITH

I. NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE,
THREE REQUISITES MUST BE MET:
AGLIPAY vs. RUIZ
A. SECULAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE
The issuance and sale of the stamps
B. SECOND, ITS PRIMARY EFFECT
commemorating the International Eucharistic
NEITHER ADVANCES NOR
Congress is Valid. The government should
INHIBITS RELIGION AND LASTLY.
not be precluded from pursuing valid
C. MUST NOT REQUIRE EXCESSIVE
objectives secular in character even if the
ENTABGLEMENT WITH
incidental result would be favorable to a
RECEPIENT INSTIUTIONS
religion or sect.
DISTRICT SCHOOL vs. SCHEMPP
State sponsored bible readings and prayers
in public schools violates fist and second
requisites
BOARD OF EDUCATION vs. ALLEN
The grant of construction aid for science
buildings is not violative of the non-
establishment clause having satisfied the first
and second requirement.
LEMON vs. KURTZMAN
Salary payments and reimbursement for
secular textbooks and other instructional
materials under a system involving close
government supervision in unconstitutional
for it involves excessive entanglement
between the church and state thereby
violating the third requirement.
TILTON vs. RICHARDSON
The part of the provision of the Higher
Education Facilities Act of 1963 providing for
unlimited use after 20 years was invalidated
as amounting to a contribution to a religious
body.
COUNTRY OF ALLEGHENY vs. AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
The crche, which sat on the main and most
beautiful part of the country courthouse, a
seat of government, sends an unmistakable
message that the country supported and
promoted the religious message. The
menorah, sending a message which is not
exclusively religious (Christmas) is
constitutional.
ZOBREST vs. CATALINA
Secular support for deaf children studying in
religious schools
Government programs that neutrally provide
benefits to a broad class of citizens without
inference to religion were not really subject
to an establishment clause challenge just
because sectarian institutions receive
financial benefits,
CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BOARD vs.
PINETTE
Ku Klux Clan questioning the Menorah
allowed at Capitol Square
The Religious expression cannot violate the
establishment clause where it:
I. is a purely private and
II. occurs in a traditional or designated
public forum, publicly announced and
open to all on equal terms.
MANOSCA vs. CA
What should be significant is the principal
objective of, not the casual consequence that
might follow from the exercise of the power.
The purpose in setting up the marker is
essentially to recognize the distinctive
contribution, of the late Felix Manalo to the
culture of the Philippines, rather than to
commemorate his founding of Iglesia ni
Cristo.
ISLAMIC DAWAH vs. EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
EO 46, which gives the OMA the sole
authority to issue Halal certificates, a purely
religious matter, is a violation of the
establishment clause.
II. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
DUAL ASPECT OF FREEOM OF REIGIOUS
BELIEF AND WORSHIP (Cantwell vs.
State of Connecticut)
A. FREEDOM TO BELIEVE WHICH IS
ABSOLUTE
B. FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONES
BELIEF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO
REGULATION
VICTORIANO vs. ELIZALDE ROPE
WORKERS UNION
The free exercise of religious belie is superior
to contract rights, in case of conflict, the
latter must yield to the former. Religious
freedom, although not unlimited, is a
fundamental personal right and liberty, and
has a preferred position in the hierarchy of
values. Contractual rights must yield to
religious freedom.
CANTWELL ET AL vs. STATE OF
CONNETICUT
A certification exclusively for religious
solicitation is in the form of prior restraint or
censorship of religion since the determination
of whether or not a certification will be
released depends upon the secretary of
public welfare. Even if interests be weighed,
there must be a showing of a clear and
present danger in order for the state to limit
the freedom of exercise of religion.
US vs. BALLARD
The absoluteness of the freedom to believe
carries with it the corollary that the
government, while it may look into the good
faith of a person, cannot inquire into a
persons religious pretensions.
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs. CITY OF
MANILA
The constitutional guaranty of the free
exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship carries with it the
right to disseminate religious information.
Any restraint can only be justified on the
grounds that there is clear and present
danger of any substantive evil, which the
state has the right to prevent. (also held in
GOLDMAN vs. WEIBERGER; GERMAN vs.
BARANGAN)
Unless the dissemination is done as a
business operation for profit, no license may
be required.
EBRALINAG vs. DIVISION OF
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU
In Gerona case, salting the flag is utterly
devoid of any religious significance however,
it is stressed in the present case that
freedom of religion requires that protesting
members be exempted from the operation of
the law.
WISCONSIN vs. YODER
Only the interest of the highest order and
those not otherwise served can overbalance
legitimate claims to the free exercise of
religion.
TOLENTINO vs. SECRETARY of FINANCE
Free exercise of religion does not prohibit
imposing a generally applicable sales and use
tax on sales of religious materials by a
religious organization.
CENTENO vs. VILLALON-PORNILLOS
Solicitation of the Samahan ng Katandaan ng
Tikay for Church Renovation
Solicitation of contribution in general, which
may include contribution for religious
purposes, may be regulated by general law
for the protection of the public and its
citizens.
LEE vs. WEISMAN
Graduation, rabbi was invited to lead the
prayer
The minimum constitutional guarantee is that
the government may not coerce anyone to
support or participate in religion or its
exercise, or otherwise act in a way, which
establishes a state religion or religious
faith.
CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYEH, INC.
V. CITY OF HEILAEAH
Laws that burden religious practice do not
have to be justified by a compelling
governmental interest if they are (1) neutral
and (2) of general applicability. The Smith
Standard, that is, that laws must be narrowly
tailored to accomplish the asserted
governmental interests, was not met by the
laws in question.
LAMBS CHAPEL vs. SCHOOL DISTRICT
Since the film series would not have been
shown during school hours, nor was it
sponsored by the school, and would have
been open to the public, there would be no
realistic danger that the community would
think that the District was endorsing religion
or any particular creed.
LOONG vs. BASA
As where any member of a religious
corporation is expelled from the membership
for espousing doctrines and teachings
contrary to that of his church, such an action of said belief (belief action test allows
is conclusive upon civil courts. absolute protection to belief but not to
action)
III. RELIGIOUS TESTS there must be some associational ties
The constitutional prohibition against
religious tests is aimed against clandestine SECTION 6: THE LIBERTY OF ABODE
attempts on the part of the government to AND OF CHANGING THE SAME WITHIN
prevent a person from exercising his civil or THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY LAW SHALL
political rights because of his religious NOT BE IMPAIRED EXFCEPTM UPON
beliefs. LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT.
NEITHER SHALL THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
PAMIL vs. TELERON BE IMPAIRED EXCEPT IN THE INTEREST
The law which disqualifies ecclesiastics from OF NATIONAL SECURITY, PUBLIC
being elected or appointed to a municipal SAFETY OR PUBLIC HEATH, AS MAY BE
office us a religious test which is inconsistent PROVIDED BY LAW.
with the religious clause of the constitution
(also held in MCDANIEL VS. PATY ministers
A. LIBERTY OF ABODE
as candidates to the constitutional
convention). But the needed votes were not
VILLAVICENCIO vs. LUKBAN
reached; therefore, said statute was not
No one could be compelled to change his or
nullified.
her home except in accordance with law.
Thus, when a Mayor of Manila sought to
IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs. CA
cleanse the city of prostitutes by sending
The freedom to act to ones belief is subject
them to Davao, the Supreme Court has to
to regulation where the belief is translated
stop him.
into external acts that affect the public
welfare. Therefore. The religious program is
B. MANNER OF CURTAILMENT OF
not beyond review by the Board.
LIBERTY OF ABODE: LAWFUL
ORDER OF THE COURT AND
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION vs. SMITH
WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED
The religion clause does not relieve an
BY LAW
individual of the obligation to comply with a
law that incidentally forbid the performance
YAP vs. CA
of an act that his religious belief requires if
The right to change abode is not an absolute
the law is not specifically directed to religious
right. It can be regulated by a lawful order
practice and is otherwise constitutional as
such as releasing a petitioner on bail.
applied to those engage in the specified act
for nonreligious reasons.
C. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR
MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS
The following four criteria must be met for a
The right to return to ones country is not
belief to be considered a religion:
covered by the specific right to travel and
there must be belief in God or some
liberty of abode. Therefore, the
parallel belief that occupies a central
requirements prescribed in the constitution
place in the believers life.
relative to the right to travel to not apply.
the religion must involve a moral code
transcending individual belief D. MANNER OF CURTAILMENT: MAY
a demonstrable sincerity in belief is BE CURTAILED BY
necessary, and the court must not ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN
inquire into the truth of reasonableness
 THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL
SECURITY, PUBLIC SAFETY OR
PUBLIC HEATH, AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.
SILVERIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a
court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs,
process and other means necessary to carry
it into effect may be employed by such Court
or judicial officer.
MARCOS vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Right to travel is not absolute and is subject
to the usual constraints imposed by the
necessity of safeguarding the system of
justice.
MANOTOC vs. CA
A person admitted to bail may be prevented
from leaving the country, which is the
necessary consequence of the function of the
bail bond, which is to secure a persons
appearance when needed.
SECTION 7: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF
PUBLIC CONCERN SHALL BE
RECOGNIZED AND PAPERS PERTAINING
TO OFFICAL ACTS, TRANSACTION, OR
DECISIONS, AS WELL AS TO
GOVERNMENT RESEARCH DATA USED AS
BASIS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT,
SHALL BE AFFORDED THE CITIZENS,
SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY
BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
The provision is self-executory. Any
person can exercise such right subject to
statutory limitations (SUBIDO VS.
OZAETA).
While access to official records may not
be prohibited, it is certainly regulated for
it is subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.
Regulation may come from statutory
law or from the inherent power of an
officer to control his officer and the
records under his custody and to exercise
some discretion as to the matter in which
persons desiring to inspect, examine or
copy the record may exercise their rights.
In MARQUEZ VS. DESIERTO, it was said
that bank accounts of suspects in anti
Graft cases may be examined pursuant to
the Ombudsman Act. Moreover, RA 6770
provides that the Ombudsman may
examine and have access to bank
accounts and records and order an in
camera inspection, provided that there
must be a pending case before a court of
competent jurisdiction. The inspection is
limited to the subject matter of the
pending case before the court of
competent jurisdiction.
A. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON
MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN
LEGASPI vs. CSC
"Public concern" like "public interest" is a
term that eludes exact definition thus each
case must be examined separately. If it is a
matter of public right, every citizen is a real
party in interest and therefore, has a
standing. Whether or not an information is of
public interest or public concern depends
upon the determination of the court.
AQUINO-SARMIENTO vs. MORATO
Decisions (in this case, the MTRCB) made in
an official capacity are public and not private
matters.
ECHEGARAY vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
The requirement of confidentiality of the
contents of the manual containing the details
and procedure of administering lethal
injection with respect to the convict is unduly
suppressive for the contents of the same is a
matter of public concern.
B. COROLLARY RIGHT OF ACCESS TO
OFFICIAL RECORDS AND
DOCUMENTS.
VALMONTE vs. BELMONTE
Members of the media wanted to get
information about certain members of
Batasang Pambansa getting clean loans from
GSIS through Imelda Marcos
The government, whether carrying out its
sovereign attributes or running some
business, discharges the same functions of
service to the people. It is the clear intent of
the constitutional Commission to include
government-owned and controlled
corporations in the scope of the right to
information.
The right to privacy belongs to the individual
and must be invoked by the individual.
Public agency cannot invoke the right to
privacy.
C. LIMITATIONS TO THESE RIGHTS
1. National security matters
2. Intelligence information
3. Trade secrets
4. Banking Transactions
5. Diplomatic Correspondence
6. Executive sessions
7. Closed Door Cabinet
meetings
8. Supreme Court
Deliberations
CHAVEZ vs. PCGG
The following are limitations to the right to
information:
(1) National Security Matters
(2) Trade Secrets and Banking
Transactions
(3) Criminal Matters
(4) Other Confidential Information
(ex. Ethical standards Act)
GONZALES vs. NARVASA
The Code of conduct and ethical standard for
public officials and employees provides that
in the performance if their duties, all public
officials and employees are obliged to
respond to letters sent by the public within
15 working days from receipt thereof and to
ensure the accessibility of all public
documents or inspection by the public within
reasonable working hours, subject to
reasonable claims of confidentiality.
CHAVEZ vs. PEA
The right covers three categories of
information: (1) official records (refers to any
document that is part of the public records),
(2) documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions and decisions and
(3) government research data used in
formulating policies.
The information that the petitioner may
access includes evaluation reports, expert
opinions, recommendations etc. however,
the right does not compel PEA to prepare
lists, abstracts, summaries, etc.
SECTION 8: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
INCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYED IN THE
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS TO
FORM UNION, ASSOCIATION, OR
SOCIETIES FOR PURPOSE NOT
CONTRARY TO LAW SHALL NOT BE
ABRIDGED.
The right to due process
The right to contract
Freedom of expression and belief
Right not to join an association
TUCP vs. NHC
Government employees, which includes
everyone covered by the civil service, have
the right to form unions as guaranteed in the
constitution.
SSS vs. CA
The right to form unions does not include the
right to strike.
MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHRES
ASSOCIATION vs. SECRETARY OF
EDUCATION
Government workers cannot use strike as
employed by private sector to secure
concessions from their employers for the
terms and conditions of employment through
statutes and administrative rules and
regulations and not through CBA
Dissenting Opinion: The government has
been deaf to the plight of the teachers who
ere merely asking for their basic rights.
What the teachers are doing is the essence of
freedom of speech thus, the issue is not the
freedom to strike but the freedom of effective
speech.
UNITED PEPSI COLA SUPERVISORY
UNION vs. LAGUESMA
By virtue of the Herrera Veloso Law which
amended the Labor law, which gives different
definitions to the terms managerial and
supervisory employees, managers who are
supervisory employees are given the right to
form unions separate from those of the rank
and file. The constitutional guarantee of
right to form organizations is not infringed by
a ban against managerial employees forming
unions. The right is subjected to the
condition that its exercise should be for
purposes not contrary to law.
STA CLARA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION vs. GASTON
The constitutionally guaranteed freedom to
form association includes the freedom not to
associate.
PADCOM CONDOMINIUM CORP vs.
ORTIGAS CENTER
Under the Torrens system of registration,
claims and liens of whatever character except
those mentioned by law existing against the
land binds the holder of the title and the
whole world. PADCOM could have avoided
membership by not buying the land.
SECTION 9: PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL
NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE
WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION
I. EMINENT DOMAIN the ultimate
right of the sovereign power to
appropriate, not only the public but the
private property of all citizens within
the territorial sovereignty, for public
purpose.
A. Those who can exercise the power of
eminent domain
The national government
congress
executive, pursuant to legislation
enacted by Congress
(1) Local government units, pursuant
to an ordinance enacted by their
respective legislative bodies
(2) Public utilities, as may be
delegated by law
B. Elements of the exercise of the power
of eminent domain
1. there must be taking of a private
property
2. the taking must be for public use
3. just compensation
SANTOS vs. LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Just compensation does not always require to
be made fully in money. The smaller the
land, the bigger the payment in money
primarily because the small landowner would
be needing it more than big landowners who
can afford bigger balance in bonds and other
things.
HEIRS OF ALBERTO SAGUITAN vs. CITY
OF MANDALUYONG
Power of eminent domain is essentially
legislative in nature., Such power may
validly delegated to local government units
as provided by the LGC. The LGU may
expropriate provided the following requisites
are present:
an ordinance enacted by local
legislative council authorizing the exercise
of power of eminent domain by local chief
executive
power is exercised for public use,
purpose and welfare for the benefit of the
poor and the landless
payment of just compensation
a valid and definite offer has been
made to owner but offer was not
accepted.
Expropriation comprise of two stages:
the determination of the authority of
the plaintiff to exercise the power of
 eminent domain. It ends with an order if the city is not exercising police power but
not a dismissal of action declaring that the rather, the taking of private property which
plaintiff has a lawful right to take the should be compensated.
property sought to be condemned for
public use. US vs. CAUSBY
Determination by the court of just Compensable taking does not need to involve
compensation, done with the assistance of all the property interests, which form part of
three commissioners the right to ownership. When one or more of
1. THE POWER TO UNDERTAKE the property rights are appropriated and
EXPROPRIATION CASES applied to a public purpose, there is taking
2. RIGHTS OF OWNER BEFORE even if the bare title to the property still
EXPROPRIATION remains with the private owner.

GREATER BALANGA vs. MUN. OF PEOPLE vs. FAJARDO

BALANGGA Property rights essentially include the full use
VELARMA vs. CA of the property. When owners are deprived
of their property rights, there must be
II. ELEMENTS OF TAKING compensation.

REQUISITES FOR TAKING (REPUBLIC vs. REPUBLIC vs. PLDT

VIUDA de CASTELLVI)
(1) the expropriator must enter
upon the private property
(2) the entrance must not be for a
momentary periods, that is, the
entrance must be permanent
(3) the entry must be under the
warrant of color of legal authority
(4) the property must be devoted
for public use
(5) utilization of the property
must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of all beneficial
enjoyment of the property.
GARCIA vs. CA
Where there is no taking of property for
purposes of eminent domain nor
condemnation proceedings instituted, the
basis for determination of just compensation
is the time when the trial court made its
order of expropriation. Value of land shall be
computed from the date of taking.
CITY vs. JUDGE ERICTA
Charity burial for paupers
The power to regulate does not include the
power to confiscate unless there is a
necessity to destroy. By confiscating a part
of a private cemetery to be given t paupers,
The governments forcible use of PLDTs
telephone lines in order to expand the
services of the Bureau of Telecommunication
to government offices was considered
compensable taking.
NPC vs. JOCSON
Upon filing of the complaint or at any time
thereafter, the petitioner has he right to take
or enter upon the possession of the property.
PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY vs. CITY OF NEW YORK
There is no taking since the landmark law
had not transferred control over the property
to the city, but only restricted the appellants
exploitation of it. A state statute that
substantially furthers important public
policies and enhance the quality of life by
preserving the character and desirable
aesthetic features of a city may so frustrate
distinct INVESTMENT-BACKED INTERESTS.
RUCKELHAUS vs. MONSANTO COMPANY
License for chemical products
The court also held that so long as the taking
has a conceivable public character, the means
by which it will be attained is for congress to
determine.
III. PUBLIC USE
SUMULONG vs. GUERRERO
Socialized housing falls within the confine of
public use. As long as the purpose of the
taking is public, meaning, any act that may
be beneficially employed for the general
welfare, then the power of eminent domain
comes into play.
PHILIPPINE COLUMBIAN ASSOCIATION
vs. PANIS
That only a few could actually benefit from
the expropriation of the property does not
diminish its public use character (also held in
MANOSCA vs. CA. Public use now includes a
broader notion of indirect public benefit or
advantage including urban reform and
housing.
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR vs. CA
The establishment of a pilot development
center would inure to the direct benefit and
advantage of the people of the Province of
Camarines Sur. Once operational, the center
would make available to the community
invaluable information and technology on
agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry.
Therefore, there is public use.
REYES vs. NHA
It is well settled that expropriation of private
land for urban development and slum
clearance is for a public purpose even if the
developed area is alter sold to private
homeowners, commercial firms,
entertainment and service companies.
FERY vs. CABANATUAN
If a land has been acquired for public use in
fee simple unconditionally, either by the
exercise of eminent domain or by purchase,
the former owner retains no rights in the
land, and the public use may be abandoned
or the land devoted to a different use,
without any impairment of the estate
acquired, or any reversion to the former
owner.
IV. JUST COMPENSATION
CITY OF MANILA vs. ESTRADA
The market value of a piece of land is
attained by a consideration of all those facts,
which make it commercially valuable. The
rule that should be followed is that: the
market value of a property is the price which
it will bring when it is offered for sale by one
who desires, but is not obliged to sell it, and
is bought by one who us under no necessity
of having it. view of the commissioners who
are disinterested landowners is given greater
weight than that of an ordinary tier of facts.
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY vs.
PAREDES
To allow the court to change the amount of
the deposit as it sees fit, at any time during
the proceeding, the right of possession
granted to the railroad company might well
become illusory and therefore makes the
courts action unconstitutional.
MUNICIAPALITY of DAET vs. COURT of
APPEALS
When plaintiff takes possession before the
institution of the condemnation proceedings,
the value should be fixed as of the time of
the taking of the said possession not the
filing of the complaint, and the latter should
be the basis for the determination of the
value. When the taking of the property
involved coincides with or is subsequent to,
the commencement of the proceedings, it will
be the basis of the value of the land.
NATIONAL POWER CORP. vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
To determine just compensation for lands
appropriated by the government, the basis
should be the value of the land or price at
the time it was taken from the owner and
appropriated by the government not its
future potential.
EPZA vs. DULAY
In an expropriation proceeding the court
technically has the power to determine the
just compensation for the property.
Provisions which encroaches upon judicial
prerogatives and renders the court inutile in
a matter which is reserved to it for final
determination is void.
MADDUMBA vs. GSIS
The nature of land bank bond fortifies the
view that respondent may be compelled to
accept those bonds at their face value.
Agrarian reform cannot be fully realized
without the intervention of the government
particularly in the payment of just
compensation it is only with the support of
the government that payment of just
compensation to landowner may be realized.
B.H. BERKENKOTTER VS. CA
Among the factor to be considered in arriving
at a fair market value of the property are the
cost of acquisition, the current value of the
properties, its actual or potential uses and
tax declarations.
Commissioners report although only advisory
and persuasive and by no means final,
therefore, may be used as basis for
determination of just compensation.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs. PINEDA
In an expropriation case such as this one, a
trial before the Commissioners is
indispensable to allow the parties to present
evidence on the issue of just compensation
therefore, the appointment of commissioners
is mandatory requirement in expropriation
cases for it is a substantial right that may not
be done away without any reason (also held
in NPC vs. CA)
LBP vs. CA
Just compensation means not only the
correct determination of the amount to be
paid to the owner of the land but also the
payment of the land within reasonable time
from its taking.
RP vs. CA
Under the operative fact doctrine the effect
of invalidated law was allowed to affect
transaction completed before the declaration
of nullity.
V. JUDICIAL REVIEW
AREAS OF THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT
DOMAIN THAT ARE SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW:
1) adequacy of compensation
2) the necessity of taking
3) the public is character of the purpose of
the taking
DE KNECHT vs. BAUTISTA
Government may not capriciously or
arbitrarily choose what private property
should be taken. Due process must be
served. With due recognition of the power of
Congress to designate the particular property
to bet taken and how much thereof may be
condemned in the exercise of the power of
expropriation, it is still a judicial question
whether in the exercise of such competence,
the party adversely affected is a victim of
partiality and prejudice.
REPUBLIC vs. DE KNECHT
BP 340 effectively superseded the decision of
the court and the trial court did not commit
any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
the case pending before it on the ground of
the enactment of BP 340. Said decision is no
obstacle to the legislative arm of the
government.
MANOTOK vs. NHA
Fixing just compensation is a judicial
function. Market value alone cannot
substitute the courts judgment in
expropriation proceeding.
MILITANTE vs. CA
There is no extreme necessity to involve
judicial action if petitioner has not exhausted
his administrative remedies
SECTION 10: NO LAW IMPAIRING THE
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS SHALL BE
PASSED
When does law impair obligations of
contracts:
1. If it changes the terms and
conditions of a legal contract wither as
to the time or mode of performance
2. If it imposes new conditions or
dispenses with those expressed
3. If it authorizes for its satisfaction
something different from that provided
in its terms.
A mere change in procedural remedies which
does not change the substance of the
contract and which still leaves a remedy for
enforcement does not impair obligations of
contracts. (HOME BUILDING AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION vs. BLAISDELL; RUTTER vs.
ESTEBAN)
RUTTER vs. ESTEBAN
All contracts are made subject to an implied
reservation of the protective power of the
state and that therefore statutes, which
validly exercise this, reserved power does not
impair contracts (also held in DEL ROSARIO
vs. DE LOS SANTOS). In all cases:
impairment should only refer to the
remedy and not to substantive right,
state must postpone the enforcement
of obligation but cannot destroy it by
making the remedy futile and
the alteration or change that the new
legislation desires to write must not be
burdened with restrictions and conditions
that would make the remedy hard to
pursue.
Therefore, police power may only be invoked
and justified by: 1) an emergency, 2)
temporary in nature, 3) can only be
exercised upon reasonable conditions.
JUAREZ vs. CA
Housing
The non-impairment clause is not absolute.
As long as the contract affects public welfare,
the government may validly assert police
power over the impairment clause.
PHILIPPINE VETERAN BANK EMPLOYEES
UNION vs. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK
The contract may be altered validly if it
involves the public interest, to which private
interests must yield "as a postulate of the
existing social order. In Norman vs.
Baltimore, the court stressed that every
contract involving the public interest suffers
infirmity and may be changed if required by
public interest.
PRESLEY vs. BEL AIR VILLAGE
ASSOCIATION, INC
A municipal resolution, although not strictly
an ordinance is a zoning regulation which is a
police power measure which the municipality
has the power to pass. (Also held in ORTIGAS
vs. FEATI BANK)
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT and NEW
AGRIX vs. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK
There is violation of the contract clause if the
exercise of police power is invalid.
LIM vs. PACQUING
Franchise is a mere privilege, which is
revocable.
C&M TIMBER CORPORATION vs. ALCALA
Timber licenses, permits etc are only
privileges granted by the state and do not
vest a permanent irrevocable right to the
particular concession area and products
therein. A contract given by the state is
always revocable (also held in OPOSA vs.
FACTORAN; MINERS ASSOCIATION vs.
FACTORAN)
HARRISON MOTORS vs. NAVARRO
A memorandum order issued to enforce
payment of existing BIR tax and custom
duties does not enlarge, abridge nor change
the intention of the parties.
SECTION 11: FREE ACCESS TO THE
COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES
AND ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON
BY REASON OF POVERTY
SECTION 12: RIGHTS OF A PERSON
UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE vs. PAVILLARE
Custodial investigation commences when a
person is taken into custody and is singled
out as a suspect in the commission of the
crime under investigation and the police
officers begin to ask questions on the
suspects participation and which tend to
elicit information.
PEOPLE vs. LEGAZPI
When none of the people questioned are
singled out or pinpointed as perpetrators of
the crime, the questioning is not a custodial
investigation but merely a part of the general
exploratory stage.
OCA vs. SUMULONG
A custodial investigation is an investigation
conducted by the municipal police, PNP, NBI
and such other police agencies of our
government.
MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA
A. Must be recited:
You have a right to remain silent
Anything you say or do will be
used against you in court
You have a right to consult with a
lawyer and to have him during the
interrogation.
If you are an indigent, a lawyer
will be appointed to represent you.
B. Even if the person consents to answer
questions without the assistance of
counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer
at any point in the investigation, the
interrogation must cease until an attorney
is present.
C. If the foregoing protections and warnings
are not demonstrated during the trial to
have been observed by the prosecution,
no evidence obtained as a result of the
interrogation can be used against him.
PEOPLE V. MAHINAY
The person must be informed in a
language known and understood by him of
the reason for the arrest and he must be
shown the warrant of arrest, Every other
warnings, information or communication
must be in a language known to and
understood by said person.
Right to remain silent
Right to competent and independent
counsel preferably of his won choice
He must be informed that if he has no
lawyer or cannot afford the services of a
lawyer, one will be provided for him; and
that a lawyer may also be engaged by any
person in his behalf, or may be appointed
by the court upon petition to the person
arrested or one acting in his behalf.
Whether or not the person arrested has
a lawyer, no custodial investigation in any
form shall be conducted except in the
presence of his counsel or after a valid
waiver has been made.
Right to communicate or confer by the
most expedient means telephone, radio,
letter or message with his lawyer, any
member of his immediate family, or any
medical doctor, priest or minister chosen
by him or by any one from his immediate
family or by his counsel, or by visited by
or conferred with duly accredited national
or international non-government
organization. It shall be the responsibility
of the officer to ensure that this is
accomplished.
Right to waive any of said rights
provided that it is made voluntarily,
knowingly and intelligently and ensure
that he understood the same.
If the person waives his right to a
lawyer, he must be informed that it must
be done in writing and in the presence of
counsel, otherwise, he must be warned
that the waiver is void even if he insists
on his waiver and chooses to speak.
Person should be informed that he may
indicate in any manner at any time or
stage or the process that he does not wish
to be questioned with warning that once
he made such indication, the police may
 not interrogate him of the same had not police or outside the context of a formal
yet commenced or the interrogation must investigation. (PEOPLE vs. TAYLARAN).
be ceased if it has already begun. 4. Statements made to a private
After the initial waiver of silence, the person (PEOPLE vs. ZUELA).
other rights may still be invoked at any
time during the process. NOTE: RA 7438 has extended the
Any statement or evidence obtained in constitutional guarantee to situations in
violation of these rights will be which an individual has not been formally
inadmissible. arrested but has merely been invited for
questioning (PEOPLE vs. DOMATAY; PEOPLE
PEOPLE VS. SUNGA vs. TAN)
The duty of law enforcers to inform him of his
Constitutional rights during custodial REQUISITES FOR AN EXTRAJUDICIAL
interrogations to their full, proper and precise CONFESSION TO BE ADMISSABLE IN
extent. EVIDENCE (PEOPLE vs. OLIVARES)
1. confession must be voluntary
WHEN ARE THE RIGHTS AVAILBLE 2. confession must be made with the
(PEOPLE vs. TAN) assistance of a counsel
1. After a person has been taken into 3. confession must be express
custody 4. confession must be in writing
2. When a person is otherwise 5. signed or thumb marked by the
deprived of his freedom of action in any defendant
significant way (PEOPLE vs. CAGUIOA)
3. When the investigation is being SECTION 13: ALL PERSON, EXCCEPT
custody by the government with respect THOSE CHARGED WITH OFFENSES
to a criminal offense. (In PEOPLE vs. PUNISHABLE BY RECLUSION PERPETUA
MORADO, a baranggay captains WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG
conversation with the accused is part of SHALL BEFORE CONVICTION BE
an ongoing investigation. But in PEOPLE BAILABLE BY SUFFICIENT SURETIES OR
vs. ZUELA when accused talked with a RELEASED ON RECOGNIZANCE AS MAY
mayor AS CONFIDANT and not as a law BE PROVIDED BY LAW. THE RIGHT TO
enforcement officer, his admission is BAIL SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED WVWN
admissible ) WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
4. Signing of arrest report and booking HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED.
sheets (PEOPLE vs. SIMON) EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE
REQUIRED.
PEOPLE vs. TOLENTINO
For in custody confessions to be admissible,
the prosecution musth show that the I. RIGHT TO BAIL
constitutional safeguards were observed in
obtainng the confession (also held in LAVIDES vs. CA
MAGTOTO vs. MANGUERA) Bail should be given before arraignment.
Arraignment should not be made a condition
WHEN RIGHTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE to bail.
1. During police lineup (PEOPLE VS.
TOLENTINO). PEOPLE vs. GAKO JR.
2. During administrative investigations Judge did not hold hearing, merely based his
(NAVALLO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN) decision to grant bail from a medical
3. Confessions made by an accused at certificate 9 months old.
the time he voluntarily surrendered to the
Bail is a matter of right with respect to
persons charged with penalty of reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or death, when
evidence is strong. Before a bail is granted,
a hearing must be conducted in order to
determine whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong or not.
YAP vs. CA
Imposing bail in excessive amount could
render meaningless the right to bail. Setting
the bail in the amount of the civil liability is
excessive.
FACTORS TO CONSIDERED IN SETTING
THE AMOUNT OF BAIL (MAGSUCANG vs.
BALGOS)
a. Financial ability of the accused
b. Nature and circumstance of
the offense
c. Penalty for the offense
d. Character and reputation of
the accused
e. Age and health of the accused
f. Weight of evidence against
him
g. Probability of his appearance
in trail
h. Forfeiture of their bonds by
him
i. If the accused is a fugitive
from justice when arrested
j. Pendency of other cases
where he is also under bail.
SULE vs. BITENG
In hearings for bail, what should be
considered is the prima facie evidence and
not the penalty. In capital offenses, bail
would be granted only if the evidence of guilt
were not strong.
PADERANGA vs. CA
One who is under the custody of the law
either when he has been arrested or has
surrendered to the jurisdiction of the court
has a constitutional right to bail
CHIN vs. GUSTILO
Even if bail is a matter of right, there is still a
need to give notice to the fiscal for him to
attend the hearing for bail.
II. WAIVER OF THE RIGHT
PEOPLE vs. JUDGE DONATO
Accused charged with rebellion.
Compromise agreement is a valid waiver to
the right to bail
PEOPLE vs. MAPALAO
An accused who escapes from confinement or
jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, loses
his standing in court, and unless he
surrenders or submits himself to the
jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to
have waives any right to seek relief from the
Court.
III. EXCESSIVE BAIL
DE LA CAMARA vs. ENAGE
Where the right to bail exists, it should not
be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum
that is excessive. A bail of one million is
clearly excessive.
CHU vs. DOLALOS
Circular No. 8 which provides that bail should
be set at Php 1000 for every year taking into
consideration the maximum penalty for the
offense is instructive not only to fiscals and
their assistants but to the members of the
bench as well.
IV. PERSONS NOT ENTITLED TO BAIL
COMENDADOR vs. de VILLA
A soldier under court martial does not enjoy
the right to bail because of the different
disciplinary structure of the military as well
as their capability of causing havoc and
chaos.
PEOPLE vs. NITCHA
If an accused who is charged with a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted
by the trial courts and sentenced to suffer
such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of
right on the part of the accused nor a matter e. the right to compulsory
of discretion on the part of the court. Bail process to secure attendance of
must not be granted to accused during the witness.
pendency of his appeal because his
conviction clearly imports that the evidence 4. Right to be informed of nature and
of his guilt of the offense charged is strong. cuase of accusation against him

GOVERNMENT OF US vs. PURGANAN CONTENTS OF A CRIMINAL ACTION (PEOPLE

Right to bail is not applicable in extradition vs. QUITLONG)
proceedings. Constitutional bail is available a. the name of the accused
only in criminal proceedings. Extradition, b. the designation given to the
being sui generis and not a criminal offense by the statute
proceeding, the accused therefore has no c. statement of the acts or
inherent right to bail. The following are omission so complained of as
exceptions to this rule: constituting the offense
(1) applicant is not flight risk d. the name of the offended
(2) there exists a special party
humanitarian reason. e. the approximate time and fate
of the commission of the offense
SECTION 14 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS f. the place where the offense
OF THE ACCUSED (STARTS UPON has been committed
ARRAINGMENT)
5. Right to speedy impartial and public
trial
1. Criminal Due Process (NUNEZ vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN)
6. Right to meet witness face to face
a. accused to be heard in court
of competent jurisdiction (military
Exceptions:
tribunals have no jurisdiction over
a. admissibility of dying
civilians as held in OLAGUER vs.
declarations
MILITARY COMMISSION)
b. Trial in absentia.
b. Accused proceeded under
orderly process of law
7. Right to compulsory process to
c. Accused given notice and
secure attendance of witnesses and
opportunity to be heard
production of evidence
d. Judgment rendered was within
authority of a constitutional law
Available only if:
a. witness is really material
2. Presumption of Innocence
b. he is guilty of no neglect in
previously obtained the attendance of
3. Right to be heard by himself and
said witness
counsel
c. The witness will be available
at the time desired
ELEMENTS:
d. No similar evidence could be
a. the right to be present at the
obtained
trial
b. the right to counsel
Note: Trial in absentia is only allowed after
c. the right to an impartial judge
arraignment, accused duly notified of the trial
d. the right to confrontation
and absence is unjustified (PARADA vs,
VENERACION).

SECTION15 THE PRIVELEGE OF THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT
BE SUSPENDED EXCEPT IN CASES OF
INVASION OR REBELLION WHEN THE
PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT.
SECTION 16 ALL PERSONS SHALL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITON
OF THEIR CASES BEFORE ALL JUDICIAL,
QUASI JUDICIAL OR ADMIISTRATIVE
BODIES.
Note: Speedy trial in Section 14 covers only
the trial phase of criminal cases whereas
Section 16 covers all phases of any judicial
quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings.
PEOPLE vs. SESBRENO
The 90 day period applies only after the case
is submitted for decision, not from the start
of the trial.
BINAY vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
The right is deemed violated only when the
proceedings is attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
unjustified postponements of the trial are
asked for and secured, or when without
cause or justifiable motive a long period of
time is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried.
GONZALES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Equally applicable is the balancing test used
to determine whether a defendant has been
denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy
disposition of a case for that matter, in which
the conduct of both the prosecution and the
defendant are weighed and factors as length
of the delay, reason for the delay, the
defendants assertion or non-assertion of his
right, and prejudice to the defendant
resulting from the delay, are considered.
CERVANTES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Long delay (three years) in the termination
of the preliminary investigation by the
Tanodbayan" was violative of the
Constitutional right of "speedy disposition" of
cases because "political motivations played a
vital role in activating and propelling the
prosecutorial process in this case.
TY-DAZO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
In the determination of whether or not that
right has been violated, the factors that may
be considered and balanced are: The length
of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the
assertion or failure to assert such right by
the accused, and the prejudiced caused by
the delay. Mere Mathematical reckoning of
the time involved would not be sufficient.
Certain fact and circumstances peculiar to
each cases must also be taken into
consideration.
DOMINGO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
If the delay, if any, was actually more
beneficial, rather than prejudicial, to
petitioner in that it was intended to afford
him the opportunity to refute the charges
made against him, there is no violation of
right.
CASTILLO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
While petitioners certainly have the right to a
speedy disposition of their case, the
structural reorganization of the prosecutorial
agencies, the procedural changes brought
about by the Zaldivar case as well as the
Sandiganbayan's heavy caseload certainly
are valid reasons for the delay in the
disposition of petitioners' case. For those
reasons, the delay certainly cannot be
considered as vexatious, capricious and
oppressive.
LOPEZ vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
The constitutional right to speedy trial is not
limited to accused in criminal proceedings
but extends to all parties in all cases
including civil and administrative cases and
all proceeding including judicial and quasi
judicial.
PEOPLE vs. MONJE
To order the remand of the criminal case to
the court to enable the prosecution to
prevent additional evidence would violate the constitutes an evidence against the accused.
constitutional right to speedy determination (also held in BERMUDEZ vs. CASTILLO)
of case.
CHAVEZ vs. CA
SECTION 17 NO PERSON SHALL BE Compelling a petitioner to take the witness
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAISNT stand is a violation of Section 17.
HIMSELF
PASCUAL vs. BOARD OF MEDICAL
EXAMINERS
TWO TYPES OF EVIDENCES
The constitutional guarantee against self
A. Real Evidence Evidence furnished
incrimination extends even to administrative
by things themselves on view or
proceeding which possess criminal or penal
inspection as distinguished from a
aspect.
description of them by the mouth of the
witness
PEOPLE vs. GAMBOA
B. Testimonial evidence any form of
Paraffin test is admissible. (also held in
communication which requires the
PEOPLE vs. CANCERAN; In PEOPLE vs.
application of intelligence elicited from a
TRANCA, it was held that Ultra violet ray test
witness, it may be oral or written.
is also admissible).
VILLAFLOR vs. SUMMERS
PEOPLE vs. GO
This right may be invoked against testimonial
Certification regarding the receipt issued to
compulsion only.
defendants that said defendants are the
owners of the seized drugs cannot be used as
UNITED STATES vs. NAVARRO
evidence against the because it would be
ISABELA SUGAR CO. vs. MACADAEG
tantamount to an admission of guilt where
Usually a crime or a criminal act may contain
counsel is needed.
two or more elements and that a question
would have a tendency to incriminate, even if
REGALA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
it tends to elicit only one of the said
Lawyers cannot be compelled to reveal the
elements. The right thus includes a right to
names of their clients because this in effect
refuse to testify to a fact which would be a
will be incriminating to them.
necessary link in a chain of evidence to prove
the commission of a crime by a witness.
PEOPLE vs. MALIMIT
The right against self-incrimination does not
US. vs. TAN TENG
apply when the evidence sought to be
What is prohibited by the constitutional
excluded is not an incriminating statement
guarantee is the use of physical or moral
but an object evidence.
compulsion to extort communication from the
witness, not an inclusion of his body in evide
Note: This right may be invoked in any
when it is material. Thus, substance emitting
judicial or administrative proceeding or in
from the body of the defendant can be
any official government enquiry from the
received as evidence. (also held in US. vs.
moment one is asked to testify.
ONG; VILLAFLOR vs. SUMMERS)

BELTRAN vs. SAMSON

Writing is not a purely mechanical act, SECTION 18
because it requires the application of (1) NO PERSON SHALL BE DETAINED
intelligence and attention, therefore, it SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL
BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS
(2) NO VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN ANY
FORM SHALL EXIST EXCEPT AS
PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME WHEREOF
THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY
CONVICTED
Protects the freedom of political belief
The guarantee does not ad anything to
the substantive due process clause not
to the guarantee of freedom of speech,
press and expression in section 4.
Involuntary servitude connotes
compulsory service
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) punishment for a crime where the
party was duly convicted
(b) national defense requirement
(c)a validity issued return to work order,
especially with regards to industries
affecting public interest.
(d) Merchant mannes may be
compelled to remain in such service
until the end of voyage for which he
contracted. Otherwise, it would be
possible for its crew to desert the ship
in a foreign port.
(e) A POSSE COMITATUS
persons/males of a certain age may be
validly pressed into service for the
apprehension of criminal via legitimate
exercise of police power.
(f) Parental authority
US vs. CABANAG
While the constitutional prohibition operated
to nullify agreements violative if it,
suppletory legislation was required to give
the prohibition penal effect.
DE LOS REYES vs. ALOJADO
Domestic service is always to be
remunerated, and no agreement may subsist
in law in which it is stipulated that any
domestic service shall be absolutely
gratuitous.
ACLARACION vs. GATMAITAN
The court stenographer may be compelled
under pain of contempt to transcribe
stenographic notes he had failed to attend to
while still in service. Such a compulsion is
not the condition of enforced, compulsory
service referred to in the constitution.
SECTION 19 EXCESSIVE FINES SHALL
NOT BE IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL,
DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT
INFLICTED. NEITHER SHALL DEATH
PENALTY BE IMPOSED, UNLESS, FOR
COMPELLING REASONS INVOLVING
HEINOUS CRIMES, THE CONGRESS
HEREAFTER PROVIDES FOR IT. ANY
DEATH PENALTY ALREADY IMPOSED
SHALL BE REDUCED TO RECLUSION
PERPETUA.
Employment of physical, psychological or
degrading punishment against any prisoner
or detainee or the use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
To be cruel and unusual or excessive
within the meaning of the constitution,
the penalty must be flagrantly
disproportionate to the offense no
matter under what circumstances the
offense may be committed
Excessive fines are fines that are
disproportionate to the circumstance of
the offense and the offender as provide
by Article 26 of the RPC.
Article 66 provides that in imposing
fines, the courts may fix any amount
within the limits established by law, in
fixing the amount in each case
attention shall be given, not only to the
mitigating and aggravating
circumstance, nit more particularly to
the weal and means of the culprit.
LEGARDA vs. VALDEZ
The phrase cruel and unusual embodied an
inseparable pair: to be prohibited by this
provision the punishment must not only be
unusual but it must also be cruel. A law
which changes the penalty so as to make it
less severe would be unconstitutional if the
new penalty were an unusual one.

PEOPLE vs. PUDA
Guideline in determining if a punishment
is cruel and unusual:
1) punishment must no be so severe as to
be degrading to the dignity of human
beings
2) It must not be applied arbitrarily
3) It must not be unacceptable to
contemporary society
4) It must not be excessive e.g. it must
serve a penal purpose more effectively
than a less severe punishment would.
Factors to consider if a penalty is cruel
1) the nature of the penalty
2) the nature of the penalty as against
penalties of other crimes of the same
nature
3) the act itself.
PEOPLE vs. ESTOISTA
A punishment is degrading or inhuman when
it is barbarous and shocking to the
conscience and moral sense of the
community.
PEOPLE vs. DAPITAN
(Robbery with homicide for killing Amils (the
owner of the house) adopted son)
The penalty of reclusion perpetua was not
harsh and it is sanctioned by law. The
penalty to be cruel, degrading and human
must take more than merely being harsh,
excessive and out of proportion or severe. It
must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive
disproportionate to the nature of the offense
so as to shock the moral sense of the
community or when they involve torture and
lingering death.
BAYLOSIS vs. CHAVEZ
(reclusion perpetua for illegal possession of
firearm in furtherance of rebellion which in
turn is just punished with prison mayor)
A penalty through harsh is not cruel. Mere
severity does not constitute cruel
punishment.
PADILLA vs. CA
(Robin Padilla convicted with the crime of
illegal possession of firearm)
As far as constitutional prohibition goes, it is
not so much the extent as the nature of the
punishment that determines whether it is or
is not cruel and unusual. Sentences of
imprisonment though perceived to be harsh
are not cruel and unusual if within the
statutory limits. The fact that the
punishment is authorized by the statute is
severe does not make it cruel or unusual.
PEOPLE vs. MUNOZ
(defendants committed murder qualified by
treachery that was punished by death)
Constitution did not abolish death penalty but
merely prohibited its imposition. While the
imposition of death penalty may lead to
certain inequalities, such is a question of
wisdom/legislation and not judicial
construction.
PEOPLE vs. AMIGO
(in heat of argument due to a car accident,
Amigo stabbed the driver of the other car;
reclusion perpetua)
A reading of Section 19(1) of the constitution
will readily show that there is really nothing
therein which expressly declares the abolition
of the death penalty. The provision merely
says that death penalty shall not be imposed
unless for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes the congress provides for.
Article III section 19 does not change the
penalty prescribed for murder except only
insofar as it prohibited the imposition of
death penalty and reduces it to reclusion
perpetua. The remedy for harsh penalties is
lodged not on the courts clemency is to be
given by the executive or an amendment of
the law by the legislative.
PEOPLE vs. ECHEGARAY
The congress has the power to restore the
death penalty which merely requires that (1)
the congress define or describe what is
meant by heinous crimes; (2) that congress
specify and penalize by death only crimes
that qualify as heinous in accordance with
the definition or description set in the death
penalty bill (3) the congress should be
singularly motivated by compelling reason
involving heinous crimes.
We must take into consideration the
irreparable injury to both the victim and
society and the threat that repetition of those
heinous acts would bring about.
PEOPLE V. ALICANTE
(rape as barbaric excessive, cruel and
unusual punishment)
To say that the crime of incestuous rape is
not heinous simply because the victim did
not die is to ignore the lifelong trauma and
stigma of the victim brought about by rape.
LIM V. PEOPLE
(bouncing checks; PD 818 increasing the
penalty for estafa)
When punishment authorized by statute it is
not cruel, degrading or disproportionate to
the nature of the offense unless it is
flagrantly and plainly oppressive and wholly
disproportionate to the nature of the offense
as to shock the moral sense of the
community. It takes more than merely being
harsh, excessive, out of proportion or severe
for a penalty to be obnoxious to the
constitution.
The increase in the penalty, far from being
cruel and degrading, was motivated by a
laudable purpose, namely, to effectuate the
repression of an evil that undermines the
countrys commercial and economic growth,
and to serve as a necessary precaution to
deter people from issuing bouncing checks.
DEATH PENALTY
PEOPLE V. GABIANA
(rape; death penalty as anti-poor)
The court did not touch upon the anti-poor
allegations of the death penalty law, as it
found that the relationship between the
accused and the victim was not established,
because the victim was not the daughter of
the accused, the penalty imposed was
modified to reclusion perpetua.
PAGDAYAWON V. SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE
(reexamination of RA 7659 or the Heinous
Crimes Law and RA 8177 or the Lethal
Injection Law)
The constitutionality of the said ACTS had
been passed upon by the court in People v.
Echegaray and sustained in People v.
Mercado, wherein the ff. rulings were made:
1. The death penalty is not a cruel,
unjust, excessive or unusual
punishment. It is an exercise of the
states power to secure society against
threatened and actual evil.
2. The offenses for which RA 7659
provides the death penalty satisfy the
element of heinousness by specifying
circumstances which generally qualify a
crime to be punishable by death
3. RA 7659 provides both procedural and
substantial safeguard to insure its
correct application
The constitution does not require that a
positive manifestation in the form of a higher
incidence of crime should first be perceived
and statistically proven before the death
penalty may be prescribed. Congress is
authorized under the constitution to
determine when the element of heinousness
and compelling reason are present, and the
court would exceed its authority if it
questioned the exercise of such discretion.
SECTION 20 NO PERSON SHALL BE
IMPRISONED FOR DEBT OR NON-
PAYMENT OF A POLL TAX.
Person may be imprisoned as a penalty
for a crime arising from a contractual
debt and imposed in a proper criminal
proceeding
Debt is the obligation to pay money
arising from a contract express or
implied
A person may be imprisoned for
fraudulent debt only:
(1) if the fraudulent debt consists of
a crime (estafa)
(2) the accused has been convicted.
 SECTION 21 NO PERSON SHALL BE
LOZANO vs. MARTINEZ TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OR
(bouncing check law assailed as PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.
unconstitutional) IF AN ACT IS PUNISHED BY LAW AND
The graveman of the offense punished by BP AN ORDINANCE, CONVICTION OR
22 is the act of issuing a worthless check or a ACQUITTAL UNDER EITHER SHALL
check that is dishonored. It is not the CONSTITUTE A BAR TO ANOTHER
nonpayment of an obligation that is PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME ACT.
penalized. The thrust of the law is to
prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the
Jeopardy means danger
making of worthless checks (also held in
Requisites for a valid defense of double
RECUERDO vs. PEOPLE)
jeopardy:
CARAM RESOURCES vs. CONTRERAS 1) FIRST JEOPARDY MUST ATTACHED
(judge faces administrative charges; Php PRIOR TO THE SECOND
5,000 loan from CARAM, Dizon executed a) upon a valid information or
promissory note; BP 22 assailed as indictment
unconstitutional) (1) complaint
BP 22 is constitutionally valid, it being a (2) information
legitimate exercise of police power. The clear Note: both substance and form must be
intent if the Legislature was to make the valid:
offense malum prohibitum. Malice and intent (1) substance when the complain
in issuing a worthless check is immaterial. It adequately informed the accused of the
is commuted by mere act of issuing a nature and cause of the accusations
worthless check that is punished. which means that:
1.1 the essential facts are alleged
TIOMICO V. COURT OF APPEALS 1.2 the legal description of the
(PD 115 or Trust receipts Law which punishes offense is alleged
non-payment of credit loan as 1.3 in ordinary and concise language
unconstitutional for violating Section 20) (2) form
Said law does not violate the proscription Note: if defective, the remedy is to quash
against imprisonment for non-payment of the information
debts. It is a declaration by the legislative
authority that as a matter of public policy, b) there must be a competent court
the failure of a person to turn over the with jurisdiction to hear and
proceeds of the sale of goods covered by a decide the case (geographical
trust receipt or to return said goods if not proper place; and jurisdictional
sold is a public nuisance to be abated by the has jurisdiction over the crime
imposition of penal sanctions. aspects)
The trust receipts law punished the Note: if filed in improper court, remedy is
dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the dismissal
handling or money or goods to the prejudice c) After arraignment without this,
of another regardless of whether the latter is the court has no jurisdiction over
the owner or not. The law does not seek to the body of the accused
enforce payment of a loan. Thus, there can d) After a valid plea there must be
be no violation of the right against no withdrawal of original plea.
imprisonment for non-payment of a debt. (1) the accused must know
enough about the cause and
nature of the offense charged
against him/her
 (2) if the guilty plea is
entered, the court cannot
summarily convict the accused
on the basis of evidence to
prove mitigating circumstance,
to do so would deprive the state
of due process first jeopardy
does not attach.
2) FIRST JEOPARDY MUST HAVE
TERMINATED
a) upon acquittal
(1) failure to prove beyond
reasonable doubt
(2) erroneous judgment that
has attained finality
(3) dismissed on prescription
(4) dismissal was due to
violation o the defendants right
to speedy trial
Note: Acquittal, the case was decided based
on merits but the prosecution was not able to
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Dismissal is based on the allegation of the
courts jurisdiction, or any other ground that
does not decide the merits of the issue.
b) Final Conviction
(1) appeal period expires
(2) service of sentence has
been totally or partially served
(3) express waiver in writting
(4) applied for probation
c) dismissal of the case based on
the merits lack of evidence
3) SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE
SAME OFFENSE
a) identical
b) when it is an attempt or
frustration of the other
c) when it is necessarily included in
the first offense or when it
includes the first offense
d) subject to the doctrine of
supervening fact/event
One may be charged for the
same act if it constitutes at least two
different offenses under two statutes or
two ordinances as provided by the
elements of committing the crime.
Conviction or acquittal in one will serve
as a bar to prosecution under the other.
This does not apply to continuing
crimes.
DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING
FACT where after the first
prosecution, a new fact supervenes, for
which the defendant is responsible,
which together with the existing facts,
changes the character of the offense,
such constitutes a new and distinct
offense and the accused cannot be
said to be in double jeopardy if indicted
for the new offense.
RATIONALE: the rule of identity of offense
does not apply when the second offense was
not in existence at the time of the first
prosecution for the simple reason that in
such case, there is no possibility of convicting
the accused during the first prosecution for
yet inexistent second offense.
I. ATTACHMENT OF JEOPARDY
PEOPL vs. YLAGAN
Arraignment and plea constitute the final
step in the commencement of jeopardy. It is
at the arraignment and plea that issues are
joined. Jeopardy attaches (a) upon a good
indictment, (b) before competent court, (c)
after arraignment, (d) after plea.
PEOPLE vs. BALISACAN
The nature of Balicasacans evidence
amounted to withdrawal of his plea of guilty,
and since no new plea was entered, there
was no jeopardy, which the acquittal could
terminate.
CINCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Petitioners apprehension that they might be
put in JEOPARDY of being charged with
informations or crimes other than the crime
imputed is baseless. No DOUBLE JEOPARDY
as they have not yet pleaded to the offense.
A preliminary investigation is not a trial for
which double jeopardy attaches. It is merely
inquisitorial, and is often the only means of
discovering the persons who may be
reasonably charged with a crime, to enable
the fiscal to prepare his complaint or
information.

NAVALLO vs. SANDIGAN BAYAN
P.D. 1606 is explicit and clear. The
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case
of petitioner.
When all elements are present, a second
prosecution for (a) same offense, or (b) an
attempt to commit the said offense, or (c) a
frustration of the said offense, or (d) any
offense which necessarily includes, or is
necessarily included in the first offense
charged, can rightly be barred.
In the case at bench, the RTC was devoid
of jurisdiction when it conducted an
arraignment of the accused, which by then
had already been conferred on the
Sandiganbayan. Moreover, neither did the
case there terminate with conviction or
acquittal nor was it dismissed.
CUNANAN vs. ARCEO
(murder; transfer to Sandiganbayan before
RTC made a decision)
The dismissal of the Information by the RTC
was not equivalent to, and did not operate as
an acquittal of petitioner of that offense. The
dismissal (later deleted by the RTC) had
simply reflected the fact that the proceedings
before the RTC were terminated, the RTC
having ascertained that it had not jurisdiction
to try the case at all. No double jeopardy
when case transferred to Sandiganbayan
after trial but before decision was rendered
at the RTC. RTC had no jurisdiction, therefore
accused was not in jeopardy.
PEOPLE vs. MONTESA
Once a criminal complaint or information is
filed in court, any disposition (dismissal or
conviction), rests in the sound discretion of
the court. While the prosecutor retains the
discretion and control of the prosecution of
the case, he cannot impose his opinion on
the court. Accordingly, a motion to dismiss
the case filed by the prosecutor after a
reinvestigation should be addressed to the
discretion of the court. The action of the
court must not, however, impair the
substantial rights of the accused or the right
of the People to due process of law.
The decision of the judge based on his belief
that arraignment which was immediately
followed by the dismissal of the case would
forever be foreclosed, on the ground of
double jeopardy, any reopening of the case,
is void.
DELA ROSA vs. CA
Double jeopardy cannot apply in the instant
case. The requisites that must occur for legal
jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid complaint
or information; (b) a court of competent
jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to
the charge; and (d) the accused has been
convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed
or terminated without the express consent of
the accused. The fourth requisite is lacking.
The dismissal of the case was upon the
motion of the petitioner as shown by the
records.
PEOPLE vs. CAWALINGA
Appellants were never arraigned, they never
pleaded before the Judge Advocate Generals
Office, there was no trial, and no judgment
on the merits had been rendered. Therefore,
first jeopardy never attached.
CUDIA vs. CA
(cure for defective jurisdiction and filing of
info; valid complaint)
There is no breach of the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy for the
reason that the absence of the authority of
the city prosecutor.
PEOPLE vs. MAQUILING
An appeal or a petition for review of a
judgment of acquittal is barred by the rule on
double jeopardy.
II. TERMINATION OF JEOPARDY
BULALONG vs. PEOPLE
It is the conviction, acquittal of the accused
or dismissal or termination of the case that
bars further prosecution for the same offense
or 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 former
complaint or information.
BUSTAMANTE vs. MACEREN
As a general rule, where the defendant has
executed or entered upon the execution of a
valid sentence, the court cannot, even during
the 15-day period, set aside and render a
new sentence.
A judgment of conviction may only be
modified or set aside before it has become
final or appeal has been perfected. A
judgment becomes final when no appeal is
filed or the defendant has totally or partially
satisfied the sentence.
PEOPLE vs. OBSTANSIA
The application of the sister doctrines of
waiver and estoppel requires two sine qua
non conditions: first, the dismissal must be
sought or induced by the defendant
personally or through his counsel; and
second, such dismissal must not be on the
merits and must not necessarily amount to
an acquittal. Indubitably, the case at bar falls
squarely within the periphery of the said
doctrines, which have been preserved
unimpaired in the corpus of our
jurisprudence. Hence, the accused cannot
plead double jeopardy.
RIVERA vs. PEOPLE
Verbal dismissal is not final until written and
signed by the judge
PEOPLE vs. BELLAFLOR
Protection against double jeopardy is not
available where the dismissal of the case was
effected at the instance of the accused.
MERCIALES vs. CA
The acquittal of the accused by the court a
quo was done without due regard to due
process of law, the same is null and void. It
is as if there is no acquittal at all, and the
same cannot constitute a claim for double
jeopardy.
POSO vs. MEJIARES
Lowering of the penalty to qualify the
accused for probation, the authorization for
temporary liberty on recognizance and finally
the grant of probation, the orders of the
respondent judge arising from these
proceedings do not constitute res judicata or
even double jeopardy.
PEOPLE vs. ALBERTO
No double jeopardy has attached when order
made by the trial court was not valid.
CONRADA vs. PEOPLE
General rule: following requisites must be
present for double jeopardy to attach:
1) a valid indictment
2) before a court of competent jurisdiction
3) the arraignment of the accused
4) a valid plea entered by him
The acquittal or conviction of the accused, or
the dismissal or termination of the case
against him without his express consent
Two exceptions to the foregoing rule:
a) insufficiency of charge against
the accused
b) unreasonable delay in the
proceedings (violation of rt. To speedy
disposition of trial)
PEOPLE vs. ROMERO
There can be no double jeopardy where
dismissal was granted on the ground of
denial of the right to a speedy trial. The
dismissal in this case was with the consent of
the accused.
PEOPLE vs. PABLO
When dismissal constitutes abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction,
the dismissal is invalid and is therefore no
bat to reinstatement of the case.
III. RULE ON SUPERVENING ACTS
MELO vs. PEOPLE
The rule for the identity if offenses do not
apply when the second offense was not in
existence at the time of the first prosecution.
Where after the fist prosecution a new fact
supervenes for which the defendant for which
the defendant is responsible, which changes
the character of the offense and together
with the facts existing at the time, constitute
a new and distinct offense, the accused
cannot be said to be in double jeopardy of
indicted for the new offense.
PEOPLE vs. BULING
Where the exact nature of the injury could
have been discovered, but was not, because
of the incompetence of the physician, the
subsequent discovery of the real extent of
the injury would not be supervening fact
which could warrant the Melo doctrine.
IV. SAME OFFENSES
PEOPLE vs. TIOZON
Double jeopardy can be invoked only if the
offenses committed are the same and
identical. Offenses committed arising from
the same set of facts but defined in 2
different laws or provisions of the same law,
where the elements of one of the offenses
are not essential elements of the other, prior
jeopardy as to one of them does not bar the
prosecution.
GONZALEZ vs. CA
Rape and qualified seduction are not identical
offenses. While the two felonies have one
common element, i.e. carnal knowledge of a
woman, they significantly vary in all other
respects.
PEOPLE vs. MANUGAS
A person who violates any of the provisions
under Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the
Labor Code can be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment and estafa
[RPC, Art 315, 2(a)] because illegal
recruitment is a malum prohibitum where the
criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for a conviction while estafa is a
malum in se where criminal intent of the
accused is necessary for a conviction.
PEOPLE vs. QUIJADA
In the present case, they are separate
offenses, the first punished under the RPC
and the second under a special law.
When the offenses charged are penalized by
different sections of the same statute or by
different statutes, the important inquiry
relates to the identity of offenses charged.
The elements of illegal possession of firearm
in its aggravated form are different from the
elements of homicide or murder; these
crimes are defined and penalized under
different laws and the former is malum
prohibitum while the latter are mala in se. No
violation of the constitutional bar against
double jeopardy
PEOPLE vs. BALLABARE
Homicide/murder committed through use of
unlicensed firearm is punished in the
aggravated form of illegal possession of
firearm under PD 1866 but People v. Quijada
states that the person can be guilty of 2
separate offenses (under RPC and PD 1866
sec.1 par.2)
PEOPLE vs. SALEY
Conviction for various offenses under the
Labor Code does not bar the punishment of
the offender for estafa in RPC.
V. NO APPEAL FROM ACQUITTAL
SAN VICENTE vs. PEOPLE
The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence
is left to the sound discretion of the trial
court, and its ruling on the matter will be
respected absent any grave abuse of
discretion. A grant of demurrer is effectively
an acquittal and any further prosecution of
the accused would violate the Constitutional
prohibition on double jeopardy. This is an
exception to the rule that the dismissal of a
criminal case made with the express consent
of the accused or upon his own motion bars a
plea of double jeopardy. They call this the
Finality of Acquittal Rule.
VI. PARTIES
METROBANK vs. MERIDIANO
That there is no indication that the trial was a A bill of attainder is a legislative act which
sham, a review and consequent setting aside inflicts punishment without judicial trial.
of TCs decision amounts to double jeopardy
ELEMENTS OF A BILL OF ATTAINDER
VII. ORDINANCE AND STATUTE there must be a law
the law imposes a penal burden
PEOPLE vs. RELOVA on a named individual or easily
When the offenses charged are penalized ascertainable members of a group
either by different section of the same statue the penal burden is imposed
or by different statutes the important inquiry directly by law without judicial trial
relates to the identity of the offenses
charged. When the offense is charged under
a municipal ordinance while the other is ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
penalized by a statute. The critical inquiry is
SECTION 1. THE FOLLOWING ARE
to the identity f the acts which the accused is
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES:
said to have committed. If the acts are the
same. 1. THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF
THE PHILIPPINES AT THE TIME OF
THE ADOPTION OF THIS
CONSTITUTION;
SECTION 22 NO EX POST FACTO LAW OR
BILL OF ATTAINDER SHALL BE ENACTED 2. THOSE WHOSE FATHERS OR
MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE
PHILIPPINES;
IN RE KAY VILLEGAS KAMI
3. THOSE BORN BEFORE
An ex post facto is one:
JANUARY 17, 1973, OF FILIPINO
1. which makes an action done
MOTHERS, WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE
before the passing of the law and which
CITIZENSHIP UPON REACHING THE
was innocent when done criminal, and
AGE OF MAJORITY; AND
punishes such an action.
2. Aggravates the crime than when 4. THOSE WHO ARE
it was committed NATURALIZED IN ACCORDANCE
3. Changes the punishment and WITH LAW.
inflicts a greater one than when it was SECTION 2. NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS
committed ARE THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence PHILIPPINES FROM BIRTH WITHOUT
and receives a different testimony than HAVING TO PERFORM ANY ACT TO
the law required at the rime of the ACQUIRE OR PERFECT THEIR
commission of the crime. PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. THOSE WHO
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IN
but in effect imposes a penalty or ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (3),
deprivation of a right SECTION 1 HEREOF SHALL BE DEEMED
6. Deprives a person accused of a NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS.
crime of some lawful protection. SECTION 3. PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED IN THE
CALDER vs. BULL MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.
A law on criminal procedure which alters SECTION 4. CITIZENS OF THE
legal rules is an ex post facto law. PHILIPPINES WHO MARRY ALIENS
SHALL RETAIN THEIR CITIZENSHIP,
CUMMINGS vs. MISSOURI UNLESS BY THEIR ACT OR OMISSION
THEY ARE DEEMED, UNDER THE LAW, TO
HAVE RENOUNCED IT.
SECTION 5. DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF
CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE
NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE
DEALT WITH BY LAW.
ARTICLE V - SUFFRAGE
SECTION 1. SUFFRAGE MAY BE
EXERCISED BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE
PHILIPPINES NOT OTHERWISE
DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT
LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND
WHO SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE
PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR
AND IN THE PLACE WHEREIN THEY
PROPOSE TO VOTE FOR AT LEAST SIX
MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
ELECTION.NO LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT
SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE
OF SUFFRAGE.
SECTION 2. THE CONGRESS SHALL
PROVIDE A SYSTEM FOR SECURING THE
SECRECY AND SANCTITY OF THE BALLOT
AS WELL AS A SYSTEM FOR ABSENTEE
VOTING BY QUALIFIED FILIPINOS
ABROAD.
THE CONGRESS SHALL ALSO DESIGN A
PROCEDURE FOR THE DISABLED AND
THE ILLITERATES TO VOTE WITHOUT
THE ASSISTANCE OF OTHER PERSONS.
UNTIL THEN, THEY SHALL BE ALLOWED
TO VOTE UNDER EXISTING LAWS AND
SUCH RULES AS THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS MAY PROMULGATE TO
PROTECT THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.
Note: the following persons are not qualified
to vote under the election code:
Any person who has been sentenced by
final judgment to suffer an
imprisonment of not less than one year
such disability not having been
removed by plenary pardon
Any person who has been adjudged by
final judgment by competent court of
having violated his allegiance to the RP.
Insane and feeble minded persons