Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
PBMEO vs. Philippine Blooming Mills Company Inc.
• While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of
human rights over property rights is recognized. Because these
freedoms are delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our
society and the threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as
potently as the actual application of sanctions, they need breathing space
to survive, permitting government regulation only with narrow specificity.
Property and property rights can be lost through prescription; but
human rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished
by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt
to limit the power of government ceases to be an efficacious shield
against the tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the influential and
powerful, and of oligarchs-political, economic, or otherwise.
• The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by
the fact that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means
employed by the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive,
would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights.
On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights
requires a more stringent criterion, namely, existence of a grave and
immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to
prevent.
Tupas vs. CA
• Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of
justice and the protection of substantive rights in judicial and extrajudicial
proceedings. It is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and adjective
law are contradictory to each other or, as has often been suggested, that
enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it will result in
prejudice to substantive rights of litigants. This is not exactly true; the
concept is much misunderstood. As a matter of fact, the policy of the
courts is to give effect to both kinds of law, as complementing each
other, in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the
parties. Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally
guaranteed by due process, whatever the source of such rights, be it the
Constitution itself or only a statute or a rule of court.
Ang Tibay vs. CIR
• Cardinal rights in proceedings:
o Right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested
to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof.
o Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
o The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected.
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms
are used therein or because of the employment of terms without defining
them.
• The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is
whether the language conveys a sufficiently defined warning as to the
proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and
practice.
• Overbreadth Doctrine: a governmental purpose may not be achieved by
means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms.
People vs. Nazario
• For a statute to be declared null and void, an act must be utterly vague on
its face and cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction.
• This must be distinguished from legislation couched on imprecise language,
and a statute which is apparently ambiguous, yet applicable to certain
types of activities.
PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz
• Other requirements of due process:
o Notice and hearing
o Statutory requisites of reasonableness
Lao Gi
• Considering that deportation is a harsh and extraordinary administrative
proceeding affecting the liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such
person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the
rules of court of the Philippines, particularly on criminal procedure are
applicable in deportation proceedings.
ADMU vs. Capulong
• Minimum standards to be observed by schools in disciplinary proceedings:
o Students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of
any accusation against them;
o They shall have the right to answer the charges against them with
assistance of counsel;
o They shall be informed of evidence against them;
o They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf;
o The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated to hear and decide the case.
• School administrative disciplinary proceedings is not subject to the rigorous
requirement of criminal due process.
Medenilla vs. CSC
Page 1
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• The opportunity to be heard is the very essence of PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS.
Maceda vs. ERB
• Administrative agencies are not bound by the strict or technical rules of
evidence in court proceedings.
Aris vs. NLRC
• The right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural, or inherent right. It is a
statutory privilege of statutory origin, and therefore, available if
granted or provided by statute.
• The revised rules of court allows execution pending appeal and the grant
thereof is left to the discretion of the court upon good reasons to be stated
in the special order.
• The absence of specification of the offense for which he was eventually
found guilty is not a proper observance of due process.
• It is a requirement of due process that the parties be informed of how
litigation was decided with factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the Court.
• A decision is void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is
deprived of the opportunity to be heard.
Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
• Extradition proceeding is not a criminal proceeding which will call into
operation all the rights of the accused as guaranteed by the bill of rights.
Extradition proceedings do not involve the determination of guilt/innocence
of the accused.

Telan vs. CA Extradition Proceedings Criminal Proceedings

• The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times. In Proceeding is summary in nature Requires a full blown trial and
litigation, it must be a right exercised every step of the way. hearing.
Joson vs. Torres There are less stringent standards in the Admission of evidence must be
• An erring elective official has rights akin to the constitutional rights of the admission of evidence under strict compliance of the
accused: Rules of Court
o The right to appeal and defend himself in person or by counsel Quantum of evidence necessary is upon Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
o The right to confront/cross-examine witnesses that are against showing of a Prima Facie case
him. Court may adjudge an individual to be Judgement is final by the Courts.
o The right to compulsory attendance of witnesses and the extraditable but the president has the final
production of documentary evidence. discretion to extradite him.

Pefianco vs. Moral Lazaro vs. CA

• A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be
informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating
committee created to insure into charges filed against him – he is
entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence
made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and
evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigation
committee.
Roxas and Co., Inc. vs. CA
• The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be
observed in taking private property.
• The procedure in the sending of notices is important to comply with the
requisites of due process especially when the owner is a juridical entity.
Summary Dismissal Board vs. Torcita
• A finding of guilt, no matter how light, for which one is not properly
charged and tried cannot be countenanced without violating the
rudimentary requirement of due process.
• Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their
non-observance may have resulted to a party’s prejudice to his substantive
rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the
most persuasive reasons when they ma be relaxed to relieve of an injustice
not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness In not complying
with the procedure proscribed.
Agabon vs. NLRC
• To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the existence of a just
and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the
opportunity to be heard and defend himself.
• Statutory due process should be differentiated from failure to comply with
constitutional due process. Constitutional due process protects the
individual from government, and assures him of his rights in criminal, civil,
or administrative proceedings while statutory due process found in labor
code and implementing rules protects employees from being unjustly
terminated without notice and hearing.
US vs. Toribio

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 2

Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• To justify the State in exercising police power it must appear that:
o The interest of the public, generally, as distinguished from those
of a particular class, require such interference
o That the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment
of such purpose.
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. To legally achieve that result, the owner should be given just
compensation and the opportunity to be heard.
Ynot vs. IAC
• It is also conceded that summary action may be validly taken in
administrative proceedings as procedural due process is not necessarily
judicial only. In the exceptional cases accepted, however, there is a
justification for the omission of the right to a previous hearing, to wit, the
immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected, and the urgency of
the need to correct it.
Magtajas vs. Pryce
• Test of the validity of an ordinance:
o Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
o Must not be unfair or oppressive
o Must not be partial or discriminatory
o Must not prohibit but may regulate trade
o Must be general and consistent with public policy
o It must not be unreasonable.
JMM Productions vs. CA
• Classification must be based on real and substantial differences having
reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation
Corona vs. United Harbor
• Procedural due process refers to the method or manner in which the law is
enforced; substantive due process requires that the law itself, not merely
the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and
just.
• Notice and hearing – as the fundamental requirement of procedural due
process – are essential only when the administrative body exercises its
quasi-judicial function, but in the performance of its executive or legislative
functions, such as issuing rules and regulations, an administrative body
need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing.
Fraternal Order of Utopia
People vs. Cayat
• Test of Reasonable Classification:
o Must rest on substantial distinctions
o Must be germane to the purposes of the law
o Must not be limited to the existing conditions only
o Must apply equally to all members of the same class
Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho
• While it is true that the Philippines as a state is not obliged to admit aliens
within its territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life
without due process of law. This guarantee includes the means of
livelihood. The shelter of protection under the due process clause is given
both to alien and citizens.
Himagan vs. People
• Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, the Equal
Protection Clause does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires
that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances/conditions
both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
People vs. Veloso
• A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the
constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is issued. Otherwise,
it is void.
• An officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money
or property found upon his person which were used in the commission of
the crime, or was the fruit of the crime, or which may be used as evidence
on trial.
• The warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed person is void, except in
cases where it contains a descriptio personae such will enable the
officer to identify the accused. The description must be sufficient to
indicate clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served.
Alvarez vs. CFI Tayabas
• Since the proceeding (issuance of warrants) is a drastic one, it is the
general rule that statutes authorizing searches and seizures or search
warrants must be strictly construed.
• In its broadest sense, an OATH includes any form of attestation by
which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an
act faithfully and truthfully; and it is sometimes defined as an outward
pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise
is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. The
oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal
knowledge of the petitioner or his witness, because the purpose thereof is
to convince the committing magistrate, not he individual making the
affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
Page 3
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
probable cause. The true test of the sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant
issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn is such manner
that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for
damages caused.
• The term unreasonable search and seizure is not defined in the
Constitution. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or
seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable
from a consideration of the circumstances involved, including the purpose
of the search, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in
which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and
the character of the articles procured.
• Neither the Constitution provides it of imperative necessity to take the
depositions of the witnesses to be presented by the applicant or
complainant in addition to affidavit of the latter. The purpose of both in
requiring the presentation of depositions is nothing else than to
satisfy the committing magistrate of the existence of probable
cause. Therefore, if the affidavit of the applicant or complainant is
sufficient, the judge may dispense with that of other witnesses. When the
affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains sufficient facts within his
personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that
there is probable cause; when the applicant’s knowledge of the facts is
mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses having personal
knowledge of the facts is necessary.
• The affidavit to be presented, which shall serve as the basis for
determining whether probable cause exists and whether the warrant should
be issued, must contain a particular description of the place to be
searched and the person or thing to be seized. But where, by the
nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general,
it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would
mean that no warrant would issue.
Stonehill vs. Diokno
• Only party affected may contest legality of seizure effected by
search warrants. Officers of certain corporations, from which documents,
papers and things were seized by means of search warrants, have no cause
of action to assail the legality of the seizures because said corporations
have personalities distinct and separate from those of said officers.
• General search warrants do not satisfy the constitutional requirements
because no specific offense has been alleged in said applications. Such
warrants are outlawed because they place the sanctity of the domicile and
the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the
whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.
• The non-exclusionary rule is contrary to the letter and spirit of the
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. If there is
competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of the
Fraternal Order of Utopia
given crime by the party whom the warrant is intended, then there is no
reason why the applicant should not comply with the constitutional
requirements. If he has no such evidence, then it is not possible for the
judge to find that there is a probable cause, and hence, no justification for
the issuance of a warrant. The only probable explanation for the issuance is
that case is the necessity of fishing for evidence of the commission of a
crime. Such a fishing expedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to
establish probable cause.
Central Bank vs. Morfe
• In the very nature of things, unreasonableness is a condition dependent
upon the circumstances surrounding each case, in much the same way as
the question whether or not probable cause exists is one which must be
decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations.
Bache & Co., Inc. vs. Ruiz
• The examination of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
should be conducted by the judge himself and not by others. The judge
is required, before issuing a warrant, to personally examine on oath or
affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce, in order to
determine the existence of probable cause. The determination of
whether or not a probable cause exists calls for the exercise of
judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be
allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary.
• The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent judge did not
constitute sufficient compliance with constitutional mandate and the rule;
for by that matter respondent judge did not have opportunity to observe
the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound initial
and follow-up questions which the judicial mind, on account of its training,
was in the best position to conceive.
• A search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and
the things to be seized.
• A search warrant may said to particularly describe the things to be seized
when:
o the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow; or
o when the description expresses a conclusion of fact by which the
warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure;
or
o when the things described are limited to those which bear direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.
• If the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense
committed, the applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other than
those articles, to prove the said offense; and the articles subject of search
and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence.
• A corporation is entitled to immunity against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
Page 4
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
Placer vs. Villanueva
• There is thus no dispute that the judge may rely upon the fiscal’s
certification of the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof,
issue a warrant of arrest. But does such certification bind the judge to
come out with the warrant? No. The issuance of a warrant is not a
ministerial function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part
of the issuing magistrate.
• If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscal’s certification and require the submission of the
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the
existence of probable cause.
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP
• Typographical error in specifying the address to be searched is not
sufficient to invalidate a search warrant where the address intended to be
search also appears on the face of the warrant.
• Fact that some of the personal properties seized do not belong to the
person against whom a search warrant was directed, is not sufficient
ground to annul the same.
• Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched.
• The persons wearing to or supporting the application for search warrants
must know personally the facts.
• In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. Following the established doctrine and
procedure he shall:
1. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause
and, on the basis thereof, issue the warrant of arrest; or
2. If on the basis thereof finds no probable cause, he may disregard
the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to
the existence of probable cause.
Salazar vs. Achachoso
• The state has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens. That power
may be exercised by the Chief Executive “when he deems such action
necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation.” When the
Chief executive Finds that there are aliens whose continued presence in the
country is injurious to the public interest, he may even in the absence of
express law, deport them.
Fraternal Order of Utopia
Lim, Sr. vs. Felix
• The phrase “personal determination by the judge” means
o the determination of probable cause is a function of the judge;
o the preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the
judge – it merely assists him to make the determination of
probable cause; and
o judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary
inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, from the preliminary investigation proper
which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or
released.
Silva vs. Presiding Judge, RTC of Negros Oriental, Br. XXXIII
• Before issuing a search warrant, the judge must determine whether there
is probable cause by examining the complainant and witnesses through
searching question and answers.
Allado vs. Diokno
• Before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that
there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof.
People vs. Martinez
• It has been consistently held that greater weight is given to the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than accused’s
denial concerning the commission of the crime.
• Where the accused was arrested as a result of a “buy-bust” operation and
the ensuing search of the premises was made as an incident to a lawful
arrest, the alleged defect of the search warrant in erroneously designating
his first name is immaterial.
Webb vs. De Leon
• It is generally assumed that the same quantum of evidence is required
whether one is concerned with probable cause to arrest or probable cause
to search. But each requires a showing of probabilities as to somewhat
different facts and circumstances, and thus no one can exist without the
other.
o In search cases, two conclusions must be supported by
substantial evidence:
 That the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue
of being connected with criminal activity,
 That the items will be found in the place to be
searched. It is also not necessary that a particular
person be implicated.
Page 5
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
o In arrest cases:
 There must be probable cause that a crime has been
committed
 That the person to be arrested committed it, which
can exist without any showing that evidence of the crime
will be found at the premises under that person’s control.
People vs. Woolcock
• The remedy for questioning the validity of a search warrant can
only be sought in the court that issued it, not in the sala of another
judge of concurrent jurisdiction.
Gozos vs. Tac-an
• Preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding for the
purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC has been committed
and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
trial.
• The following are recognized to conduct preliminary investigations:
o Provincial or city fiscals and their assistants
o Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and MCTC
o National and Regional State Prosecutors
o Such other officers as may be authorized by law
• The determination of probable cause for the issuance of arrest and search
warrants is vested in the courts, but the conduct of preliminary
investigation is entrusted to the executive branch, with the exception of
inferior court judges.
People vs. CA (GR. No. 126379, 26 June 1998)
• The place the police officers have in mind in applying for a search warrant
must be the same place the Judge have in mind when he issues the
warrant.
• It is neither fair nor licit to allow police officers to search a place different
from that stated in the warrant on the claim that the place actually
searched – although not that specified in the warrant – is exactly what
they had in view when they applied for the warrant and had demarcated in
their supporting evidence. What is material in determining the validity of a
search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had
in their thoughts, or had represented in the proofs they submitted to the
court issuing the warrant.
• The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or
modified by the officers’ own personal knowledge of the premises, or the
evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant – the
particularization of the place to be search may properly be done
only be the Judge, and only in the warrant itself.
Fraternal Order of Utopia
Valmonte vs. De Villa
• Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable
are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not determined by a fixed
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.
• Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence, and
promote public welfare, and an individual’s right against
warrantless search which was reasonably conducted, the former
should prevail.
• Checkpoints during abnormal times, if conducted within reasonable limits,
are constitutional. They are part of the price we pay for an orderly society
and a peaceful community.
Guazon vs. De Villa
• Nothing in the Constitution denies the authority of the Chief Executive to
order police actions to stop unabated criminality, rising lawlessness and
alarming communist activities. The Constitution grants to Government the
power to seek and cripple subversive movements which would bring down
constituted authority and substitute a regime where individual liberties are
suppressed as a matter of policy in the name of security of the State.
• It is not the police action per se which is impermissible and which should
be prohibited but the procedure used or methods which offend even
hardened sensibilities.
People vs. Saycon
• The general rule. Therefore, is that the search and seizure must be carried
out through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise such search and seizure
becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of the above constitutional
provisions. The evidence secured in the process of search and seizure will
be inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
• The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the
carrying out of a search and seizure is, however, not absolute. There are
certain exceptions recognized by our law. (In the case at bar, it is that of
moving vehicles)
People vs. CFI of Rizal
• Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising
police authority under customs law may effect search and seizure without a
search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.
• Searches and seizures, without warrant are valid if made upon probable
cause, that is, upon belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known
to the seizing officer that an automobile or other vehicle contains that
which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.
Nolasco vs. Pano
• Articles seized by virtue of a void warrant should be returned
IMMEDIATELY.
Page 6
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
People vs. Lo Ho Wing
• That search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an
absolute rule. There are at least 3 well-recognized exceptions:
o A search incidental to an arrest
o A search of a moving vehicle
o Seizure of evidence in plain view.
People vs Malmstedt
• Where search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to
obtain a search warrant; Circumstances where a lawful arrest without
warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person.
• A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a
person:
o When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
o
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it;
o 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 his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Posadas vs. Zamora
• There are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be effected
without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the
“stop and search” without a search warrant at military or police
checkpoints, the constitutionality or validity of which has been upheld in
Valmonte vs. De Villa.
People vs. De Gracia
• Where the raiding military operatives, at the height of the December 1989
coup d’état attempt, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was
being committed, and had no opportunity to apply for and secure search
warrant from the courts, the same constituted an exception to the
prohibition against warrantless searches.
People vs. De Lara
• …appellant’s arrest was lawfully effected without need of a warrant of
arrest. “having caught the appellant in flagrante delicto as a result of the
buy-bust operation, the policemen were not only authorized but were also
under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even without a warrant of
arrest.”
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• The policemen’s entry into the house of appellant without a search warrant
was in hot-pursuit of a person caught committing an offense in flagrante.
The arrest that followed the hot-pursuit was valid.
• A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the
arrest and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made.
Aniag vs. COMELEC
• As a rule, a valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly
issued by an appropriate authority. However, this is not absolute. Aside
from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been
upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain
view, as we;; as search conducted at police or military checkpoints which
we declared are not illegal per se, and stressed that the warrantless search
is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is
neither searched not its occupants subjected to a body search, and
the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search.
• An extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to if the
officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe
before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that they
would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of
the crime in the vehicle to be searched.
• Consent given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent
within the purview of constitutional guaranty.
People vs. Barros
• Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles without
need of a warrant, it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant
before searching a vehicle, since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of
the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. In carrying
out warrantless searches of moving vehicles, however, peace officers are
limited to routine checks, that is, the vehicles are neither really
searched nor their occupants subjected to physical or body searches, the
examination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection.
• Where there is no circumstance which might reasonably have excited the
suspicion of the police officers that an offense had in fact just been
committed, there was no basis for a valid warrantless arrest and the search
and seizure was equally non-permissible and invalid.
• Applying for and posting bail does not result in the waiver of the invalidity
of an unjustified warrantless arrest.
People vs. Tabar
• Voluntary submission to the search and seizure without a warrant,
deemed waiver of one’s constitutional right relative thereto.
People vs. Leangsiri
Page 7
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• The inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search incident to
a lawful arrest outside the suspect’s person and the premises under his
immediate control admits of an exception. Objects in plain view of an
officer who has right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip
• A search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal action or
the commencement of a prosecution – it is a special and peculiar
remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of public
necessity, resembling in some respect with what commonly known as John
Doe proceedings. While an application for a search warrant is entitled like a
criminal action, it does not make it such an action.
• A search warrant is a legal process which has been likened to a writ of
discovery employed by the state to procure relevant evidence of a crime –
it is in the nature of a criminal process, restricted to cases of public
prosecutions and not a process for adjudicating civil rights or maintaining
mere private rights.
• A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding
party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and
all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime.
• The plain view doctrine is not an exemption to the warrant – it merely
serves to supplement the prior justification, whether it be a warrant
for another object, hot pursuit, search as an incident to a lawful arrest or
some other legitimate reason for being present, unconnected with a search
directed against the accused.
• Elements of plain view:
o The executing law enforcement officer has a prior justification for
an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from which
he can view a particular order;
o The officer must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently;
and
o It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they
observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise
subject to a warrant.
• The immediate requirement means that the executing officer can, at the
time of the discovery of the object or the facts therein available to him,
determine probable cause of the object’s incriminating evidence – to be
immediate, probable cause must be the direct result of the officer’s
instantaneous sensory perception of the object.
• The requirement of inadvertence means that the officer must not have
known in advance of the location of the evidence and intend to seize it.
Discovery is not anticipated.
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• The immediately apparent test does not require an unduly high degree
of certainty as to the incriminating character of evidence – incriminating
means the furnishing of evidence as proof of circumstances tending to
prove the guilt of a person. The immediately apparent aspect is central to
the plain view exception.
Malacat vs. CA
• Instances where warrantless searches may be effected (COMPLETE LIST):
o Customs searches
o Search of Moving Vehicles
o Seizure of evidence in Plain View
o Consent searches
o A search incidental to a lawful arrest
o A “Stop and frisk”
• Stop and frisk search is different from a search incidental to a lawful arrest.
• In a search incidental to lawful arrest, the law requires that there first be a
lawful arrest before a search can be made. This process cannot be
reversed. Assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the
person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a
weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property found
which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or
that which may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee
with the means of escaping or committing violence.
People vs. Encinada
• Raw intelligence information is not a sufficient ground for a
warrantless arrest.
• Where the search was conducted irregularly, the Court cannot appreciate
consent based merely on the presumption of regularity of the performance
of duty.
• An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on the
strength of the evidence yielded by the search.
People vs. Lacerna
• In applicable earlier Decisions, this Court held that there was probable
cause in the following instances:
o Where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the plastic
bag carried by the accused;
o Where an informer positively identified the accused who was
observed to have been acting suspiciously;
o Where the accused fled when accosted by policemen;
o Where the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped and
searched by policemen who had earlier received confidential
Page 8
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
reports that said accused would transport a large quantity of
marijuana;
o Where the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis
of intelligence information and clandestine reports by a deep
penetration agent or spy – one who participated in the drug
smuggling activities of the syndicate to which accused belonged –
that said accused were bringing prohibited drugs to the country.
People vs. Cueno
• The arrest of the appellant has been made in the course of a buy-bust
operation, thus, in flagrante delicto. A buy bust operation – a form of
entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of
arresting violators of Dangerous Drugs Law – is far variant from an
ordinary arrest. In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of
the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the
person of the suspect but also in the permissible area within his reach, i.e.
that point which is within the effective control of the person arrested, or
that which may furnish him with the means of committing violence or of
escaping.
People vs. Doria
• Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an
officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would
not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud
of the officer. It consists of two elements:
o Acts of persuasion, trickery, or fraud carried out by law
enforcement officers or the agents to induce a defendant to
commit a crime; and
o The origin of the criminal design in the minds of the government
officials rather than that of the innocent defendant, such that the
crime is the product of the creative activity of the law enforcement
officer.
• Entrapment should be distinguished differently from
inducement/instigation: The instigator practically induces the would-be
accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-
principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to by the peace
Fraternal Order of Utopia
officer for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law-breaker in the
execution of his criminal plan.
• The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by
law enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the
presumption of innocence and the constitutionally-protected rights of
the individual.
People vs. Sevilla
• The right to be informed of one’s right contemplates the transmission of
meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. The
right to be informed consists of no less than effective communication which
results in a full blown understanding of what is conveyed.
• At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer
to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the
warrant of arrest if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to
remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could
be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to
communicate with his lawyer, a relative or anyone he chooses by the most
expedient means by telephone, if possible, or by letter or messenger. It
shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is
accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in
the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on
his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee
himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but
the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel.
Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part shall be
inadmissible as evidence.
• In a confession, an accused acknowledges his guilt, while there is no
acknowledgement of such guilt in an admission.
• Where the truthfulness of the facts in support of probable cause is doubtful
and the Court is of the impression that the search in question was not at all
incidental to the lawful arrest of the accused but rather, pre-planned, any
evidence obtained in the course thereof must be excluded.
People vs. Che Chun Ting
• To be valid, the search must have been conducted at about the time of the
arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect
was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate
control.
• Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure
is deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree
and should be excluded. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence
for any purpose in any proceeding.
Page 9
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
People vs. Valdez
• Plain View doctrine:
o A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties;
o The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have
the right to be where they are;
o The evidence must be immediately apparent;
o Plain view justified the mere seizure of evidence without further
search.
• The seizure of evidence in plain view applies only where the police officer is
not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object.
• The Constitution plainly declares that any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have the 1) right to remain silent; 2) to
have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice;
3) to be informed of such rights. These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel.
• An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry but starts
to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e. when the police
investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect
in connection with an alleged offense. The moment the police try to elicit
admissions or confessions or even plain information from a person
suspected of having committed an offense, he should at that juncture be
assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
• A verbal admission allegedly made by an accused during the investigation,
without the assistance of counsel at the time of his arrest and even before
his formal investigation is not only inadmissible for being violative of the
right to counsel during criminal investigations, it is also hearsay. For
confession to be admissible, it must satisfy the following requirements:
o It must be voluntary
o It must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel
o It must be express
o It must be in writing.
People vs. Johnson
• Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a
lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable.
Material Distributors vs. Natividad
• The constitutional guarantee of privacy of communication and
correspondence will not be violated, because the trial court has power and
jurisdiction to issue the order for the production and inspection of the
Fraternal Order of Utopia
books and documents in question in virtue of the constitutional guarantee
making an express exception in favor of the disclosure of communication
and correspondence upon lawful order of a court of justice.
Harvey vs. Defensor-Santiago
• Right against unreasonable searches and seizures available to all persons
including aliens whether accused of crime or not. A valid search warrant or
warrant of arrest must be based upon probable cause.
• The right to bail in deportation proceedings is not a matter of right but of
discretion on the part of the Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation.
People vs. Burgos
• To constitute a waiver on searches:
o The right exists;
o The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right;
o That said person had an actual intention to relinquish such right.
• The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his does not
amount to a permission to make a search therein.
• Extrajudicial confessions of accused obtained through violence and third
degree measures are inadmissible as evidence.
• Absence of counsel at the time of custodial investigation when the
extrajudicial statement was taken, renders inadmissible the extrajudicial
confession.
Umil vs. Ramos
• The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such
crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in
connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State are in the
nature of continuing crimes – thus justifies warrantless arrests.
People vs. Sucro
• An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer,
within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without warrant, when
the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof.
People vs. Mengote
• Warrantless search in broad daylight of a person merely looking from side
to side and holding his stomach is illegal.
• A person may not be stopped and frisked in broad daylight on a busy street
on mere unexplained suspicion
Al-Ghoul vs. Court of Appeals
Page 10
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• The place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged nor amplified by the
police.
People vs. Simon
• The practice of entrapping drug traffickers through utilization of poseur-
buyers is susceptible to mistake, harassment, extortion, and abuse.
• No law or jurisprudence requires that an arrest or seizure, to be valid, be
witnessed by a relative, a barangay official or any other civilian or be
accompanied by taking of pictures.
People vs. Rabang
• Any irregularity attendant to a persons arrest was cured when he voluntary
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a
plea of not guilty and by participating in the trial.
People vs. Lopez, Jr.
• Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition
of the court over the jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be
made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed
waived.
Velasco vs. CA
• It is settled that the giving or posting of bail by the accused is tantamount
to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
People vs. Sequiño
• The rule is settled that once the primary source (the “tree”) is shown to
have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the
“fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible.
• Where a policeman suspected a person to have committed crime, the act of
such suspect voluntarily going with the policeman upon such officer’s
invitation constituted an arrest.
People vs. Mahusay
• It has been ruled that “personal knowledge of the facts” in arrests without
warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief
or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
Larranaga vs. CA
• A waiver, whether express or implied, must be made in clear and
unequivocal manner.
• The filing of charges and the issuance of warrant of arrest against a person
invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him
the right to be released because of such defect.
People vs. Olivarez, Jr.
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• The invalid waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation
makes the uncounselled confession, whether verbal or non-verbal,
obtained in violation thereof as also inadmissible as evidence.
• Requisites in order for a confession to be admissible:
o Express and Categorical
o Given voluntarily and intelligently
o With assistance of competent and independent counsel (preferably
of his own choice)
o In writing, and in the language known to and understood by the
confessant
o Signed, or if the confessant does not know how to read and write,
thumbmarked by him.
• The purpose of providing a counsel to aperson under custodial investigation
is to curb the uncivilized practice of extracting confession even by
the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit
something false. Extrajudicial confession of one accused may not be
utilized against a co-accused unless they are repeated in open court or
unless there is an opportunity to cross-examine the other on his
extrajudicial statements.
People vs. Aruta
• The plain import of the language of the Constitution, which in one sentence
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and at the same time
prescribes the requisites for a valid warrant, is that searches and seizures
are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search
warrant or warrant of arrest.
• Exigent and Emergency Circumstances also serves an exception to the
strict rule of warrantless searches.
• A statute, rule or situation which allows exceptions to the requirement of a
warrant of arrest or search warrant must perforce be strictly construed and
their application limited only to cases specifically provided by law.
Cadua vs. CA
• The legality of apprehending the accused would not depend on the actual
commission of the crime but upon the nature of the deed, where from such
characterization it may be reasonably be inferred by the officer or
functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves the decision for the
urgent purpose of suspending the liberty of the citizen – police authorities
can stop a person forcibly when such action is based on something more
than a mere “reasonable and articulable” suspicion that such a person has
been engaged in criminal activity.
People vs. Elamparo
Page 11
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• The members of the buy-bust team were justified in running after him and
entering the house without a search warrant for they were hot in the heels
of the fleeing criminal.
People vs. Cubcubin, Jr.
• Two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid:
o The offender has just committed an offense;
o The arresting peace officer or private person has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
• It has been held that “personal knowledge of facts” in arrests without
warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief
or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
• The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right
which may be waived expressly or impliedly; waiver by implication
cannot be presumed.
Posadas vs. Ombudsman
• Probable cause on a valid warrantless search means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds for suspicion. The grounds for suspicion are
reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting
officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e.,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
reasonable suspicion therefore, must be founded on probable cause,
coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
• The law authorizes a police officer or even an ordinary citizen to arrest
criminal offenders only if the latter are committing or have just committed
a crime, otherwise, we cannot leave to the police officers the determination
of whom to apprehend if we are to protect our civil liberties.
Zulueta vs. CA
• Privacy of communication and correspondence is inviolable. The only
exception in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order from a court or
when public safety or order requires, otherwise, as prescribed by law.
People vs. Marti
• The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
refers to the immunity of one’s person from interference by government; it
cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring
it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• Where contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part of
the arresting officer, there is not a search that is prohibited by the
Constitution.
• The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked
against act of private individuals, it is directed only against the government
and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. The Bill of Rights
governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern
is not the relationship between individuals, between a private
individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to
declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any
power holder. The constitutional proscription against unlawful
searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only
against the government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State
to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power
is imposed.
Gamboa vs. Cruz
• The right to counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e. when
the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or
confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. At such point or
stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid
the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions, or
confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the
commission of an offense.
• As aptly observed, however, by the Solicitor General, the police line-up (at
least in this case) was not part of the custodial inquest, hence petitioner
was not yet entitled to counsel.
• Accused should be assisted by counsel the moment there is a move or
even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or
even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the
time. This right may be waived, but the waiver shall be made in writing
and in the presence of counsel.
People vs. Pinlac
• When the Constitution requires a person under investigation to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel, it must be presumed
to contemplate the transmission of meaningful information rather than just
the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
principle. As rule therefore, it would not be sufficient for a police
officer just to repeat to the person under investigation the
provisions of the Constitution. He is not only duty-bound to tell the
person the rights to which the latter is entitled, he must also explain their
effects in practical terms. In other words, the right of a person under
interrogation “to be informed” implies a correlative obligation on the part of
the police investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective
Page 12
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
communication that results in understanding what is conveyed. Short of
this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot be truly said that the person
has been informed of his rights.
• The waiver of constitutional rights must be with the assistance of counsel.
People vs. Ayson
• In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren summarized the procedural safeguards
laid down for a person in police custody, "in-custody interrogation" being
regarded as the commencement of an adversary proceeding against the
suspect. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right
to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court
of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he
cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any
questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise those rights must be
afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have
been given, such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly
and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a
statement. But unless and until such warnings and waivers are
demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a
result of interrogation can be used against him. The objective is to prohibit
"incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated
atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statement without full warnings
of constitutional rights."
• The rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in "custodial
interrogations," or "in-custody interrogation of accused persons." And, as
this Court has already stated, by custodial interrogation is meant
"questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way." The situation contemplated has also been more precisely
described by this Court. "After a person is arrested and his custodial
investigation begins a confrontation arises which at best may be tanned
unequal. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters
and there questioned and "cross-examined" not only by one but as many
investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. He finds
himself in strange and unfamiliar surroundings, and every person he meets
he considers hostile to him. The investigators are well-trained and
seasoned in their work. They employ all the methods and means that
experience and study have taught them to extract the truth, or what may
pass for it, out of the detainee. Most detainees are unlettered and are not
aware of their constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidating
and coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere
overwhelms them into silence. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks to
remedy this imbalance.
People vs. De Guzman
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• The Receipt of Seized Property signed by the accused without the
assistance of counsel and without being first informed of his constitutional
rights is totally inadmissible under the Bill of Rights.
People vs. Parojinog
• …a person under investigation for the commission of an offense may
choose his own counsel but if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. While the initial choice of the lawyer in the
latter case is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really
has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask
for another one.
• The settled rule is that a confession is admissible until the accused
successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation,
threat or promise of reward or leniency
People vs. Loveria
• The court must emphasize that the so-called Miranda rights contained in
the constitutional provisions may be invoked by a person only when he is
under custodial investigation – the questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
People vs. Marra
• Admission made to the police by a person at a time when the police inquiry
has not yet reached a level wherein he is considered as a particular suspect
is admissible as evidence.
People vs. Frago
• There is no requirement of presence of counsel during police line-ups
where there is no move to extract any admission or confession from the
suspect.
People vs. Ruelan
• A confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved and
the burden of proof is upon the person making the confession.
• By voluntary executing his extrajudicial confession after having been
informed of his constitutional rights, and in the presence of and with the
assistance of counsel, appellant effectively waived his right to remain
silent.
People vs. Barasina
• The word preferably does not convey the message that the choice of a
lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other
equally competent and independent attorneys from handling his defense.
People vs. Barlis
Page 13
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• The failure of the mother and the girlfriend of the appellant to sign as
witnesses to taking of his sworn statement is of no moment for the
Constitution does not require the presence of witnesses during custodial
investigation. What is required is the assistance of counsel.
People vs. Bandula
• The Constitution requires that counsel be independent. He cannot be a
special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a
municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.
People vs. Balisteros
• An extrajudicial confession repeated in court is converted into a judicial
confession which, if allowed by the trial court, eliminates the need for
assistance of counsel.
People vs. Teehankee
• In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of
suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where
they consider the following factors:
o The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the
crime
o The witness’ degree of attention at that time
o The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness
o The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the
identification
o The length of time between the crime and identification
o The suggestiveness of the identification procedure
People vs. Morico
• When an arrested person signs a booking sheet and arrest report at a
police station, he does not admit the commission of an offense nor confess
any incriminating circumstance. The booking sheet is merely a statement
of the accused’s being booked and on the date which accompanies the fact
of the arrest. It is a police report and maybe useful in charges of arbitrary
detention against the police themselves. It is not an extra-judicial
statement and cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction.
People vs. Compil
• The arrival of a lawyer prior to the actual signing of the uncounseled
confession does not cure the inherent defect such confession, as the
operative act is when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who
Fraternal Order of Utopia
has been taken into custody and when the suspect signs his supposed
extrajudicial confession.
People vs. Hatton
• Identification of accused from a police line-up on the basis of identifier’s
prior declaration that assailant is a mestizo and latter is the only mestize
there is defective.
People vs. Camat
• An extra judicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not
admissible against his co-accused. As against the latter, the confession is
hearsay.
• An accused’s constitutional right to meet the witnesses face to face is
limited to proceedings before the trail court, at the trial and not during
custodial investigation.
Manuel vs. NC Construction Supply
• The exclusionary rule under paragraph 3, Sec 12, of the bill of rights
applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not those
made in administrative investigations.
People vs. Andan
• When the accused talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law
enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession did not violate his
constitutional rights
• The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities
but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having
committed the crime.
• Confessions to the media in response to questions by news reporters, not
by the police or any other investigating officer are admissible
People vs. Binamira
• If the lawyer’s role is reduced to being that of a mere witness to the
signing of a pre-prepared document albeit indicating therein compliance
with the accused’s constitutional rights, the constitutional standard is not
met.
People vs. Suarez
• Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion, almost
identical with each other in their material details which could have been
known only to the declarants, and corroborated by other evidence against
the person or persons implicated to show the probability of the latter’s
actual participation in the commission of the crime are impressed with
features of voluntariness in their execution.
• To be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the questions
being propounded to his client – the presence of a lawyer is not intended to
Page 14
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him, but,
rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion
as would lead the accused to admit something false.
People vs. Meneses
• Mere assertion by a police officer that after an accused was informed of his
constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel he readily admitted his
guilt, does not make the supposed confession admissible against the
purported confessant.
People vs. Mahinay
• Procedures in Reading Miranda rights:
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial
investigation must be informed in a language known to and
understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
shown the warrant of arrest, if any; every other warnings,
information or communication must be in a language known to
and understood by said person.
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and
that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against
him.
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all
times and have by the presence of an independent and
competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice.
4. 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 of the person
arrested or one acting in his behalf.
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must
be informed that no custodial investigation in any form
shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or
after a valid waiver has been made.
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has
the right t communicate or confer by the most expedient
means – telephone, radio, letter or messenger – with his lawyer
(either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate
family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or
by anyone from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be
visited by/ confer with duly accredited national ore international
Fraternal Order of Utopia
non-government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the
officer to ensure that this is accomplished.
7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of the
said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently and ensure that he understood the same.
8. In addition, if the person arrested 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 insist on his waiver and chooses to
speak.
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate
in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he
does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he
makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the
same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must cease if
it has already begun
10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver
of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his
rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the
questions or volunteered some statements.
11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as
the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing,
whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible as evidence.
People vs. Morada
• The ruling in People vs. Andan (269 SCRA 95) does not authorize the police
to obtain confessions they cannot otherwise obtain through media
reporters who are actually acting for the police.
• Accused’s alleged confession made to a barangay captain is not admissible
where the same was part of an ongoing police investigation.
Santos vs. Sandiganbayan
• Voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its language such that,
if upon its face the confession exhibits no sign of suspicious circumstances
tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with details –
which could possibly be supplied only by the accused – reflecting
spontaneity and coherence which, psychologically, cannot be associated
with a mind to which violence and torture have been applied, it may be
considered voluntary.
• Although an extrajudicial confession is admissible only against the
confessant, jurisprudence makes it admissible as corroborative evidence of
other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused.
People vs. Canoy
Page 15
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• No meaningful information as to a suspect’s rights under custodial
interrogation is conveyed where he is not asked if he wants to avail of his
rights and he is not told that if he has no lawyer of his own choice he can
avail of one to be appointed for him.
People vs. Liwanag
• The requirements of effectiveness and vigilance of counsel during that
stage before arraignment were for the purposed of guarding against the
use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions which
may taint them and render them inadmissible.
People vs. Labtan
• The term effective and vigilant counsel contemplates not a mere
presence of the lawyer beside the accused. It means necessarily and
logically requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and
assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first
question asked b the investigating officer until the signing of the
extrajudicial confession. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain
that the confession is made voluntarily and that the person under
investigation fully understands the nature and the consequence of
his extrajudicial confession in relation to his constitutional rights. A
contrary rule would undoubtedly be antagonistic to the
constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and to be
presumed innocent.
People vs. Gamer
• By entering a plea without first questioning the legality of his arrest, the
accused is deemed to have waived any objection concerning his arrest
• The Totality of Circumstances Test has been fashioned precisely to
assure fairness as well as compliance with the constitutional requirements
of due process in regard to out-of-court identification.
• It is not merely any identification which would suffice conviction of the
accused – it must be positive identification made b a credible witness or
witnesses, in order to attain the level of acceptability and credibility to
sustain moral certainty concerning the person of the offender.
--KATAPUSAN NG MGA ARALIN SA PANGGITNANG PAGSUSULIT—
--PAGSISIMULA SA IKALAWANG HATI NG SEMESTRE--
People vs. Donato
• Right to bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by
a penalty less than reclusion perpetua. Even in cases of capital crimes, the
Fraternal Order of Utopia
right to bail is still matter of discretion because the constitution states that
the right to bail cannot be denied unless evidence of guilt is strong.
• The right to bail is another of the constitutional rights that can be waived
(QUERY of Fr. B: if the right to bail can be waived, can it be reinstituted?).
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
waived any right to seek relief from the court, including his right to appeal
his conviction.
• An accused who, after filing of an information, is at large, and has not been
apprehended or otherwise has not been submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court, cannot apply for bail or be granted any other relief
by the court, until he submits himself to its jurisdiction or is arrested.
• A trial in absentia may be had when the following requisites are present:
o That there has been an arraignment.
o That the accused has been notified.
o That he fails to appear and his failure to do so is unjustified.
De la Camara vs. Enage
• Before every conviction, every person is bailable except if charged with
capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong. This right flows from
the presumption of innocence.
• Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by
requiring a sum that is excessive. The sole permissible function of money
bail is to assure the accused’s presence at trial, and declared that bail
set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill his
purpose is “excessive”.
• SPECIAL NOTES
o The question of excessiveness of bail should be raised or
presented at the time of application for bail (People vs. LARA)
o The obligations imposed upon the bondsmen cannot be greater
nor of a different character than that imposed by law.
Chu vs. Dolalas
• In imposing bail, one must take into consideration the guidelines laid down
in Section 9 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court such as the penalty for the
offense charged, the financial ability of the accused to give bail, the nature
and circumstances of the offense charged and the weight of evidence
against them.
• Bail defined in the Rules of Court: the security required and given for
the release of a person who in the custody of the law, that he will appear
before the court in which his appearance may be required.
• Principles governing bail:
Page 16
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
o It should be high enough to assure the presence of the
defendant but no higher than reasonably calculated to fulfill this
purpose.
o The good of the public as well as the rights of the accused
o The need for a tie to the jurisdiction and the right to freedom from
unnecessary restraint before conviction under circumstances
surrounding each particular accused.
• Considerations to be taken in fixing bail: (FANPPECAFF)
o Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
o Nature and circumstances of the offense;
o Penalty for the offense charged;
o Character and reputation of the accused;
o Age and health of the accused;
o Weight of evidence against the accused;
o Probability of the accused appearing at the trial
o Forfeiture of other bail;
o Fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested;
o Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Commendador vs. De Villa
• Constitution grants the right to bail to all persons with the defined
exception is applicable and covers all military men facing court-martial
proceedings.
• The argument that denial from the military of the right to bail would violate
the equal protection clause is not acceptable. This guarantee requires equal
treatment only of persons or things similarly situated and does not apply
where the subject of the treatment is substantially different from others.
People vs. Gako
• Bail is not a matter of right with respect to persons charged with a crime
the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death,
when the evidence of guilt is strong.
• Summary Hearing: When bail is discretionary, a hearing whether
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, should first be
conducted to determine the existence of strong evidence or lack of it,
against the accused to enable the judge to make intelligent assessment of
the evidence presented by the parties; a summary hearing is defined as
such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose
of hearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for
the purpose of bail.
• Another compelling reason why a hearing of a petition for bail is necessary
is to determine the amount of bail based on the guidelines set forth in
Fraternal Order of Utopia
Section 6, Rule 114, of the Rules of Court. Otherwise, the imposition of bail
shall be arbitrary and without legal basis.
• The importance of a summary cannot be downplayed – it is considered an
aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense,
and its absence will invalidate the grant or denial of bail. A Summary is
defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a
text or statement.
• It is error for a judge to depend solely, in granting bail, on a medical report
made nine months earlier - the defense should present a more recent one
that would convincingly raise strong grounds to apprehend that the
imprisonment of the accused would endanger his life.
• Basic rule is the principle that the jurisdiction of a court, whether in
criminal or civil cases, once it attaches cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events although of a character which would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.
• A person is considered to be in the custody of the law when he is validly
arrested or when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of
the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
• The constitutional mandate makes the grant or denial of bail in capital
offenses hinge on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong. This requires that the trial court conduct bail hearings
wherein both the prosecution and the defense are afforded sufficient
opportunity to present their respective evidence. The burden of proof lies
with the prosecution to show strong evidence of guilt.
Sule vs. Biteng
• Granting bail to the accused without giving the prosecution any opportunity
to be heard, amounts to a denial of due process.
Paderanga vs. CA
• SECTION 1 Rule 114 of the Rules of Court: bail as the security given
for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, conditioned upon his appearing before any court as required
under the conditions specified in the said Rule. Its main purpose, then is to
relieve an accused from the rigors of imprisonment until his conviction and
yet secure his appearance at trial. As bail is intended to obtain or secure
one’s provisional liberty, the same cannot be posted before custody over
him has been acquired by the judicial authorities, either by his lawful arrest
or voluntary surrender.
• Constructive Custody: In the instant case, even as petitioner filed his
motion for admission to bail before he was actually and physically placed
under arrest, he may, however, under peculiar circumstances which
attended the filing of bail application, namely, that he was then confined in
the hospital, for purposes of the hearing thereof, he should be deemed to
Page 17
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

have voluntarily submitted his person to the custody of the law and, • If an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
necessarily, the jurisdiction of the trial court. is convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail
• Where bail is a matter of right, upon proper application for admission to is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on
bail, the court having custody of the accused should, as a matter of course, the part of the court. In such situation, the court would not have only
grant the same after a hearing conducted to specifically determine the determined that the evidence of guilt is strong – which would have been
conditions of the bail. sufficient to deny bail even before conviction – it would have likewise ruled
• Where the grant of bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion, a hearing, that the accused’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bail
mandatory in nature and which should summary or otherwise in the must not then be granted the accused during the pendency of his appeal
discretion of the court, is required with the participation of both the from the judgment of conviction.
defense and a duly notified representative of the prosecution, to ascertain
whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong fro the provisional liberty of Padilla vs. CA
the applicant.
• Procedure to be followed when grant of bail is a matter of judicial RULES OF COURT PROCEDURES WITH REGARDS TO THE MATTER OF BAIL
discretion:
BAIL AS A MATTER BAIL AS A MATTER OF DENIAL OF BAIL NEITHER
1. When such hearing is upon proper motion or petition, OF RIGHT DISCRETION AS AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
prosecution must be given opportunity to present, within a NOR OF DISCRETION
reasonable time, all evidence that it may produce, since it Offense charged is Upon conviction by the Court imposed a penalty
is equally entitled as the accused to due process. If this is not punishable by RTC of an offense not exceeding 6 years, but not
denied, there would be a denial of due process, hence, the order death, reclusion punished by reclusion more than 20 years with the
is void. perpetua, or life perpetua/life following circumstances under
2. At the hearing, petitioner may rightfully cross-examine imprisonment. imprisonment. Paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule
witness of prosecution and present his own evidence in 114 of the rules of Court
rebuttal. When the offense is The court imposed a • That he is a
3. When the court issues an order either granting or denying such punished by such penalty of imprisonment recidivist, quasi-
bail, the same should contain a summary of the evidence for afflictive/capital exceeding 6 years but not recidivist, or habitual
the prosecution, followed by its conclusion whether or not penalties and the more than 20 years with delinquent, or has
evidence of guilt is strong. evidence is not no attendant committed the crime
strong. circumstances mentioned
4. The court cannot rely on mere affidavits or recitals of their in the Rules of Court.
aggravated by the
contents, if timely objected to, for these are merely hearsay circumstance of
evidence, and thus insufficient to prove the quantum of evidence reiteration
that the law requires. • That he has
previously escaped
Chin vs. Gustilo from legal
• A notice of application for bail is required even though no charge has yet confinement, evaded
been filed in court and even though under the circumstances bail is a sentence, or violated
matter of right. the conditions of his
• The prosecutor must be heard even in cases where bail is a matter of right bail without valid
because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into justification
consideration a number of factors.
• The right not to be arbitrarily detained does not mean that a person has a
• That he committed
the offense while
right to be released on bail within the same period beyond which he cannot
under probation,
be held.
parole, or conditional
• Even though the prosecutor’s recommendation is not binding on the court,
pardon
he still has to be heard as a matter of due process to the state.
• That the
People vs. Nitcha circumstances of his

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 18

Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

case indicate the • The legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain facts can
probability of flight if constitute prima facie evidence of guilt of the accused and then shift the
released on bail burden of proof to the accused, provided there is a rational connection
• That there is undue between the facts and the ultimate fact presumed.
People vs. Holgado
risk that he may
commit another • If the defendant appears without an attorney, the court 4
crime during the important duties to comply with:
pendency of the 1. It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have an
appeal. attorney before being arraigned.
2. After giving him such information the court must ask him if he
When the accused is charged desires the aid of an attorney.
with a capital offense or an 3. If he desires and is unable to employ an attorney, the court must
offense punished by reclusion assign an attorney de officio to defend him.
perpetua/life imprisonment 4. If the defendant desires to procure an attorney of his own, the
and the evidence of guilt is court must grant him reasonable time therefore.
strong. • No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law and that all accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by
Obosa vs. CA himself and counsel. In criminal cases, there can be no fair hearing unless
the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel.
• Appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case fore review and this • Even the most intelligent or educated men may have no skill in the science
includes the penalty, which may be increased. of the law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and without counsel, he
may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know
Olaguer vs. Military Commission how to establish hi innocence.
• As long as civil courts in the land remain open and are regularly
functioning, military tribunals cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over US vs. Ash
civilians for offenses committed by them and which are properly cognizable • The risks inherent in the use of photographic displays, like evidence
by the civil courts. favorable to accused may be withheld, are not pernicious that an
extraordinary system of safeguards is required.
US vs. Luling
• The state, having the right to declare what acts are criminal, has a right to People vs. Rio
specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall • The right to a counsel de officio does not cease upon the conviction of an
constitute prima facie evidence of guilt. accused in a trial court. It continues even during appeal such that the duty
of the court to assign a counsel de officio persists where an accused
People vs. Mingoa interposes intent to appeal.
• There is no constitutional objection to the passage of a law providing that • Even in a case where the accused has signified his intent to withdraw his
the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption appeal, the court is required to inquire into the reason for the withdrawal.
founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what • Where it finds the sole reason for the withdrawal to be poverty, the court
evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence. must assign a counsel de officio for despite such withdrawal, the duty to
The legislature may enact that when certain facts have been protect the rights of the accused subsists and perhaps, with greater
proved they shall be prima facie evidence of the existence of guilt reason.
of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a
rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact People vs. Macagaling
presumed so that the inference of the one from the proof of the others is • Even if an accused had a counsel during the criminal proceedings, the court
not unreasonable and arbitrary because of lack of connection between the can appoint a counsel de officio in order to have a speedy trial.
two in common experience.
People vs. Cuizon
Hizon vs. CA

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 19

Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• Right to due process and right to counsel requires effective understanding
and communication between the accused and his/her counsel. There must
be no language barrier limiting their ability to communicate.
People vs. Serzo
• During custodial investigation, arraignment, trial and even appeal, the
accused is given the option to be represented by a counsel of his choice.
But when he neglects or refuses to exercise this option during arraignment
and trial, the court shall appoint one for him. While the right to be
represented by counsel is absolute, the accused’s option to hire one of his
own choice is limited. Such option cannot be used to sanction reprehensible
dilatory tactics, to trifle with the Rules or to prejudice the equally important
rights of the state and the offended party to speedy and adequate justice.
Amion vs. Chiongson
• The right to counsel is guaranteed by the Constitutioin. “Preference in
the choice of counsel” pertains more to a person under
investigation rather than one who is the accused in a criminal
proceeding.
• Even if this preferential right is extended to criminal proceedings, such is
not absolute and arbitrary as would make choice of counsel refer
exclusively to the predilection of the accused.
People vs. Taguba
• It is a basic right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him and, if he is found guilty, to be
penalized only for the offense specified in the information or necessarily
included in such offense.
Pecho vs. People
• An accused may be convicted of a crime which, although not the one
charged, is necessarily included in the latter.
Imson-Souweha vs. Rondez
• Imposing a penalty based on motu propio (his own accord) finding made
by investigating commissioner that accused is guilty is violative of the right
of a person to be informed of the nature of the charge for which he is being
held accountable.
People vs. Manansala
• Accused cannot be convicted of a crime not included in the information as
this will violate the constitutional right of the accused to due process and to
be informed of the charges against him.
People vs. Ortega
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• The information should clearly indicate the offense charged and the acts
committed. Otherwise, it would be a violation of the right of the accused to
be informed of the charges against him.
People vs. Manalili
• Under the Constitution, an accused has the right to be informed, before
trial, of the nature of the offense with which he or she is charged.
Regardless of how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be,
there can be no conviction unless the offense is charged (or is necessarily
included) in the complaint or information.
• An accused, who fails to object prior to arraignment to a duplicitous
information, may be found guilty of any or all of the crimes alleged therein
and duly proven during the trial, for the allegation of the elements of such
component crimes in the said information has satisfied the constitutional
guarantee that an accused be informed of the nature of the offense with
which he or she is being charged.
People vs. Baniguid
• Due process requires that the acts or omission constitutive of the offense
be stated in the information to fully appraise the accused of the charge
against him. The nature and the cause of the accusation must be
reasonably stated therein.
Peole vs. Bugayong
• The precise time of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in
the information, unless time is an essential element of the crime charged.
The complaint will be sustained if proof shows that the offense was
committed at any time within the period of the statute of limitations and
before the commencement of the action. The determinative factor here is
the element of surprise on the part of the accused and his corollary
inability to defend himself properly.
• Failure to object to duplicitous information serves as a waiver of
right against it.
People vs. Ferolino
• Where time or place or any other fact alleged is not an essential element of
the crime charged, conviction may be had on proof of the commission of
the crime, even if it appears that the crime was not committed at the
precise time or place alleged.
People vs. Tagana
• Where the precise date of the commission of the offense need not be
stated with particularity, it must be stated as near to the actual date
as the information will permit. The purpose of this dictum is to
adequately apprise the accused of the charges against him.
Tai Lim vs. CA
Page 20
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• The trial is always subject to reasonable delays and postponements.
• When is it violated? A mere mathematical reckoning of the time is
not sufficient.
o Vexatious, oppressive, and capricious delays
o Unjustified postponements of the trial are being asked for and
secured.
o Without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed
to elapse without the party having his case.
• The right to speedy trial allows reasonable continuance so as not to deprive
the prosecution its day in court.
Nepomuceno vs. Secretary of National Defense
• The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus affords a valid
excuse for any delay in the filing of the charges, the crime charged being
of a nature involving nationwide conspiracy and a continuing one, that
numerous offenders could be brought before the law and detained, so
numerous that the normal dispatch of the filing of charges cannot be
attained.
People vs. Gines
• The right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed to him by the
Constitution but the same shall not be utilized to deprive the State of a
reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. It secures the right of a
defendant but it does not preclude the rights of public justice.
Cadalin vs. POEA Administrator
• Speedy disposition of cases is not limited to accused in criminal cases. It
extends to all parties in all cases including civil and administrative cases
and all in all proceedings including quasi-judicial hearings.
• Speedy disposition of cases is a relative term like speedy trial in
criminal cases. It s consistent with delays and depends on circumstances of
each case. The Constitution prohibits arbitrary and oppressive delays
which render rights nugatory.
• Factors to consider in speedy trial which are also applicable to speedy
disposition:
o Length of delay
o Reason for delay
o Assertion of right or failure to assert it
o Prejudice caused by delays.
People vs. Tampal
• In dismissing criminal cases based on the right of the accused to speedy
trial, courts should carefully weigh the circumstances attending each case.
They should balance the right of the accused and the right of the State to
punish people who violate its penal laws. Bothe the State and the accused
are entitled to due process.
Fraternal Order of Utopia
Guerrero vs. CA
• The right is violated when there is unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive
delay without the participation or fault of the accused, or when unjustified
postponements are sought which prolong the trial for un reasonable
lengths of time.
People vs. CA
• One of the essential requirements of procedural due process in a judicial
proceeding is that there must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. Thus, every
litigant, including the state, is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge.
• The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial
as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just.
Maliwat vs. CA
• A judge must not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but
should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his
fairness, impartiality, and integrity.
Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan
• The Court’s examination of the witnesses and the accused should be
limited to asking “clarificatory” questions, the right should also be sparingly
and judiciously used; for the rule is that the court should stay out of it as
much as possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the conduct of trial.
Cosep vs. People
• Impartiality and neutrality does not say that judges must remain passive or
silent during the proceedings.
• Accused is free to manifest his objection if he is under the impression that
the judge is unduly interfering his testimony.
People vs. Teehankee
• Pervasive publicity is not prejudicial per se to the right of an accused to a
fair trial, it must first be proven that such publicity has so permeated the
mind of the judge and impaired his partiality.
Garcia vs. Domingo
• The Constitution guarantees an accused the right to a public trial. What
does it signify? Offhand it does seem fairly obvious that here is an instance
where language is to be given a literal application. The trial must be public.
It possesses the character when anyone interested in observing the
manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may do so.
There is to be no ban on such attendance. His being a stranger to the
Page 21
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
litigants is of no moment. No relationship to the parties need be shown/
The thought that lies behind this safeguard is the belief that thereby the
accused is afforded with further protection, that his trial is likely to be
conducted with regularity and not tainted with impropriety. It is thus
understandable why such a right is deemed embraced in procedural due
process. Where a trial takes place, as is quite usual, in the courtroom and a
calendar of what cases are to be heard is posted, no problem arises.
However, there is a well recognized exception though that warrants the
exclusion of public where the evidence may be characterized as “offensive
to public morals”.
People vs. Digno
• In exercising the right to cross-examine, the accused employs the tool of
cross-examination to test the testimony of a prosecution witness and to
allow the judge to observe his deportment. An uncompleted testimony of a
witness may be rendered incompetent if the failure to cross-examine was
not attributable to him.
• The right to cross examine may be waived expressly or impliedly.
People vs. Camat
• The right of the accused to confrontation with the witnesses of the
prosecution is available to him only during trial and during custodial
investigations.
People vs. Ortiz-Miyake
• A previous decision or judgment, while admissible in evidence, may only
prove that an accused was previously convicted of a crime. It may not be
used to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime charged in a subsequent
case, in lieu of the requisite evidence proving the commission of the crime,
as said previous decision is hearsay. To sanction its being used as a basis
for conviction in a subsequent case would constitute a violation of the right
of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.
People vs. Narca
• Rule 115 provides that “either party may utilize as part of its evidence the
testimony of a witness who is deceased given in another case or
proceeding.
Carredo vs. People
• An accused may waive his presence in the criminal proceedings except at
the stages where identification of his person by the prosecution witnesses
is necessary.
• Total waiver is allowed only when the accused:
o Agrees explicitly and unequivocally in writing signed by him, or
Fraternal Order of Utopia
o Personally manifests clearly and indubitably in open court and
such manifestation is recorded, that whenever a prosecution
witness mentions a name by which the accused is known, the
witness is referring to him and no one else.
• Reasons:
o So he cannot in his defense say that he was never identified as
person charged in the information and is therefore entitled to an
acquittal.
o Witness may not know his name, but may be able to identify him
in person.
o Trial in absentia: a waiver of the right to meet witness face to
face.
People vs. Estoista
• The constitutionality of an act of legislature is not to be judged in the light
of exceptional cases.
• It takes more than being merely harsh, excessive, out of proportion and
severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the constitution. The punishment
that is to be avoided is one that is flagrantly and plainly oppressive.
People vs. Tongko
• What is measured in punishment is its severity, and not its time or
duration.
People vs. Ylagan
• Under Section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, defendant in a
criminal prosecution is in legal jeopardy when placed on trial under the
following conditions:
1. In a court of competent jurisdiction;
2. Upon a valid complaint or information;
3. After he has been arraigned;
4. After he has pleaded to the complaint of information.
• The rule against double jeopardy protects the accused not against the peril
of second punishment, but against being again tried for the same offense.
• Without the safeguard this article establishes in favor of the accused, his
fortune, safety, and peace of mind would be entirely at the mercy of the
complaining witness, who might repeat his accusation as often as
dismissed by the court and whenever he might see fit, subject to no other
limitation or restriction than his own will and pleasure.
People vs. Balicasan
• While it is true that the Rules of Court provide that “The people of the
Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant would be placed in double
jeopardy”…
o However, an existence of a plea is a requisite to double jeopardy.
Page 22
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
o A testimony of self-defense is tantamount to vacating of a plea of
guilty. Without a subsequent plea, the effect is that there is no
standing plea before the trial court.
o There being no plea, no double jeopardy can be present.
Cinco vs. Sandiganbayan
• Preliminary investigation is not a trial for which jeopardy attaches.
• A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it 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. It is not
a trial of the case on merits and has no purpose except that of determining
whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause
to believe that the accused is guilty thereof and it does not place the
person against whom is taken into jeopardy.
Galvez vs. CA
• For a dismissal to be a bar to double jeopardy, it must have the
effect of acquittal. It is a general rule that dismissal before the accused
is placed on trial and before he is called on to plead is not equivalent to
acquittal.
Cudia vs. CA
• An information, when required to be filed by a public prosecuting officer,
cannot be filed by another. It must be exhibited or presented by the
prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by law. If not, the court does
not acquire jurisdiction. An infirmity in the information, such as the lack of
authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence,
or even b express consent. Therefore, jeopardy cannot attach.
Limpangog vs. CA
• To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three (3) requisites must concur:
1. Attachment of the 1st jeopardy prior to the 2nd (which has the
following requisites):
a) Upon a valid indictment;
b) Before a competent court;
c) After arraignment;
d) A valid plea having been entered; and
e) The case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
the express consent of the accused
2. The 1st jeopardy must have terminated; and
3. The 2nd jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the 2nd offense
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the 1st
information, or is an attempt to commit the same or is a
frustration thereof.
People vs. Bulaong
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• 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 in frustration thereof, or for any offense which
necessarily includes or is necessary included in the offense charged in the
former complaint or information.
People vs. Obsania
• The Doctrine of Waiver of Double Jeopardy provides that when the
case is dismissed with the express consent of the accused, the dismissal
will not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense because his
action in having the case dismissed CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF HIS
RIGHT, for the reason that he thereby prevents the court from proceeding
to the trial on the merits and rendering a judgment against him.
Rivera Jr., vs. People
• The judgment and the order of dismissal must be written personally and
directly prepared by the judge and signed by him.
• Where there is a valid information and the accused has been arraigned, an
order of dismissal issued by the court, motu proprio, in the course of the
trial of a criminal case, whether based on the merits or on the failure of the
prosecution to present a witness, has the effect of acquittal and double
jeopardy attaches. The order is also immediately executory.
People vs. Bans
• Generally, the dismissal of a criminal case resulting in acquittal made with
the express consent of the accused, or upon his own accord will not place
the accused in double jeopardy. However, this rule has to two exceptions:
1. Insufficiency of evidence
2. Denial of the right to speedy trial
Teodoro vs. CA
• Conditions which renders the decision final:
1. Period for perfecting appeal has elapsed
2. Sentence is partially or totally satisfied or served.
3. Accused applies for probation.
4. Accused expressly waives in writing his right to appeal.
People vs. CA
• Elements of double jeopardy:
1. Accused charged under complaint or information sufficient in form
and substance
2. Court has jurisdiction
3. Accused have been arraigned and have been pleaded
Page 23
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
4. Accused is convicted or acquitted or case dismissed without his
express consent.
Galman vs. CA
• Double jeopardy does not attach where a criminal trial was a sham: (1) the
proceedings were closely monitored by the president; (2) evidence was
suppressed; (3) witnesses were threatened; (4) trial was finished in only 6
months pursuant to a scripted scenario; (5) Presiding justice’s hostile
attitude against the prosecution.
• A dictated and coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal is a void judgment.
It is no judgment at all. It neither binds nor bars anyone. It is a lawless
thing which can be treated as an outlaw. Thus, the first jeopardy never
terminated.
Melo vs. People
• When a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either
by acquittal or conviction, or in any other matter without the consent of the
accused, he cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. It
must be noticed that the protection for this constitutional prohibition is
against second jeopardy for the same offense, the only exception
being, when the act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act. The phrase same offense means not only that the second
offense is exactly the same as the one alleged in the first information, but
also that the 2 offenses are identical. There is identity between the two
offenses when the evidence to support a victim for one offense would be
sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other. This is the Same Evidence
Doctrine.
• Under the Rules, there is identity between 2 offenses not only when the 2nd
offense is exactly the same as the first, but also when the 2 nd offense is an
attempt to commit the first, or frustration thereof, or when it necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first
information. An offense is said to be necessarily included in another when
some of the essential ingredients of the former as alleged in the
information constitute the latter, and vice versa. Thus, one who has been
charged with an offense cannot again be charged with the same or
identical offense though the latter be lesser or greater than the former.
• But this rule of identity does not apply when the second offense was not in
existence at the time of the prosecution. This is because in such case there
is no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be
convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused
was charged with physical injuries and after conviction the injured person
dies, the charge for homicide against the same accused will not put him
twice in jeopardy. The rule is that “where after the first prosecution of a
new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes
the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at the
Fraternal Order of Utopia
time, constitutes a new and distinct offense. The accused cannot be said to
be in 2nd jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.
• Accordingly, an offense may be said to necessarily include or to be
necessarily included in another offense, for the purpose of determining the
existence of double jeopardy, when both offenses were in existence during
the pendency of the 1st prosecution, for otherwise, if the 2nd offense was
then inexistent, no jeopardy could attach therefore during the first
prosecution and consequently a subsequent charge for the same cannot
constitute double jeopardy.
• When a person who has already suffered his penalty for an offense, is
charged with a new and greater offense under the Diaz doctrine herein
reiterated, said penalty may be credited to him in case of conviction for the
second offense.
Lamera vs. CA
• Protection against double jeopardy can only be invoked against the same
offense. A simple act may be an offense against 2 different provision of law
and if one requires proof on a additional fact which the other does not, an
acquittal or conviction under one does not bar prosecution under the other.
• The identity of the offense need not be absolute identity; The 1st and 2nd
may be regarded as the same offense where the 2 nd necessarily includes
the 1st offense or where the second is an attempt or frustrated of the first.
Gonzales vs. CA
• When all the requisites of double jeopardy concur, a second prosecution
can be rightly barred for the:
1. Same offense;
2. Attempt to commit the said offense;
3. Frustration of the said offense;
4. Any offense which necessarily include or is necessarily included in
the 1st offense charged.
People vs. Balasa
• Crimes that arise out of the same scheme which are however, committed
against different persons, do not constitute a same offense.
Metrobank vs. Meridiano
• Exception to the double jeopardy rule attaches only when the trial court
commits grave abuse of discretion due to a violation of due process e.g.
1. Prosecution was not given the opportunity to present its case;
2. The trial was a sham.
Page 24
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

6. A law which deprives persons accused of a crime of some lawful

protection to which they have become entitled, such as the
People vs. Relova protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of the
proclamation of amnesty.
7. Every law which, in relation to the offense and its consequences,
Double Jeopardy for the Same Double Jeopardy for the Same Act alters the situation of the person to his disadvantage.
offense

One may be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same act, provided
that he is charged with different
offenses, or the offense charged in one
case is not included, or does not include,
the crime charged in the other case.
Conviction or acquittal is not
indispensable to sustain the plea of
double jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. So long as jeopardy has
attached under one of the informations
charging said offense, the defense may
be availed of in other case involving the
same offense, even if there has been
neither conviction nor acquittal in either
case.
People vs. Ferrer
• A bill of attainder is a legislative which inflict punishment without trial. In
effect, it is a legislative determination of guilt.
Even if the offenses charged are not the
same, owing to the fact that one
constitutes a violation of an ordinance
and the other a violation of a statute
If the two charges are based on one and
the same act, conviction or acquittal
under either the law or the ordinance
shall bar prosecution for the other.
Where offense is charged under a
municipal ordinance while the other is
penalized by a statute, the critical
inquiry is to the identity of the acts
which the accused is said to have
committed and which are alleged to
have given rise to the two offenses.
----SECTION 4 to10----
Near v. Minnesota
• The security of freedom of the press and expression requires that it should
be exempt not only from prior restraint from the executive, but also from
the legislative
• Any system of prior restraint of expression comes to the Court bearing a
heavy presumption against constitutional validity. The Government carries
the heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such
restraint
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
• The press is not exempt from the taxing power of the State. What the
constitutional guarantee of free press prohibits are laws which single out
the press or target a group belonging to the press for special treatment or
which in any way discriminate against the press on the basis of the content
of the publication

People vs. Sandiganbayan

• An ex post facto law is defined as:
1. A law passed after the occurrence of the fact or commission of an
act, which retrospectively changes the legal consequences or
relations of such fact or deed.
2. A law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a
person for an act done which, when it was committed, was
innocent.
3. A law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than the law
annexed to the crime when it was committed.
4. A law that changes the rules of evidence and receives less or
different testimony than was required at the time of the
commission of the offense in order to convict the offender.
5. A law, which assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only,
in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right which,
when done, was lawful.
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA
• 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, i.e. serious detriment to the more
overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare
• Any act that restrains speech, including religious speech, is hobbled by the
presumption of invalidity
• Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by
hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent
evil which has taken the life of a reality already on ground
People v. Perez

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 25

Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the
Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and
effect be seditious
Dennis v. US
• Overthrow of the government by force is substantial interest to limit
speech; the words can’t mean that before the government acts it must wait
until putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and signal is
awaited
• To justify suppression of speech there must be reasonable ground to fear
that serious evil will result from the free speech practiced; and reasonable
ground to believe that the danger sought to be apprehended is imminent
Gonzales v. COMELEC
• The speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss
publicly any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment.
There is to be then 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
• Freedom of expression is not an absolute. It would be too much to insist
that at all times and under all circumstances it should remain unfettered
and unrestrained
• ‘Clear and present danger’ and ‘dangerous tendency’ rules:
1. Clear and present danger rule: 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 is the ‘substantive evil sought to be prevented’
 The danger must not only be clear but also present. The term
clear seems to point to a causal connection with the danger of
a substantive evil arising from the utterance questioned.
Present refers to the time element. The danger must not only
be probable but likely inevitable
2. Dangerous tendency rule: “If the words uttered create a dangerous
tendency which the State has a right to prevent, then such words are
Fraternal Order of Utopia
punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of
force, violence, of unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient if the
natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring
about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent.”
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr.
• All forms of media are protected by the speech freedom clause under a
reasonable application of the clear and present danger test
• The protection given to T.V. and radio broadcasting is somewhat less in
scope than that accorded to print media
Ayer Productions v. Judge Capulong
• Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film,
produce, and exhibit motion pictures in theaters and television. This
freedom is available in our country to both locally-owned and to foreign-
owned motion picture companies
• The right of privacy like the right of free expression is not absolute. It may
not be invoked to resist publication and dissemination of matters of public
interest. A limited intrusion into a person’s privacy has long been regarded
as permissible where that person is a public figure and the information
sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him constitute
matters of a public character. The interest sought to be protected by the
right of privacy is the right to be free from “unwarranted publicity, from the
wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and activities of an individual
which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern.”
• Public Figure – Definition: a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, or
mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public
a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and his character, has
become a ‘public personage’. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived
at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person
• The proposed motion picture is required to be fairly truthful and historical
in its presentation of events. There must, further, be no presentation of the
private life of the person and certainly no revelation of intimate or
embarrassing personal facts.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
• Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. The
people’s right to be informed would be better served by access to an
unabridged discussion of issues, including the forum. The people affected
Page 26
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by
restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised
National Press Club v. COMELEC
• The Constitution has expressly authorized the Comelec to supervise or
regulate the enjoyment and utilization of the franchises or permits for the
operation of media of communication and information
• No presumption of invalidity arises in respect of exercises of supervisory or
regulatory authority on the part of the Comelec for the purpose of securing
equal opportunity among candidates, although such supervision or
regulation may result in some limitation of the rights of free speech and
free press
ABS CBN v. COMELEC
• Exit polls are a species of electoral surveys for the purpose of determining
the probable result of an election by confidentially asking randomly
selected voters whom they have voted for immediately after they have
officially cast their ballots. The results of the survey are announced to the
public through mass media.
• There is no law which prohibits the holding and reporting of exit polls
SWS v. COMELEC
• O’Brien Test: the regulation is valid if
1. It is within the Constitutional power of the Government
2. It furthers a substantial government interest
3. If the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of freedom
of expression
4. If the incidental restriction on the freedom of speech is no greater than
what is essential to the furtherance of interest
City of Laude v. Gilleo
• Signs are a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause.
Governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs within the
reasonable bounds and absent censorial purpose
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• Commercial speech is a communication with “no more than proposes a
commercial transaction.” Truthful and lawful commercial speech may be
regulated if:
1. The government has a substantial interest to protect
2. The regulation directly advances the interest
3. It is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that interest
Policarpio v. Manila Times
• 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
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
• While the Constitution does not protect libelous publications, it is not the
case the libel laws may be used to impose sanctions upon criticism of
public officials’ official conduct. Neither factual error nor defamatory
content suffices to remove criticism of official conduct from constitutional
protection
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc.
• The constitutional standard of knowing or reckless falsity applies whenever
the allegedly defamatory statements related to a person’s involvement in a
matter of public or general concern, regardless of whether he is a “public
official,” a “public figure,” or a “private individual
Gertz v. Robert Welch
• The protection afforded news media against defamation suits by public
persons is not to be extended to defamation suits by private individuals
even though the defamatory statements concern an issue of public or
general interest (overturning the doctrine in Rosenbloom)
In re Jurdado
• 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 pres freedom
Page 27
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
Vasquez v. CA
• There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. A
man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, no the good
opinion which he has of himself
• Actual Malice Rule: Even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability
can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official proves
that the statement with actual malice – that is, with reckless disregard of
whether it was true or not
Borjal v. CA
• In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable
although it is not necessary that he be named
• Art 354, RPC. Requirement for publicity: 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, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication, made by any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral, or social duty
2. 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
Miller v. California
• Test for Obscenity:
1. Whether he 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 defines by the applicable state law; and
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value
Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak
• Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which
deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. The portrayal of
sex in art, literature, and scientific works is not sufficient reason to deny
material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• Radio and television are subject to a less liberal approach (as compared to
motion pictures) because they reaches their audience freely regardless of
age
Pita v. CA
• Test for the Existence of Obscenity: whether he tendency of the matter
charged as obscene is to deprave 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
• Another test is that which shocks the ordinary and common sense of men
as an indecency
• If the material is not used exactly for art’s sake but for commercial
purposes, then these are not entitled to any constitutional protection
Barnes v. Glenn Theatre
• When speech and non-speech elements are combined in the same course
of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the
non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment
freedoms
Renton v. Playtime Theater
• Where the government regulation is content-neutral (or does not restrict
content) but merely regulates the time, place, and manner of ‘speech,’ and
implementation is just – the same is admissible and justified
Bethel School District v. Fraser
• There is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits the states (i.e.
public schools) to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in the
public discourse
Navarro v. Villegas
Page 28
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• The right to assembly is not absolute. It is subject to regulation by police
power so that it may not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others
having an equal right
Malabanan v. Ramento
• Right to peaceably assemble and to free speech are guaranteed to
students. If it is to be held within school premises, permit must be sought
from the school authorities. Violations of the terms of the permit shall not
be penalized disproportionately to the offense
Bayan v. Ermita
• The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances is,
together with the freedom of speech, a right that enjoys primacy in the
realm of constitutional protection
US v. Ballard
• The constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion does not afford
immunity from criminal prosecution for the fraudulent procurement of
money by false representations as to their beliefs, religious or otherwise
American Bible Society v. City of Manila
• The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise and enjoyment of religion
carries with it the right to disseminate religious information
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent
• The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect,
freedom to believe and freedom to act on one’s belief. The first is absolute
as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is
subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that
affect the public welfare
• The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of
religious freedom is the existence of a grave and present danger of a
character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public
morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State
has a right (and duty) to prevent
Fraternal Order of Utopia
McDaniel v. Paty
• The right to the free exercise of religion unquestionably encompasses the
right to preach, proselyte, and perform other similar religious functions
Church of Lukumi v. City of Hialeach
• Smith standard: A law that burdens religious practice need not be justified
by compelling government interest if it is neutral on its face and has
general applicability. Absent these 2 requisites, such law may be justified
by a compelling government interest and must be narrowly tailored to
advance that interest
Lamb’s Chapel v. School District
• Government regulation must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable
• Three-part test (Lemon v. Kurtzman) for establishment of religion:
1. The challenged governmental action has a secular purpose
2. It does not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or
inhibiting religion, or
3. It does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion
Estrada v. Escritor
• Compelling state interest test from a benevolent neutrality stance
1. Whether the right to religious freedom has been burdened
2. Ascertain sincerity in his/her religious belief
Aglipay v. Ruiz
• Religious freedom is not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and
is not a denial of its influence in human affairs
Garces v. Estenzo
• Objects bought with private funds and for a non-religious purpose do not
contravene the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and
State
Page 29
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
School District v. Schempp
• Two-fold protection:
1. Establishment Clause: forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance
of any creed or the practice of any form of worship
> To withstand, there must be a secular legislative purpose and a
primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
2. Free Exercise Clause: safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form
of religion
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette and Ku Klux Clan
• The Establishment Clause applies only to words and acts of government. It
was never meant to serve as an impediment to purely private religious
speech connected to the State only through its occurrence in a public
forum.
• Religious expression cannot violate the Establishment Clause where:
1. It is purely private and
2. It occurs in a traditional or designated public forum, publicly
announced and open to all on equal terms
Marcos v. Manglapus
• The right to return to one’s country is not covered by the specific right to
travel and liberty of abode
Silverio v. CA
• While the liberty to travel may be impaired even without court order, the
appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed
with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only
on the basis of “national security, public safety, or public health” and “as
may be provided by law”
• Holding an accused in a criminal case and preventing his departure from
the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to
travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with the law
Santiago v. Vasquez
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• Posting of bail bond makes a person amenable to all the orders and
processes of the court, such that he/she may be legally prohibited from
leaving the country during the pendency of the case
• Parties with pending cases therein should apply for permission to leave the
country from the very same courts, which, in the first instance, are in the
best position to pass upon such applications and impose the appropriate
conditions therefor
Legaspi v. CSC
• Government agencies in custody of public records may regulate the
manner of examination but the disclosure of information of public concern
and the access to public records cannot be discretionary on the part of said
agencies
• Constitutional guarantee to information on matters of public concern are
not absolute but subject to limitations as may be provided by law, such as
those affecting national security. Before mandamus may issue, it must be
clear that the information sought is of “public interest” or “public concern”
and that the same is not exempted by law from the operation of such
constitutional right
• There is no rigid test to determine whether or not particular information is
of public concern. It is for the courts to determine on a case to case basis
whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or
affects the public
Valmonte v. Belmonte
• The right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and
cannot be invoked by juridical entities
• The right to information does not include the right to compel custodians of
official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries, and the like
Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato
• Private v. Public:
1. Private: belonging to or concerning, an individual person, company or
interest
Page 30
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
2. Public: pertaining to, or belonging to, or affecting a nation, state or
community at large
• The constitutional recognition of the citizen’s right of access to official
records cannot be made dependent upon the consent of the members of
the board concerned, otherwise, the said right would be rendered nugatory
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice
• The right to information is self-executing
• The Legislature can provide reasonable limitations and conditions to this
right but they must still be consistent with the declared state policy of full
public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest
Chavez v. PCGG
• ‘Transactions’ as used in the provision, is generic and can therefore cover
both steps leading to a contract, and an already consummated contract. It
can include negotiations leading to its consummation, subject to
reasonable safeguards on the national interest
Chavez v. PEA
• The twin provisions of the right to information on matters of public concern
and policy of full transparency seek to promote transparency in policy-
making and in the operations of the government; as well as provide the
people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional
rights
• The commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission understood that
the right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to
the consummation of the transaction – requiring a consummated contract
will keep the public in the dark until the contract, which may be grossly
disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes a fait
accompli
• The right to information covers three categories of information:
1. Official records: refers to any document that is part of the public
records in the custody of government agencies or officials
2. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, and
decisions: refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing,
establishing, confirming, supporting, justifying or explaining official
acts, transactions, or decisions of government agencies or officials
3. Government research data used in formulating policies: refers to
research date, whether raw, collated, or processed, owned by
government and used in formulating policies
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• The right to information, however, does not extend to matters recognized
as privileged information under the separation of powers. The right also
does not apply to information on military and diplomatic secrets,
information affecting national security, and information on investigations of
crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused,
which courts have long recognized as confidential. The right may also be
subject to other limitations that Congress may impose by law
• The right to information includes official information on on-going
negotiations before a final contract, which information, however, must
constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover
recognized exceptions
Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage
• When the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right
to public information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the
accused, on the other hand, jurisprudence tells us that the right of the
accused must be preferred to win
• Guidelines in Audio Visual Recordings:
1. The trial shall be recorded in its entirety, excepting such portions as
the Sandiganbayan determines as should not be held public
2. Cameras shall be installed inconspicuously inside the courtroom and
the movement of TV crews shall be regulated consistent with the
dignity and solemnity of the proceedings
3. The recording shall be made for documentary purposes only and shall
be made without comment except such annotations of the scenes as
may be necessary to explain them
4. The live broadcast of the recordings before the Sandiganbayan shall
have rendered its decision shall be prohibited under pain of contempt
of court and other sanctions in case of violation of prohibitions
5. The recording of the proceedings shall be made under the supervision
and control of the Sandiganbayan or any of its Divisions concerned
6. Simultaneously with the release of the recordings for public broadcast,
the original shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records
Management and Archives Office for preservation and exhibition in
accordance with law
TUPAS v. NHC
• The right to unionize is not explicitly recognized and granted to employees
of both the government and private sector
Page 31
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
SSS v. CA
• The rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations and peaceful concerted activities including the right to strike
in accordance with the law guaranteed
• Framers of the Constitution intended to limit the right to the formation of
unions or associations only, without including the right to strike
• At present, in the absence of any legislation allowing government
employees to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the
exercise of the right, they are prohibited from striking by express provision
of Memorandum Circular No. 6 and as implied in E.O. No. 180
• Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by
law, government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by
workers in the private sector to ensure concessions from their employers
UPCSU v. Laguesma
• The Commission intended the absolute right to organize of government
workers, supervisory employees, and security guards. But no similar
absolute constitutional right to organize for labor purposes should be
deemed to have been granted to top-level and middle managers, since
those who qualify are executives who receive from their employers
confidential information not available to the public/competitors/other
employees
• Managerial employees: “managers” per se, who have the authority to
devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies
• Supervisors: their task is imply to ensure that such policies are carried our
by the rank-and-file employees of an organization
Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong
• Courts have an obligation to determine whether the following requisites
have been complied with by the LGU concerned:
1. An ordinance is enacted to exercise the power of eminent domain or
pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property
 An ordinance is necessary prior to the filing of the complaint
with the proper court, and not only after the court has
determined the amount of just compensation
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose, or
welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless
3. There is payment of just compensation
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the
property sought to be expropriated but said offer was not accepted
• Two stages of an expropriation proceeding:
Fraternal Order of Utopia
1. Determination of the authority of the LGU to exercise the power of
eminent domain and the propriety of such exercise
2. Determination by the court of the just compensation for the property
sought to be taken
• The exercise of eminent domain is necessarily in derogation of private
rights, and the rule is that it must be strictly construed against the
authority
Iron and Steel Authority v. CA
• The President has a long-standing delegated authority under the Revised
Administrative Code to exercise the power of eminent domain on behalf of
the government. He/she determines when it is necessary or advantageous
to exercise this right
Greater Balanga v. Municipality of Balanga
• Until expropriation proceedings are instituted I court, the landowner cannot
be deprived of its right over the land
Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi
• 2 general elements for the taking of a particular property:
1. Entrance and occupation
2. Devoting it to a public purpose
• Requirements for ‘taking’ under expropriation:
1. The expropriator must enter the property
2. Entrance must be for more than a momentary period
3. Entry should be under warrant or color of authority
4. Property must be devoted to public use
5. Must exclude and deprive the owner of all rights with regard to the
property
• Fair market value must be determined at the time when the case was filed
City Government v. Judge Ericta
• To validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights:
1. There must be a reasonable or rational relation between the means
employed by the law and its object or purpose
2. The law must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or oppressive
• Elements of Eminent Domain:
Page 32
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
1. There is a ‘taking’ of private property
2. The taking must be for public use
3. There must be just compensation
• In police power, property is regulated. In eminent domain, property is
taken with compensation
US v. Causby
• There is a taking when there is a limitation of the utility of the land and
when a diminution of its value is caused
• If the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have
exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.
The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he
can occupy or use in connection with the land
People v. Fajardo
• The State may prohibit structure offensive to sight, but the State may not,
under police power, permanently divest owners of properties solely to
preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community. There must
be just compensation
Republic v. PLDT
• Use of service by any government instrumentality is equivalent to the use
of the government itself. Hence, any taking of private property. Even from
a legislative franchise holder, is valid, as long as there is just compensation
and it is justified by reasons of public interest
NPC v. Jocson
• The determination of just compensation in eminent domain is a judicial
function and should not be left to the landowner’s prerogative
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto
• ‘Taking’ of property includes taking of intellectual property, like data
Sumulong v. Guerrero
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• The right to use/the enjoyment of property is tempered by and has to yield
to the demands of common good
Philippine Columbian Association v. Hon. Panis
• That only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation of the
property does not diminish its public use character
• Public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or
advantage, including, in particular, urban land reform and housing
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA
• LGUs have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only
when expressly authorized by the legislature. And the legislature may limit
this authority expressly, either in the law conferring the power or in other
legislations
• The old concept that condemned property must actually be used by the
general public has been expanded to include everything that confers public
advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the
general welfare and prosperity of the whole community
Lagcao v. Labra
• Private lands rank least in the order of priority for the purposes of social
housing
• Expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only after other modes of
acquisitions are exhausted
• Compliance with these conditions is mandatory
Manila Railroad v. Paredes
• The expropriator may enter and take possession of the land before actual
payment, provided that a certain and adequate remedy is available by
which the owner can obtain prompt adjudication and payment of just
compensation without unreasonable delay
Municipality of Daet v. CA
Page 33
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines
• The value should be as of the time of the rendition of the judgment. If
possession had been taken earlier, it could have been as of the time of the
possession, with legal interest
• The commissioners’ report is not final and conclusive but merely
recommendatory, and thus requires hearing
• Provisional values set will only apply if no value has been fixed by the court
yet
Maddumba v. GSIS
• Public policy dictates that government institutions accept bonds issued by
other government institutions at full face value , specially when they are
fully guaranteed by the government itself
B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. CA
• Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
sought to be expropriated. The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the
owner’s loss. The compensation must be fair not only to the owner but also
to the taker
• The trial court should first ascertain the market value of the property,
which should be added the consequential damages after deducting
therefrom the consequential benefits which may arise from the
expropriation
• Factors to consider in arriving at the fair market value:
1. Cost of acquisition
2. Current market value of like properties
3. Its actual and potential uses
4. In particular case of lands – size, shape, location, and tax declaration
5. Just compensation is to be ascertained at the time of the taking, which
usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation
proceedings. Where the institution of the action precedes entry into
the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained at the time of
the filing of the complaint
Land Bank v. CA
Fraternal Order of Utopia
• Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount
to be paid to the owner, but also the payment within a reasonable time
from its taking. Without prompt payment, the compensation cannot be
considered just because the property owner is made to suffer the
consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to
wait before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss
De Knecht v. Bautista
• The right of the government to expropriate property should not be
exercised capriciously or arbitrarily
Home Building and Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell
• Impairment of contract obligation – relief to mortgage debtors from the
foreclosure of valid mortgages – could only be justified by the economic
emergency, and could only be of a character appropriate to that
emergency, and granted only upon reasonable condition
Rutter v. Esteban
• The test to determine whether a moratorium clause violates the
impairment of contracts clause is the time frame it sets for the non-
enforcement of the obligation. It must not be unreasonable and oppressive
to creditors
Abella v. NLRC
• Legislation impairing contracts can be sustained when it is enacted for the
promotion of the general good of the people and when the means adopted
is legitimate
• To come within the ambit of the constitutional prohibition, the law must
effect a change in the rights of the parties with reference to each other and
not with reference to non-parties
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
Page 34
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• The parties to a contract cannot fetter the exercise of the taxing power of
the State. The policy of protecting the impairment of contracts presupposes
the maintenance of a government which retains adequate authority to
secure the peace and good order of society

Siska Development v. Office of the President

• There is an impairment if a subsequent law:

1. Changes the terms of the contract between the parties
2. Imposes new conditions
3. Dispenses with those agreed upon
4. Or withdraws remedies for the enforcement of rights of the parties

PNB v. O.P.

• As long as the contract affects the public welfare one way or another so as
to require the interference of the State, then must police power be
asserted, and prevail, over the impairment clause
Meralco v. Province of Laguna

• The non-impairment clause of the Constitution can rightly be invoked only

in contractual tax exemption. A franchise partakes the nature of grant
which is beyond the purview of the non-impairment clause of the
Constitution

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 35