Sie sind auf Seite 1von 35

Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

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

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 1


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

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


• Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their
• A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be non-observance may have resulted to a party’s prejudice to his substantive
informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the
committee created to insure into charges filed against him – he is most persuasive reasons when they ma be relaxed to relieve of an injustice
entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness In not complying
made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and with the procedure proscribed.
evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigation
committee. Agabon vs. NLRC
• To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the existence of a just
Roxas and Co., Inc. vs. CA and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the
• The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be opportunity to be heard and defend himself.
observed in taking private property.
• The procedure in the sending of notices is important to comply with the • Statutory due process should be differentiated from failure to comply with
requisites of due process especially when the owner is a juridical entity. constitutional due process. Constitutional due process protects the
individual from government, and assures him of his rights in criminal, civil,
Summary Dismissal Board vs. Torcita or administrative proceedings while statutory due process found in labor
code and implementing rules protects employees from being unjustly
• A finding of guilt, no matter how light, for which one is not properly terminated without notice and hearing.
charged and tried cannot be countenanced without violating the
rudimentary requirement of due process. 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: People vs. Cayat
o The interest of the public, generally, as distinguished from those • Test of Reasonable Classification:
of a particular class, require such interference o Must rest on substantial distinctions
o That the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment o Must be germane to the purposes of the law
of such purpose. o Must not be limited to the existing conditions only
o Must apply equally to all members of the same class
People vs. Fajardo
• The State may not under the guise of police power, permanently divest Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho
owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate • While it is true that the Philippines as a state is not obliged to admit aliens
them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the within its territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life
community. To legally achieve that result, the owner should be given just without due process of law. This guarantee includes the means of
compensation and the opportunity to be heard. livelihood. The shelter of protection under the due process clause is given
both to alien and citizens.
Ynot vs. IAC
• It is also conceded that summary action may be validly taken in Himagan vs. People
administrative proceedings as procedural due process is not necessarily • Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, the Equal
judicial only. In the exceptional cases accepted, however, there is a Protection Clause does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires
justification for the omission of the right to a previous hearing, to wit, the that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances/conditions
immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected, and the urgency of both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
the need to correct it.
People vs. Veloso
Magtajas vs. Pryce • A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the
• Test of the validity of an ordinance: constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is issued. Otherwise,
o Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute it is void.
o Must not be unfair or oppressive • An officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money
o Must not be partial or discriminatory or property found upon his person which were used in the commission of
o Must not prohibit but may regulate trade the crime, or was the fruit of the crime, or which may be used as evidence
o Must be general and consistent with public policy on trial.
o It must not be unreasonable. • The warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed person is void, except in
cases where it contains a descriptio personae such will enable the
JMM Productions vs. CA officer to identify the accused. The description must be sufficient to
• Classification must be based on real and substantial differences having indicate clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served.
reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation
Alvarez vs. CFI Tayabas
• Since the proceeding (issuance of warrants) is a drastic one, it is the
Corona vs. United Harbor general rule that statutes authorizing searches and seizures or search
• Procedural due process refers to the method or manner in which the law is warrants must be strictly construed.
enforced; substantive due process requires that the law itself, not merely
• In its broadest sense, an OATH includes any form of attestation by
the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and
which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an
just.
act faithfully and truthfully; and it is sometimes defined as an outward
• Notice and hearing – as the fundamental requirement of procedural due
pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise
process – are essential only when the administrative body exercises its
is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. The
quasi-judicial function, but in the performance of its executive or legislative
oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal
functions, such as issuing rules and regulations, an administrative body
knowledge of the petitioner or his witness, because the purpose thereof is
need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing.
to convince the committing magistrate, not he individual making the
affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 3
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

probable cause. The true test of the sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant given crime by the party whom the warrant is intended, then there is no
issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn is such manner reason why the applicant should not comply with the constitutional
that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for requirements. If he has no such evidence, then it is not possible for the
damages caused. judge to find that there is a probable cause, and hence, no justification for
• The term unreasonable search and seizure is not defined in the the issuance of a warrant. The only probable explanation for the issuance is
Constitution. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or that case is the necessity of fishing for evidence of the commission of a
seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable crime. Such a fishing expedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to
from a consideration of the circumstances involved, including the purpose establish probable cause.
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 Central Bank vs. Morfe
the character of the articles procured. • In the very nature of things, unreasonableness is a condition dependent
• Neither the Constitution provides it of imperative necessity to take the upon the circumstances surrounding each case, in much the same way as
depositions of the witnesses to be presented by the applicant or the question whether or not probable cause exists is one which must be
complainant in addition to affidavit of the latter. The purpose of both in decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations.
requiring the presentation of depositions is nothing else than to
satisfy the committing magistrate of the existence of probable Bache & Co., Inc. vs. Ruiz
cause. Therefore, if the affidavit of the applicant or complainant is • The examination of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
sufficient, the judge may dispense with that of other witnesses. When the should be conducted by the judge himself and not by others. The judge
affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains sufficient facts within his is required, before issuing a warrant, to personally examine on oath or
personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce, in order to
there is probable cause; when the applicant’s knowledge of the facts is determine the existence of probable cause. The determination of
mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses having personal whether or not a probable cause exists calls for the exercise of
knowledge of the facts is necessary. judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be
• The affidavit to be presented, which shall serve as the basis for allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary.
determining whether probable cause exists and whether the warrant should • The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent judge did not
be issued, must contain a particular description of the place to be constitute sufficient compliance with constitutional mandate and the rule;
searched and the person or thing to be seized. But where, by the for by that matter respondent judge did not have opportunity to observe
nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound initial
it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would and follow-up questions which the judicial mind, on account of its training,
mean that no warrant would issue. was in the best position to conceive.
• A search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and
Stonehill vs. Diokno the things to be seized.
• A search warrant may said to particularly describe the things to be seized
• Only party affected may contest legality of seizure effected by when:
search warrants. Officers of certain corporations, from which documents, o the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will
papers and things were seized by means of search warrants, have no cause ordinarily allow; or
of action to assail the legality of the seizures because said corporations o when the description expresses a conclusion of fact by which the
have personalities distinct and separate from those of said officers.
warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure;
• General search warrants do not satisfy the constitutional requirements or
because no specific offense has been alleged in said applications. Such o when the things described are limited to those which bear direct
warrants are outlawed because they place the sanctity of the domicile and relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.
the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the • If the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense
whims, caprice or passion of peace officers. committed, the applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other than
• The non-exclusionary rule is contrary to the letter and spirit of the those articles, to prove the said offense; and the articles subject of search
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. If there is and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence.
competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of the • A corporation is entitled to immunity against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 4
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

Lim, Sr. vs. Felix


Placer vs. Villanueva • The phrase “personal determination by the judge” means
• There is thus no dispute that the judge may rely upon the fiscal’s o the determination of probable cause is a function of the judge;
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
o the preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the
come out with the warrant? No. The issuance of a warrant is not a judge – it merely assists him to make the determination of
ministerial function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part probable cause; and
of the issuing magistrate. o judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary
• If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he may inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a
disregard the fiscal’s certification and require the submission of the warrant of arrest, from the preliminary investigation proper
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or
existence of probable cause. released.

Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP Silva vs. Presiding Judge, RTC of Negros Oriental, Br. XXXIII
• Typographical error in specifying the address to be searched is not • Before issuing a search warrant, the judge must determine whether there
sufficient to invalidate a search warrant where the address intended to be is probable cause by examining the complainant and witnesses through
search also appears on the face of the warrant. searching question and answers.
• Fact that some of the personal properties seized do not belong to the
person against whom a search warrant was directed, is not sufficient Allado vs. Diokno
ground to annul the same.
• Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and • Before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof.
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched. People vs. Martinez
• It has been consistently held that greater weight is given to the positive
• The persons wearing to or supporting the application for search warrants identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than accused’s
must know personally the facts. denial concerning the commission of the crime.
• In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of • Where the accused was arrested as a result of a “buy-bust” operation and
a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the the ensuing search of the premises was made as an incident to a lawful
complainant and his witnesses. Following the established doctrine and arrest, the alleged defect of the search warrant in erroneously designating
procedure he shall: his first name is immaterial.
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 Webb vs. De Leon
2. If on the basis thereof finds no probable cause, he may disregard • It is generally assumed that the same quantum of evidence is required
the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting whether one is concerned with probable cause to arrest or probable cause
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to to search. But each requires a showing of probabilities as to somewhat
the existence of probable cause. different facts and circumstances, and thus no one can exist without the
other.
Salazar vs. Achachoso
o In search cases, two conclusions must be supported by
• The state has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens. That power
may be exercised by the Chief Executive “when he deems such action substantial evidence:
necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation.” When the  That the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue
Chief executive Finds that there are aliens whose continued presence in the of being connected with criminal activity,
country is injurious to the public interest, he may even in the absence of  That the items will be found in the place to be
express law, deport them. searched. It is also not necessary that a particular
person be implicated.
Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 5
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

o In arrest cases: Valmonte vs. De Villa


• Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable
 There must be probable cause that a crime has been
are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not determined by a fixed
committed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.
 That the person to be arrested committed it, which • Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence, and
can exist without any showing that evidence of the crime promote public welfare, and an individual’s right against
will be found at the premises under that person’s control. warrantless search which was reasonably conducted, the former
should prevail.
People vs. Woolcock • Checkpoints during abnormal times, if conducted within reasonable limits,
• The remedy for questioning the validity of a search warrant can are constitutional. They are part of the price we pay for an orderly society
only be sought in the court that issued it, not in the sala of another and a peaceful community.
judge of concurrent jurisdiction.
Gozos vs. Tac-an Guazon vs. De Villa
• Preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding for the • Nothing in the Constitution denies the authority of the Chief Executive to
purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a order police actions to stop unabated criminality, rising lawlessness and
well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC has been committed alarming communist activities. The Constitution grants to Government the
and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for power to seek and cripple subversive movements which would bring down
trial. constituted authority and substitute a regime where individual liberties are
• The following are recognized to conduct preliminary investigations: suppressed as a matter of policy in the name of security of the State.
o Provincial or city fiscals and their assistants • 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
o Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and MCTC
hardened sensibilities.
o National and Regional State Prosecutors
o Such other officers as may be authorized by law People vs. Saycon
• The determination of probable cause for the issuance of arrest and search
warrants is vested in the courts, but the conduct of preliminary • The general rule. Therefore, is that the search and seizure must be carried
investigation is entrusted to the executive branch, with the exception of out through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise such search and seizure
inferior court judges. becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of the above constitutional
provisions. The evidence secured in the process of search and seizure will
People vs. CA (GR. No. 126379, 26 June 1998) be inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
• The place the police officers have in mind in applying for a search warrant • The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the
must be the same place the Judge have in mind when he issues the carrying out of a search and seizure is, however, not absolute. There are
warrant. certain exceptions recognized by our law. (In the case at bar, it is that of
• It is neither fair nor licit to allow police officers to search a place different moving vehicles)
from that stated in the warrant on the claim that the place actually
searched – although not that specified in the warrant – is exactly what People vs. CFI of Rizal
they had in view when they applied for the warrant and had demarcated in • Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising
their supporting evidence. What is material in determining the validity of a police authority under customs law may effect search and seizure without a
search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.
in their thoughts, or had represented in the proofs they submitted to the • Searches and seizures, without warrant are valid if made upon probable
court issuing the warrant. cause, that is, upon belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known
• The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or to the seizing officer that an automobile or other vehicle contains that
modified by the officers’ own personal knowledge of the premises, or the which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.
evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant – the
particularization of the place to be search may properly be done Nolasco vs. Pano
only be the Judge, and only in the warrant itself. • Articles seized by virtue of a void warrant should be returned
IMMEDIATELY.

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 6


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• The policemen’s entry into the house of appellant without a search warrant
People vs. Lo Ho Wing was in hot-pursuit of a person caught committing an offense in flagrante.
• That search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an The arrest that followed the hot-pursuit was valid.
absolute rule. There are at least 3 well-recognized exceptions: • A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the
o A search incidental to an arrest arrest and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made.
o A search of a moving vehicle
o Seizure of evidence in plain view. Aniag vs. COMELEC

People vs Malmstedt
• 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
• Where search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to
from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been
obtain a search warrant; Circumstances where a lawful arrest without
upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain
warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person.
view, as we;; as search conducted at police or military checkpoints which
• A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a we declared are not illegal per se, and stressed that the warrantless search
person: is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is
o When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, neither searched not its occupants subjected to a body search, and
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search.
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
o
• An extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to if the
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe
arrested has committed it; before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that they
o When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final the crime in the vehicle to be searched.
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has • Consent given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. within the purview of constitutional guaranty.

Posadas vs. Zamora People vs. Barros


• There are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be effected • Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles without
without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the need of a warrant, it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant
“stop and search” without a search warrant at military or police before searching a vehicle, since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of
checkpoints, the constitutionality or validity of which has been upheld in the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. In carrying
Valmonte vs. De Villa. out warrantless searches of moving vehicles, however, peace officers are
limited to routine checks, that is, the vehicles are neither really
People vs. De Gracia searched nor their occupants subjected to physical or body searches, the
• Where the raiding military operatives, at the height of the December 1989 examination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection.
coup d’état attempt, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was • Where there is no circumstance which might reasonably have excited the
being committed, and had no opportunity to apply for and secure search suspicion of the police officers that an offense had in fact just been
warrant from the courts, the same constituted an exception to the committed, there was no basis for a valid warrantless arrest and the search
prohibition against warrantless searches. and seizure was equally non-permissible and invalid.
• Applying for and posting bail does not result in the waiver of the invalidity
People vs. De Lara of an unjustified warrantless arrest.
• …appellant’s arrest was lawfully effected without need of a warrant of People vs. Tabar
arrest. “having caught the appellant in flagrante delicto as a result of the • Voluntary submission to the search and seizure without a warrant,
buy-bust operation, the policemen were not only authorized but were also deemed waiver of one’s constitutional right relative thereto.
under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even without a warrant of
arrest.” People vs. Leangsiri

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 7


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• The inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search incident to • The immediately apparent test does not require an unduly high degree
a lawful arrest outside the suspect’s person and the premises under his of certainty as to the incriminating character of evidence – incriminating
immediate control admits of an exception. Objects in plain view of an means the furnishing of evidence as proof of circumstances tending to
officer who has right to be in the position to have that view are prove the guilt of a person. The immediately apparent aspect is central to
subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. the plain view exception.

United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip Malacat vs. CA


• A search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal action or • Instances where warrantless searches may be effected (COMPLETE LIST):
the commencement of a prosecution – it is a special and peculiar o Customs searches
remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of public o Search of Moving Vehicles
necessity, resembling in some respect with what commonly known as John o Seizure of evidence in Plain View
Doe proceedings. While an application for a search warrant is entitled like a
criminal action, it does not make it such an action.
o Consent searches

• A search warrant is a legal process which has been likened to a writ of


o A search incidental to a lawful arrest
discovery employed by the state to procure relevant evidence of a crime – o A “Stop and frisk”
it is in the nature of a criminal process, restricted to cases of public • Stop and frisk search is different from a search incidental to a lawful arrest.
prosecutions and not a process for adjudicating civil rights or maintaining • In a search incidental to lawful arrest, the law requires that there first be a
mere private rights. lawful arrest before a search can be made. This process cannot be
• A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding reversed. Assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the
party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a
all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. 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
• The plain view doctrine is not an exemption to the warrant – it merely
that which may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee
serves to supplement the prior justification, whether it be a warrant
with the means of escaping or committing violence.
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
People vs. Encinada
directed against the accused.
• Elements of plain view: • Raw intelligence information is not a sufficient ground for a
o The executing law enforcement officer has a prior justification for warrantless arrest.
an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from which • Where the search was conducted irregularly, the Court cannot appreciate
he can view a particular order; consent based merely on the presumption of regularity of the performance
o The officer must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; of duty.
and • An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on the
o It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they strength of the evidence yielded by the search.
observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise
subject to a warrant. People vs. Lacerna
• In applicable earlier Decisions, this Court held that there was probable
• The immediate requirement means that the executing officer can, at the cause in the following instances:
time of the discovery of the object or the facts therein available to him, o Where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the plastic
determine probable cause of the object’s incriminating evidence – to be
bag carried by the accused;
immediate, probable cause must be the direct result of the officer’s
o Where an informer positively identified the accused who was
instantaneous sensory perception of the object.
observed to have been acting suspiciously;
• The requirement of inadvertence means that the officer must not have o Where the accused fled when accosted by policemen;
known in advance of the location of the evidence and intend to seize it. o Where the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped and
Discovery is not anticipated. searched by policemen who had earlier received confidential

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 8


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

reports that said accused would transport a large quantity of officer for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law-breaker in the
marijuana; execution of his criminal plan.
o Where the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis • The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by
of intelligence information and clandestine reports by a deep law enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the
penetration agent or spy – one who participated in the drug presumption of innocence and the constitutionally-protected rights of
smuggling activities of the syndicate to which accused belonged – the individual.
that said accused were bringing prohibited drugs to the country.
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
People vs. Cueno 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
• The arrest of the appellant has been made in the course of a buy-bust expedient means by telephone, if possible, or by letter or messenger. It
operation, thus, in flagrante delicto. A buy bust operation – a form of shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is
entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in
arresting violators of Dangerous Drugs Law – is far variant from an the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on
ordinary arrest. In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee
the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but
person of the suspect but also in the permissible area within his reach, i.e. the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel.
that point which is within the effective control of the person arrested, or Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down,
that which may furnish him with the means of committing violence or of whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part shall be
escaping. inadmissible as evidence.

People vs. Doria • In a confession, an accused acknowledges his guilt, while there is no
acknowledgement of such guilt in an admission.
• Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an • Where the truthfulness of the facts in support of probable cause is doubtful
officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would and the Court is of the impression that the search in question was not at all
not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud incidental to the lawful arrest of the accused but rather, pre-planned, any
of the officer. It consists of two elements: evidence obtained in the course thereof must be excluded.
o Acts of persuasion, trickery, or fraud carried out by law
enforcement officers or the agents to induce a defendant to People vs. Che Chun Ting
commit a crime; and
o The origin of the criminal design in the minds of the government • 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
officials rather than that of the innocent defendant, such that the was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate
crime is the product of the creative activity of the law enforcement control.
officer.
• Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure
• Entrapment should be distinguished differently from
is deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree
inducement/instigation: The instigator practically induces the would-be and should be excluded. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence
accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co- for any purpose in any proceeding.
principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to by the peace

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 9


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

People vs. Valdez books and documents in question in virtue of the constitutional guarantee
• Plain View doctrine: making an express exception in favor of the disclosure of communication
o A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in and correspondence upon lawful order of a court of justice.
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties; Harvey vs. Defensor-Santiago
o The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have • Right against unreasonable searches and seizures available to all persons
the right to be where they are; including aliens whether accused of crime or not. A valid search warrant or
o The evidence must be immediately apparent; warrant of arrest must be based upon probable cause.
o Plain view justified the mere seizure of evidence without further • The right to bail in deportation proceedings is not a matter of right but of
search. discretion on the part of the Commissioner of Immigration and
• The seizure of evidence in plain view applies only where the police officer is Deportation.
not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object. People vs. Burgos
• The Constitution plainly declares that any person under investigation for • To constitute a waiver on searches:
the commission of an offense shall have the 1) right to remain silent; 2) to o The right exists;
have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice; o The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the
3) to be informed of such rights. These rights cannot be waived except in existence of such right;
writing and in the presence of counsel. o That said person had an actual intention to relinquish such right.
• An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry but starts • The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his does not
amount to a permission to make a search therein.
to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e. when the police
• Extrajudicial confessions of accused obtained through violence and third
investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect
degree measures are inadmissible as evidence.
in connection with an alleged offense. The moment the police try to elicit
admissions or confessions or even plain information from a person • Absence of counsel at the time of custodial investigation when the
suspected of having committed an offense, he should at that juncture be extrajudicial statement was taken, renders inadmissible the extrajudicial
assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right in writing and in the confession.
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
Umil vs. Ramos
his formal investigation is not only inadmissible for being violative of the
right to counsel during criminal investigations, it is also hearsay. For • The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such
confession to be admissible, it must satisfy the following requirements: crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in
o It must be voluntary connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State are in the
nature of continuing crimes – thus justifies warrantless arrests.
o It must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel
People vs. Sucro
o It must be express • An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer,
o It must be in writing. within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without warrant, when
People vs. Johnson the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
• Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof.
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a
lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is People vs. Mengote
prepared to recognize as reasonable. • Warrantless search in broad daylight of a person merely looking from side
to side and holding his stomach is illegal.
Material Distributors vs. Natividad • A person may not be stopped and frisked in broad daylight on a busy street
• The constitutional guarantee of privacy of communication and on mere unexplained suspicion
correspondence will not be violated, because the trial court has power and
jurisdiction to issue the order for the production and inspection of the Al-Ghoul vs. Court of Appeals

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 10


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• The place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged nor amplified by the • The invalid waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation
police. makes the uncounselled confession, whether verbal or non-verbal,
obtained in violation thereof as also inadmissible as evidence.
People vs. Simon • Requisites in order for a confession to be admissible:
• The practice of entrapping drug traffickers through utilization of poseur- o Express and Categorical
buyers is susceptible to mistake, harassment, extortion, and abuse. o Given voluntarily and intelligently
• No law or jurisprudence requires that an arrest or seizure, to be valid, be o With assistance of competent and independent counsel (preferably
witnessed by a relative, a barangay official or any other civilian or be of his own choice)
accompanied by taking of pictures. o In writing, and in the language known to and understood by the
confessant
People vs. Rabang o Signed, or if the confessant does not know how to read and write,
• Any irregularity attendant to a persons arrest was cured when he voluntary thumbmarked by him.
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a • The purpose of providing a counsel to aperson under custodial investigation
plea of not guilty and by participating in the trial. is to curb the uncivilized practice of extracting confession even by
the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit
People vs. Lopez, Jr. something false. Extrajudicial confession of one accused may not be
• Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition utilized against a co-accused unless they are repeated in open court or
of the court over the jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be unless there is an opportunity to cross-examine the other on his
made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed extrajudicial statements.
waived.
People vs. Aruta
Velasco vs. CA • The plain import of the language of the Constitution, which in one sentence
• It is settled that the giving or posting of bail by the accused is tantamount prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and at the same time
to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. prescribes the requisites for a valid warrant, is that searches and seizures
are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search
People vs. Sequiño warrant or warrant of arrest.
• The rule is settled that once the primary source (the “tree”) is shown to • Exigent and Emergency Circumstances also serves an exception to the
have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the strict rule of warrantless searches.
“fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible. • A statute, rule or situation which allows exceptions to the requirement of a
• Where a policeman suspected a person to have committed crime, the act of warrant of arrest or search warrant must perforce be strictly construed and
such suspect voluntarily going with the policeman upon such officer’s their application limited only to cases specifically provided by law.
invitation constituted an arrest.

People vs. Mahusay Cadua vs. CA


• It has been ruled that “personal knowledge of the facts” in arrests without • The legality of apprehending the accused would not depend on the actual
warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief commission of the crime but upon the nature of the deed, where from such
or reasonable grounds of suspicion. characterization it may be reasonably be inferred by the officer or
functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves the decision for the
Larranaga vs. CA urgent purpose of suspending the liberty of the citizen – police authorities
• A waiver, whether express or implied, must be made in clear and can stop a person forcibly when such action is based on something more
unequivocal manner. than a mere “reasonable and articulable” suspicion that such a person has
• The filing of charges and the issuance of warrant of arrest against a person been engaged in criminal activity.
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. Elamparo

People vs. Olivarez, Jr.

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 11


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• The members of the buy-bust team were justified in running after him and • Where contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part of
entering the house without a search warrant for they were hot in the heels the arresting officer, there is not a search that is prohibited by the
of the fleeing criminal. Constitution.
• The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked
People vs. Cubcubin, Jr. against act of private individuals, it is directed only against the government
• Two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid: and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. The Bill of Rights
o The offender has just committed an offense; governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern
o The arresting peace officer or private person has personal is not the relationship between individuals, between a private
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to
committed it. declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any
• It has been held that “personal knowledge of facts” in arrests without power holder. The constitutional proscription against unlawful
warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only
or reasonable grounds of suspicion. against the government and its agencies tasked with the
• The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State
which may be waived expressly or impliedly; waiver by implication to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power
cannot be presumed. is imposed.

Posadas vs. Ombudsman Gamboa vs. Cruz


• The right to counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e. when
• Probable cause on a valid warrantless search means an actual belief or
the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or
reasonable grounds for suspicion. The grounds for suspicion are
confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. At such point or
reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting
stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid
officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions, or
guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e.,
confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
commission of an offense.
create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
• As aptly observed, however, by the Solicitor General, the police line-up (at
reasonable suspicion therefore, must be founded on probable cause,
least in this case) was not part of the custodial inquest, hence petitioner
coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
was not yet entitled to counsel.
• 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 • Accused should be assisted by counsel the moment there is a move or
a crime, otherwise, we cannot leave to the police officers the determination even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or
of whom to apprehend if we are to protect our civil liberties. 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
Zulueta vs. CA and in the presence of counsel.
• Privacy of communication and correspondence is inviolable. The only
exception in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order from a court or People vs. Pinlac
when public safety or order requires, otherwise, as prescribed by law. • 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
People vs. Marti principle. As rule therefore, it would not be sufficient for a police
• The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures officer just to repeat to the person under investigation the
refers to the immunity of one’s person from interference by government; it provisions of the Constitution. He is not only duty-bound to tell the
cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring person the rights to which the latter is entitled, he must also explain their
it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. 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

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 12


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

communication that results in understanding what is conveyed. Short of • The Receipt of Seized Property signed by the accused without the
this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot be truly said that the person assistance of counsel and without being first informed of his constitutional
has been informed of his rights. rights is totally inadmissible under the Bill of Rights.
• The waiver of constitutional rights must be with the assistance of counsel.
People vs. Parojinog
People vs. Ayson • …a person under investigation for the commission of an offense may
• In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren summarized the procedural safeguards choose his own counsel but if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he
laid down for a person in police custody, "in-custody interrogation" being must be provided with one. While the initial choice of the lawyer in the
regarded as the commencement of an adversary proceeding against the latter case is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really
suspect. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask
to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court for another one.
of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he • The settled rule is that a confession is admissible until the accused
cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation,
questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise those rights must be threat or promise of reward or leniency
afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have
been given, such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly People vs. Loveria
and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a • The court must emphasize that the so-called Miranda rights contained in
statement. But unless and until such warnings and waivers are the constitutional provisions may be invoked by a person only when he is
demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a under custodial investigation – the questioning initiated by law
result of interrogation can be used against him. The objective is to prohibit enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
"incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statement without full warnings
of constitutional rights." People vs. Marra
• The rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in "custodial • Admission made to the police by a person at a time when the police inquiry
interrogations," or "in-custody interrogation of accused persons." And, as has not yet reached a level wherein he is considered as a particular suspect
this Court has already stated, by custodial interrogation is meant is admissible as evidence.
"questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any People vs. Frago
significant way." The situation contemplated has also been more precisely
• There is no requirement of presence of counsel during police line-ups
described by this Court. "After a person is arrested and his custodial
where there is no move to extract any admission or confession from the
investigation begins a confrontation arises which at best may be tanned
suspect.
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
People vs. Ruelan
investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. He finds
himself in strange and unfamiliar surroundings, and every person he meets • A confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved and
he considers hostile to him. The investigators are well-trained and the burden of proof is upon the person making the confession.
seasoned in their work. They employ all the methods and means that • By voluntary executing his extrajudicial confession after having been
experience and study have taught them to extract the truth, or what may informed of his constitutional rights, and in the presence of and with the
pass for it, out of the detainee. Most detainees are unlettered and are not assistance of counsel, appellant effectively waived his right to remain
aware of their constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidating silent.
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 People vs. Barasina
remedy this imbalance. • 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
People vs. De Guzman equally competent and independent attorneys from handling his defense.

People vs. Barlis

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 13


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• The failure of the mother and the girlfriend of the appellant to sign as has been taken into custody and when the suspect signs his supposed
witnesses to taking of his sworn statement is of no moment for the extrajudicial confession.
Constitution does not require the presence of witnesses during custodial
investigation. What is required is the assistance of counsel. 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. Bandula People vs. Camat


• The Constitution requires that counsel be independent. He cannot be a • An extra judicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not
special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a admissible against his co-accused. As against the latter, the confession is
municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. hearsay.
• An accused’s constitutional right to meet the witnesses face to face is
People vs. Balisteros limited to proceedings before the trail court, at the trial and not during
• An extrajudicial confession repeated in court is converted into a judicial custodial investigation.
confession which, if allowed by the trial court, eliminates the need for
assistance of counsel. Manuel vs. NC Construction Supply
• The exclusionary rule under paragraph 3, Sec 12, of the bill of rights
People vs. Teehankee applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not those
made in administrative investigations.
• In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of
suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where People vs. Andan
they consider the following factors: • When the accused talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law
o The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession did not violate his
crime constitutional rights
o The witness’ degree of attention at that time • The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a
o The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities
o The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having
identification committed the crime.
o The length of time between the crime and identification • Confessions to the media in response to questions by news reporters, not
o The suggestiveness of the identification procedure by the police or any other investigating officer are admissible

People vs. Morico People vs. Binamira


• When an arrested person signs a booking sheet and arrest report at a • If the lawyer’s role is reduced to being that of a mere witness to the
police station, he does not admit the commission of an offense nor confess signing of a pre-prepared document albeit indicating therein compliance
any incriminating circumstance. The booking sheet is merely a statement with the accused’s constitutional rights, the constitutional standard is not
of the accused’s being booked and on the date which accompanies the fact met.
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 People vs. Suarez
statement and cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction. • Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion, almost
identical with each other in their material details which could have been
People vs. Compil known only to the declarants, and corroborated by other evidence against
• The arrival of a lawyer prior to the actual signing of the uncounseled the person or persons implicated to show the probability of the latter’s
confession does not cure the inherent defect such confession, as the actual participation in the commission of the crime are impressed with
operative act is when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry features of voluntariness in their execution.
into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who • 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

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 14


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him, but, non-government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the
rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion officer to ensure that this is accomplished.
as would lead the accused to admit something false. 7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of the
said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and
People vs. Meneses intelligently and ensure that he understood the same.
• 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
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he
guilt, does not make the supposed confession admissible against the must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in
purported confessant. 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
People vs. Mahinay same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must cease if
• Procedures in Reading Miranda rights: it has already begun
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial 10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver
investigation must be informed in a language known to and of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his
understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the
shown the warrant of arrest, if any; every other warnings, questions or volunteered some statements.
information or communication must be in a language known to 11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as
and understood by said person. the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing,
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against inadmissible as evidence.
him.
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all People vs. Morada
times and have by the presence of an independent and • The ruling in People vs. Andan (269 SCRA 95) does not authorize the police
competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice. to obtain confessions they cannot otherwise obtain through media
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford reporters who are actually acting for the police.
the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and • Accused’s alleged confession made to a barangay captain is not admissible
that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or where the same was part of an ongoing police investigation.
may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person
arrested or one acting in his behalf. Santos vs. Sandiganbayan
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must • Voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its language such that,
be informed that no custodial investigation in any form if upon its face the confession exhibits no sign of suspicious circumstances
shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with details –
after a valid waiver has been made. which could possibly be supplied only by the accused – reflecting
spontaneity and coherence which, psychologically, cannot be associated
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has with a mind to which violence and torture have been applied, it may be
the right t communicate or confer by the most expedient
considered voluntary.
means – telephone, radio, letter or messenger – with his lawyer
• Although an extrajudicial confession is admissible only against the
(either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate
confessant, jurisprudence makes it admissible as corroborative evidence of
family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or
other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused.
by anyone from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be
visited by/ confer with duly accredited national ore international
People vs. Canoy

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 15


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• No meaningful information as to a suspect’s rights under custodial right to bail is still matter of discretion because the constitution states that
interrogation is conveyed where he is not asked if he wants to avail of his the right to bail cannot be denied unless evidence of guilt is strong.
rights and he is not told that if he has no lawyer of his own choice he can • The right to bail is another of the constitutional rights that can be waived
avail of one to be appointed for him. (QUERY of Fr. B: if the right to bail can be waived, can it be reinstituted?).

People vs. Liwanag People vs. Mapalao


• The requirements of effectiveness and vigilance of counsel during that • An accused who escapes from confinement or jumps bail or flees to a
stage before arraignment were for the purposed of guarding against the foreign country, loses his standing in court, and unless he surrenders or
use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions which submits himself to the jurisdiction of the Court, he is deemed to have
may taint them and render them inadmissible. waived any right to seek relief from the court, including his right to appeal
his conviction.
People vs. Labtan • An accused who, after filing of an information, is at large, and has not been
• The term effective and vigilant counsel contemplates not a mere apprehended or otherwise has not been submitted himself to the
presence of the lawyer beside the accused. It means necessarily and jurisdiction of the court, cannot apply for bail or be granted any other relief
logically requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and by the court, until he submits himself to its jurisdiction or is arrested.
assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first • A trial in absentia may be had when the following requisites are present:
question asked b the investigating officer until the signing of the o That there has been an arraignment.
extrajudicial confession. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain
o That the accused has been notified.
that the confession is made voluntarily and that the person under
o That he fails to appear and his failure to do so is unjustified.
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 De la Camara vs. Enage
constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and to be • Before every conviction, every person is bailable except if charged with
presumed innocent. capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong. This right flows from
the presumption of innocence.
People vs. Gamer • Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by
• By entering a plea without first questioning the legality of his arrest, the requiring a sum that is excessive. The sole permissible function of money
accused is deemed to have waived any objection concerning his arrest bail is to assure the accused’s presence at trial, and declared that bail
• The Totality of Circumstances Test has been fashioned precisely to set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill his
assure fairness as well as compliance with the constitutional requirements purpose is “excessive”.
of due process in regard to out-of-court identification. • SPECIAL NOTES
• It is not merely any identification which would suffice conviction of the o The question of excessiveness of bail should be raised or
accused – it must be positive identification made b a credible witness or presented at the time of application for bail (People vs. LARA)
witnesses, in order to attain the level of acceptability and credibility to o The obligations imposed upon the bondsmen cannot be greater
sustain moral certainty concerning the person of the offender. nor of a different character than that imposed by law.

Chu vs. Dolalas


--KATAPUSAN NG MGA ARALIN SA PANGGITNANG PAGSUSULIT— • 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
--PAGSISIMULA SA IKALAWANG HATI NG SEMESTRE-- 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.
People vs. Donato • Bail defined in the Rules of Court: the security required and given for
• Right to bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by the release of a person who in the custody of the law, that he will appear
a penalty less than reclusion perpetua. Even in cases of capital crimes, the before the court in which his appearance may be required.
• Principles governing bail:

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 16


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

o It should be high enough to assure the presence of the Section 6, Rule 114, of the Rules of Court. Otherwise, the imposition of bail
defendant but no higher than reasonably calculated to fulfill this shall be arbitrary and without legal basis.
purpose. • The importance of a summary cannot be downplayed – it is considered an
o The good of the public as well as the rights of the accused aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense,
o The need for a tie to the jurisdiction and the right to freedom from and its absence will invalidate the grant or denial of bail. A Summary is
unnecessary restraint before conviction under circumstances defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a
surrounding each particular accused. text or statement.
• It is error for a judge to depend solely, in granting bail, on a medical report
• Considerations to be taken in fixing bail: (FANPPECAFF)
made nine months earlier - the defense should present a more recent one
o Financial ability of the accused to give bail; that would convincingly raise strong grounds to apprehend that the
o Nature and circumstances of the offense; imprisonment of the accused would endanger his life.
o Penalty for the offense charged; • 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
o Character and reputation of the accused;
happenings or events although of a character which would have prevented
o Age and health of the accused; jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.
o Weight of evidence against the accused; • A person is considered to be in the custody of the law when he is validly
o Probability of the accused appearing at the trial arrested or when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of
the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.
o Forfeiture of other bail;
o Fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
o Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. • 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
Commendador vs. De Villa accused is strong. This requires that the trial court conduct bail hearings
• Constitution grants the right to bail to all persons with the defined wherein both the prosecution and the defense are afforded sufficient
exception is applicable and covers all military men facing court-martial opportunity to present their respective evidence. The burden of proof lies
proceedings. with the prosecution to show strong evidence of guilt.
• 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 Sule vs. Biteng
treatment only of persons or things similarly situated and does not apply • Granting bail to the accused without giving the prosecution any opportunity
where the subject of the treatment is substantially different from others. to be heard, amounts to a denial of due process.

People vs. Gako Paderanga vs. CA


• Bail is not a matter of right with respect to persons charged with a crime • SECTION 1 Rule 114 of the Rules of Court: bail as the security given
the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
when the evidence of guilt is strong. bondsman, conditioned upon his appearing before any court as required
• Summary Hearing: When bail is discretionary, a hearing whether under the conditions specified in the said Rule. Its main purpose, then is to
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, should first be relieve an accused from the rigors of imprisonment until his conviction and
conducted to determine the existence of strong evidence or lack of it, yet secure his appearance at trial. As bail is intended to obtain or secure
against the accused to enable the judge to make intelligent assessment of one’s provisional liberty, the same cannot be posted before custody over
the evidence presented by the parties; a summary hearing is defined as him has been acquired by the judicial authorities, either by his lawful arrest
such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering or voluntary surrender.
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose • Constructive Custody: In the instant case, even as petitioner filed his
of hearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for motion for admission to bail before he was actually and physically placed
the purpose of bail. under arrest, he may, however, under peculiar circumstances which
• Another compelling reason why a hearing of a petition for bail is necessary attended the filing of bail application, namely, that he was then confined in
is to determine the amount of bail based on the guidelines set forth in the hospital, for purposes of the hearing thereof, he should be deemed to

Fraternal Order of Utopia 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 • The information should clearly indicate the offense charged and the acts
and communication between the accused and his/her counsel. There must committed. Otherwise, it would be a violation of the right of the accused to
be no language barrier limiting their ability to communicate. be informed of the charges against him.

People vs. Serzo People vs. Manalili


• During custodial investigation, arraignment, trial and even appeal, the • Under the Constitution, an accused has the right to be informed, before
accused is given the option to be represented by a counsel of his choice. trial, of the nature of the offense with which he or she is charged.
But when he neglects or refuses to exercise this option during arraignment Regardless of how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be,
and trial, the court shall appoint one for him. While the right to be there can be no conviction unless the offense is charged (or is necessarily
represented by counsel is absolute, the accused’s option to hire one of his included) in the complaint or information.
own choice is limited. Such option cannot be used to sanction reprehensible • An accused, who fails to object prior to arraignment to a duplicitous
dilatory tactics, to trifle with the Rules or to prejudice the equally important information, may be found guilty of any or all of the crimes alleged therein
rights of the state and the offended party to speedy and adequate justice. and duly proven during the trial, for the allegation of the elements of such
Amion vs. Chiongson component crimes in the said information has satisfied the constitutional
guarantee that an accused be informed of the nature of the offense with
• The right to counsel is guaranteed by the Constitutioin. “Preference in which he or she is being charged.
the choice of counsel” pertains more to a person under
investigation rather than one who is the accused in a criminal People vs. Baniguid
proceeding. • Due process requires that the acts or omission constitutive of the offense
• Even if this preferential right is extended to criminal proceedings, such is be stated in the information to fully appraise the accused of the charge
not absolute and arbitrary as would make choice of counsel refer against him. The nature and the cause of the accusation must be
exclusively to the predilection of the accused. reasonably stated therein.

People vs. Taguba Peole vs. Bugayong


• It is a basic right of the accused to be informed of the nature and • The precise time of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in
cause of the accusation against him and, if he is found guilty, to be the information, unless time is an essential element of the crime charged.
penalized only for the offense specified in the information or necessarily The complaint will be sustained if proof shows that the offense was
included in such offense. committed at any time within the period of the statute of limitations and
before the commencement of the action. The determinative factor here is
Pecho vs. People the element of surprise on the part of the accused and his corollary
• An accused may be convicted of a crime which, although not the one inability to defend himself properly.
charged, is necessarily included in the latter. • Failure to object to duplicitous information serves as a waiver of
right against it.
Imson-Souweha vs. Rondez
• Imposing a penalty based on motu propio (his own accord) finding made People vs. Ferolino
by investigating commissioner that accused is guilty is violative of the right • Where time or place or any other fact alleged is not an essential element of
of a person to be informed of the nature of the charge for which he is being the crime charged, conviction may be had on proof of the commission of
held accountable. the crime, even if it appears that the crime was not committed at the
precise time or place alleged.
People vs. Manansala
• Accused cannot be convicted of a crime not included in the information as People vs. Tagana
this will violate the constitutional right of the accused to due process and to • Where the precise date of the commission of the offense need not be
be informed of the charges against him. 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
People vs. Ortega adequately apprise the accused of the charges against him.

Tai Lim vs. CA

Fraternal Order of Utopia 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 Guerrero vs. CA
not sufficient. • The right is violated when there is unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive
o Vexatious, oppressive, and capricious delays delay without the participation or fault of the accused, or when unjustified
o Unjustified postponements of the trial are being asked for and postponements are sought which prolong the trial for un reasonable
secured. lengths of time.
o Without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed
to elapse without the party having his case. People vs. CA
• The right to speedy trial allows reasonable continuance so as not to deprive • One of the essential requirements of procedural due process in a judicial
the prosecution its day in court. 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
Nepomuceno vs. Secretary of National Defense litigant, including the state, is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial
• The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus affords a valid judge.
excuse for any delay in the filing of the charges, the crime charged being • The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial
of a nature involving nationwide conspiracy and a continuing one, that as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just.
numerous offenders could be brought before the law and detained, so
numerous that the normal dispatch of the filing of charges cannot be Maliwat vs. CA
attained. • 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.
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 Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan
defendant but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. • The Court’s examination of the witnesses and the accused should be
limited to asking “clarificatory” questions, the right should also be sparingly
Cadalin vs. POEA Administrator and judiciously used; for the rule is that the court should stay out of it as
• Speedy disposition of cases is not limited to accused in criminal cases. It much as possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the conduct of trial.
extends to all parties in all cases including civil and administrative cases
and all in all proceedings including quasi-judicial hearings. Cosep vs. People
• Impartiality and neutrality does not say that judges must remain passive or
• Speedy disposition of cases is a relative term like speedy trial in
silent during the proceedings.
criminal cases. It s consistent with delays and depends on circumstances of
• Accused is free to manifest his objection if he is under the impression that
each case. The Constitution prohibits arbitrary and oppressive delays the judge is unduly interfering his testimony.
which render rights nugatory.
• Factors to consider in speedy trial which are also applicable to speedy People vs. Teehankee
disposition:
o Length of delay • Pervasive publicity is not prejudicial per se to the right of an accused to a
o Reason for delay fair trial, it must first be proven that such publicity has so permeated the
o Assertion of right or failure to assert it mind of the judge and impaired his partiality.
o Prejudice caused by delays.
Garcia vs. Domingo
People vs. Tampal • The Constitution guarantees an accused the right to a public trial. What
• In dismissing criminal cases based on the right of the accused to speedy does it signify? Offhand it does seem fairly obvious that here is an instance
trial, courts should carefully weigh the circumstances attending each case. where language is to be given a literal application. The trial must be public.
They should balance the right of the accused and the right of the State to It possesses the character when anyone interested in observing the
punish people who violate its penal laws. Bothe the State and the accused manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may do so.
are entitled to due process. There is to be no ban on such attendance. His being a stranger to the
Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 21
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

litigants is of no moment. No relationship to the parties need be shown/ o Personally manifests clearly and indubitably in open court and
The thought that lies behind this safeguard is the belief that thereby the such manifestation is recorded, that whenever a prosecution
accused is afforded with further protection, that his trial is likely to be witness mentions a name by which the accused is known, the
conducted with regularity and not tainted with impropriety. It is thus witness is referring to him and no one else.
understandable why such a right is deemed embraced in procedural due • Reasons:
process. Where a trial takes place, as is quite usual, in the courtroom and a o So he cannot in his defense say that he was never identified as
calendar of what cases are to be heard is posted, no problem arises. person charged in the information and is therefore entitled to an
However, there is a well recognized exception though that warrants the acquittal.
exclusion of public where the evidence may be characterized as “offensive o Witness may not know his name, but may be able to identify him
to public morals”.
in person.
People vs. Digno
o Trial in absentia: a waiver of the right to meet witness face to
• In exercising the right to cross-examine, the accused employs the tool of face.
cross-examination to test the testimony of a prosecution witness and to
allow the judge to observe his deportment. An uncompleted testimony of a People vs. Estoista
witness may be rendered incompetent if the failure to cross-examine was • The constitutionality of an act of legislature is not to be judged in the light
not attributable to him. of exceptional cases.
• The right to cross examine may be waived expressly or impliedly. • It takes more than being merely harsh, excessive, out of proportion and
severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the constitution. The punishment
People vs. Camat that is to be avoided is one that is flagrantly and plainly oppressive.
• The right of the accused to confrontation with the witnesses of the
prosecution is available to him only during trial and during custodial People vs. Tongko
investigations. • What is measured in punishment is its severity, and not its time or
duration.

People vs. Ylagan


People vs. Ortiz-Miyake • Under Section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, defendant in a
• A previous decision or judgment, while admissible in evidence, may only criminal prosecution is in legal jeopardy when placed on trial under the
prove that an accused was previously convicted of a crime. It may not be following conditions:
used to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime charged in a subsequent 1. In a court of competent jurisdiction;
case, in lieu of the requisite evidence proving the commission of the crime, 2. Upon a valid complaint or information;
as said previous decision is hearsay. To sanction its being used as a basis 3. After he has been arraigned;
for conviction in a subsequent case would constitute a violation of the right 4. After he has pleaded to the complaint of information.
of the accused to confront the witnesses against him. • The rule against double jeopardy protects the accused not against the peril
of second punishment, but against being again tried for the same offense.
People vs. Narca • Without the safeguard this article establishes in favor of the accused, his
• Rule 115 provides that “either party may utilize as part of its evidence the fortune, safety, and peace of mind would be entirely at the mercy of the
testimony of a witness who is deceased given in another case or complaining witness, who might repeat his accusation as often as
proceeding. dismissed by the court and whenever he might see fit, subject to no other
limitation or restriction than his own will and pleasure.
Carredo vs. People
• An accused may waive his presence in the criminal proceedings except at People vs. Balicasan
the stages where identification of his person by the prosecution witnesses • While it is true that the Rules of Court provide that “The people of the
is necessary. Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant would be placed in double
• Total waiver is allowed only when the accused: jeopardy”…
o Agrees explicitly and unequivocally in writing signed by him, or o However, an existence of a plea is a requisite to double jeopardy.

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 22


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

o A testimony of self-defense is tantamount to vacating of a plea of • It is the conviction, acquittal of the accused or dismissal or termination of
guilty. Without a subsequent plea, the effect is that there is no the case that bars further prosecution for the same offense or any attempt
standing plea before the trial court. to commit the same in frustration thereof, or for any offense which
o There being no plea, no double jeopardy can be present. necessarily includes or is necessary included in the offense charged in the
former complaint or information.
Cinco vs. Sandiganbayan
• Preliminary investigation is not a trial for which jeopardy attaches. People vs. Obsania
• A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only • The Doctrine of Waiver of Double Jeopardy provides that when the
means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a case is dismissed with the express consent of the accused, the dismissal
crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. It is not will not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense because his
a trial of the case on merits and has no purpose except that of determining action in having the case dismissed CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF HIS
whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause RIGHT, for the reason that he thereby prevents the court from proceeding
to believe that the accused is guilty thereof and it does not place the to the trial on the merits and rendering a judgment against him.
person against whom is taken into jeopardy.
Galvez vs. CA Rivera Jr., vs. People
• For a dismissal to be a bar to double jeopardy, it must have the • The judgment and the order of dismissal must be written personally and
effect of acquittal. It is a general rule that dismissal before the accused directly prepared by the judge and signed by him.
is placed on trial and before he is called on to plead is not equivalent to • Where there is a valid information and the accused has been arraigned, an
acquittal. 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
Cudia vs. CA prosecution to present a witness, has the effect of acquittal and double
• An information, when required to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, jeopardy attaches. The order is also immediately executory.
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 People vs. Bans
authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, • Generally, the dismissal of a criminal case resulting in acquittal made with
or even b express consent. Therefore, jeopardy cannot attach. 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:
Limpangog vs. CA 1. Insufficiency of evidence
• To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three (3) requisites must concur: 2. Denial of the right to speedy trial
1. Attachment of the 1st jeopardy prior to the 2nd (which has the
following requisites): Teodoro vs. CA
a) Upon a valid indictment; • Conditions which renders the decision final:
b) Before a competent court; 1. Period for perfecting appeal has elapsed
c) After arraignment; 2. Sentence is partially or totally satisfied or served.
d) A valid plea having been entered; and 3. Accused applies for probation.
e) The case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without 4. Accused expressly waives in writing his right to appeal.
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 People vs. CA
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the 1st • Elements of double jeopardy:
information, or is an attempt to commit the same or is a 1. Accused charged under complaint or information sufficient in form
frustration thereof. and substance
2. Court has jurisdiction
People vs. Bulaong 3. Accused have been arraigned and have been pleaded

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 23


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

4. Accused is convicted or acquitted or case dismissed without his time, constitutes a new and distinct offense. The accused cannot be said to
express consent. be in 2nd jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.
• Accordingly, an offense may be said to necessarily include or to be
Galman vs. CA necessarily included in another offense, for the purpose of determining the
• Double jeopardy does not attach where a criminal trial was a sham: (1) the existence of double jeopardy, when both offenses were in existence during
proceedings were closely monitored by the president; (2) evidence was the pendency of the 1st prosecution, for otherwise, if the 2nd offense was
suppressed; (3) witnesses were threatened; (4) trial was finished in only 6 then inexistent, no jeopardy could attach therefore during the first
months pursuant to a scripted scenario; (5) Presiding justice’s hostile prosecution and consequently a subsequent charge for the same cannot
attitude against the prosecution. constitute double jeopardy.
• A dictated and coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal is a void judgment. • When a person who has already suffered his penalty for an offense, is
It is no judgment at all. It neither binds nor bars anyone. It is a lawless charged with a new and greater offense under the Diaz doctrine herein
thing which can be treated as an outlaw. Thus, the first jeopardy never reiterated, said penalty may be credited to him in case of conviction for the
terminated. second offense.
Melo vs. People Lamera vs. CA
• When a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either • Protection against double jeopardy can only be invoked against the same
by acquittal or conviction, or in any other matter without the consent of the offense. A simple act may be an offense against 2 different provision of law
accused, he cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. It and if one requires proof on a additional fact which the other does not, an
must be noticed that the protection for this constitutional prohibition is acquittal or conviction under one does not bar prosecution under the other.
against second jeopardy for the same offense, the only exception • The identity of the offense need not be absolute identity; The 1st and 2nd
being, when the act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or may be regarded as the same offense where the 2 nd necessarily includes
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the the 1st offense or where the second is an attempt or frustrated of the first.
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 Gonzales vs. CA
also that the 2 offenses are identical. There is identity between the two • When all the requisites of double jeopardy concur, a second prosecution
offenses when the evidence to support a victim for one offense would be can be rightly barred for the:
sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other. This is the Same Evidence 1. Same offense;
Doctrine. 2. Attempt to commit the said offense;
• Under the Rules, there is identity between 2 offenses not only when the 2nd 3. Frustration of the said offense;
offense is exactly the same as the first, but also when the 2 nd offense is an 4. Any offense which necessarily include or is necessarily included in
attempt to commit the first, or frustration thereof, or when it necessarily the 1st offense charged.
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first
information. An offense is said to be necessarily included in another when People vs. Balasa
some of the essential ingredients of the former as alleged in the • Crimes that arise out of the same scheme which are however, committed
information constitute the latter, and vice versa. Thus, one who has been against different persons, do not constitute a same offense.
charged with an offense cannot again be charged with the same or
identical offense though the latter be lesser or greater than the former. Metrobank vs. Meridiano
• But this rule of identity does not apply when the second offense was not in • Exception to the double jeopardy rule attaches only when the trial court
existence at the time of the prosecution. This is because in such case there commits grave abuse of discretion due to a violation of due process e.g.
is no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be 1. Prosecution was not given the opportunity to present its case;
convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused 2. The trial was a sham.
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 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 Even if the offenses charged are not the ----SECTION 4 to10----
punishment for the same act, provided same, owing to the fact that one
that he is charged with different constitutes a violation of an ordinance Near v. Minnesota
offenses, or the offense charged in one and the other a violation of a statute
case is not included, or does not include,
the crime charged in the other case. If the two charges are based on one and • The security of freedom of the press and expression requires that it should
the same act, conviction or acquittal be exempt not only from prior restraint from the executive, but also from
Conviction or acquittal is not under either the law or the ordinance the legislative
indispensable to sustain the plea of shall bar prosecution for the other. • Any system of prior restraint of expression comes to the Court bearing a
double jeopardy of punishment for the heavy presumption against constitutional validity. The Government carries
same offense. So long as jeopardy has Where offense is charged under a the heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such
attached under one of the informations municipal ordinance while the other is restraint
charging said offense, the defense may penalized by a statute, the critical
be availed of in other case involving the inquiry is to the identity of the acts
same offense, even if there has been which the accused is said to have Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
neither conviction nor acquittal in either committed and which are alleged to
case. have given rise to the two offenses. • 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
People vs. Ferrer the press or target a group belonging to the press for special treatment or
• A bill of attainder is a legislative which inflict punishment without trial. In which in any way discriminate against the press on the basis of the content
effect, it is a legislative determination of guilt. of the publication

People vs. Sandiganbayan


• An ex post facto law is defined as: Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA
1. A law passed after the occurrence of the fact or commission of an
act, which retrospectively changes the legal consequences or • The exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will
relations of such fact or deed. bring about the clear and present danger of some substantial evil which the
2. A law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a State is duty bound to prevent, i.e. serious detriment to the more
person for an act done which, when it was committed, was overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare
innocent.
• Any act that restrains speech, including religious speech, is hobbled by the
3. A law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than the law presumption of invalidity
annexed to the crime when it was committed. • Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by
4. A law that changes the rules of evidence and receives less or hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent
different testimony than was required at the time of the evil which has taken the life of a reality already on ground
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,
People v. Perez
when done, was lawful.

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 punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of
Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and force, violence, of unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient if the
effect be seditious 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
Dennis v. US reasonable application of the clear and present danger test
• The protection given to T.V. and radio broadcasting is somewhat less in
• Overthrow of the government by force is substantial interest to limit scope than that accorded to print media
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 Ayer Productions v. Judge Capulong
• To justify suppression of speech there must be reasonable ground to fear
that serious evil will result from the free speech practiced; and reasonable • Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film,
ground to believe that the danger sought to be apprehended is imminent 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
Gonzales v. COMELEC • 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
• The speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss interest. A limited intrusion into a person’s privacy has long been regarded
publicly any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment. as permissible where that person is a public figure and the information
There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him constitute
subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action matters of a public character. The interest sought to be protected by the
for damages, or contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present right of privacy is the right to be free from “unwarranted publicity, from the
danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and activities of an individual
which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern.”
• 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 • Public Figure – Definition: a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, or
and unrestrained 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
• ‘Clear and present danger’ and ‘dangerous tendency’ rules:
become a ‘public personage’. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived
1. Clear and present danger rule: Means that the evil consequence of the
at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person
comment or utterance must be ‘extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high’ before the utterance can be punished. The • The proposed motion picture is required to be fairly truthful and historical
danger to be guarded is the ‘substantive evil sought to be prevented’ 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
 The danger must not only be clear but also present. The term embarrassing personal facts.
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
Sanidad v. COMELEC
be probable but likely inevitable

• Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. The


people’s right to be informed would be better served by access to an
2. Dangerous tendency rule: “If the words uttered create a dangerous
unabridged discussion of issues, including the forum. The people affected
tendency which the State has a right to prevent, then such words are

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 26


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by • Commercial speech is a communication with “no more than proposes a
restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised commercial transaction.” Truthful and lawful commercial speech may be
National Press Club v. COMELEC regulated if:
1. The government has a substantial interest to protect
• The Constitution has expressly authorized the Comelec to supervise or 2. The regulation directly advances the interest
regulate the enjoyment and utilization of the franchises or permits for the 3. It is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that interest
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 Policarpio v. Manila Times
equal opportunity among candidates, although such supervision or
regulation may result in some limitation of the rights of free speech and • To enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must
free press 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
ABS CBN v. COMELEC case the libel laws may be used to impose sanctions upon criticism of
public officials’ official conduct. Neither factual error nor defamatory
• Exit polls are a species of electoral surveys for the purpose of determining content suffices to remove criticism of official conduct from constitutional
the probable result of an election by confidentially asking randomly protection
selected voters whom they have voted for immediately after they have Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc.
officially cast their ballots. The results of the survey are announced to the
public through mass media. • The constitutional standard of knowing or reckless falsity applies whenever
• There is no law which prohibits the holding and reporting of exit polls 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
SWS v. COMELEC

• O’Brien Test: the regulation is valid if Gertz v. Robert Welch


1. It is within the Constitutional power of the Government
2. It furthers a substantial government interest • The protection afforded news media against defamation suits by public
3. If the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of freedom persons is not to be extended to defamation suits by private individuals
of expression even though the defamatory statements concern an issue of public or
4. If the incidental restriction on the freedom of speech is no greater than general interest (overturning the doctrine in Rosenbloom)
what is essential to the furtherance of interest

In re Jurdado
City of Laude v. Gilleo
• Publication relating to judicial action in a pending case which tends to
• Signs are a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause. impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and
Governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs within the present danger to the administration of justice is not protected by the
reasonable bounds and absent censorial purpose guarantee of pres freedom

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 27


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

Vasquez v. CA • Radio and television are subject to a less liberal approach (as compared to
motion pictures) because they reaches their audience freely regardless of
• There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. A age
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 Pita v. CA
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 • Test for the Existence of Obscenity: whether he tendency of the matter
whether it was true or not 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
Borjal v. CA • Another test is that which shocks the ordinary and common sense of men
as an indecency
• In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable • If the material is not used exactly for art’s sake but for commercial
although it is not necessary that he be named purposes, then these are not entitled to any constitutional protection
• 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: Barnes v. Glenn Theatre
1. A private communication, made by any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral, or social duty • When speech and non-speech elements are combined in the same course
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the
remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment
are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech freedoms
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public
officers in the exercise of their functions

Miller v. California Renton v. Playtime Theater

• Test for Obscenity: • Where the government regulation is content-neutral (or does not restrict
1. Whether he average person, applying contemporary community content) but merely regulates the time, place, and manner of ‘speech,’ and
standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the implementation is just – the same is admissible and justified
prurient interest;
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defines by the applicable state law; and Bethel School District v. Fraser
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value
• 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
Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak

• Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which Navarro v. Villegas
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 Page 28


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• The right to assembly is not absolute. It is subject to regulation by police McDaniel v. Paty
power so that it may not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others
having an equal right • The right to the free exercise of religion unquestionably encompasses the
right to preach, proselyte, and perform other similar religious functions

Malabanan v. Ramento
Church of Lukumi v. City of Hialeach
• 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 • Smith standard: A law that burdens religious practice need not be justified
from the school authorities. Violations of the terms of the permit shall not by compelling government interest if it is neutral on its face and has
be penalized disproportionately to the offense 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
Bayan v. Ermita

• The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances is, Lamb’s Chapel v. School District
together with the freedom of speech, a right that enjoys primacy in the
realm of constitutional protection • 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
US v. Ballard 2. It does not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or
inhibiting religion, or
• The constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion does not afford 3. It does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion
immunity from criminal prosecution for the fraudulent procurement of
money by false representations as to their beliefs, religious or otherwise
Estrada v. Escritor

American Bible Society v. City of Manila • Compelling state interest test from a benevolent neutrality stance
1. Whether the right to religious freedom has been burdened
• The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise and enjoyment of religion 2. Ascertain sincerity in his/her religious belief
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 Aglipay v. Ruiz
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 • Religious freedom is not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and
affect the public welfare is not a denial of its influence in human affairs
• 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 Garces v. Estenzo
morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State
has a right (and duty) to prevent
• Objects bought with private funds and for a non-religious purpose do not
contravene the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and
State
Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 29
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• 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
School District v. Schempp leaving the country during the pendency of the case
• Parties with pending cases therein should apply for permission to leave the
• Two-fold protection: country from the very same courts, which, in the first instance, are in the
1. Establishment Clause: forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance best position to pass upon such applications and impose the appropriate
of any creed or the practice of any form of worship conditions therefor
> To withstand, there must be a secular legislative purpose and a
primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
Legaspi v. CSC
2. Free Exercise Clause: safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form
of religion • 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
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette and Ku Klux Clan agencies
• Constitutional guarantee to information on matters of public concern are
• The Establishment Clause applies only to words and acts of government. It 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
was never meant to serve as an impediment to purely private religious
speech connected to the State only through its occurrence in a public 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
forum.
constitutional right
• Religious expression cannot violate the Establishment Clause where:
1. It is purely private and
• There is no rigid test to determine whether or not particular information is
2. It occurs in a traditional or designated public forum, publicly 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
announced and open to all on equal terms
affects the public

Marcos v. Manglapus
Valmonte v. Belmonte

• The right to return to one’s country is not covered by the specific right to
travel and liberty of abode
• 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
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 Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato
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 • Private v. Public:
1. Private: belonging to or concerning, an individual person, company or
interest
Santiago v. Vasquez

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 30


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

2. Public: pertaining to, or belonging to, or affecting a nation, state or • The right to information, however, does not extend to matters recognized
community at large as privileged information under the separation of powers. The right also
• The constitutional recognition of the citizen’s right of access to official does not apply to information on military and diplomatic secrets,
records cannot be made dependent upon the consent of the members of information affecting national security, and information on investigations of
the board concerned, otherwise, the said right would be rendered nugatory 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
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice • The right to information includes official information on on-going
negotiations before a final contract, which information, however, must
• The right to information is self-executing constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover
recognized exceptions
• 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
Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage

Chavez v. PCGG • 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
• ‘Transactions’ as used in the provision, is generic and can therefore cover
accused must be preferred to win
both steps leading to a contract, and an already consummated contract. It
can include negotiations leading to its consummation, subject to • Guidelines in Audio Visual Recordings:
reasonable safeguards on the national interest 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
Chavez v. PEA
dignity and solemnity of the proceedings
3. The recording shall be made for documentary purposes only and shall
• The twin provisions of the right to information on matters of public concern be made without comment except such annotations of the scenes as
and policy of full transparency seek to promote transparency in policy- may be necessary to explain them
making and in the operations of the government; as well as provide the 4. The live broadcast of the recordings before the Sandiganbayan shall
people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional have rendered its decision shall be prohibited under pain of contempt
rights of court and other sanctions in case of violation of prohibitions
• The commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission understood that 5. The recording of the proceedings shall be made under the supervision
the right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to and control of the Sandiganbayan or any of its Divisions concerned
the consummation of the transaction – requiring a consummated contract 6. Simultaneously with the release of the recordings for public broadcast,
will keep the public in the dark until the contract, which may be grossly the original shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records
disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes a fait Management and Archives Office for preservation and exhibition in
accompli accordance with law
• 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 TUPAS v. NHC
2. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, and
decisions: refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing, • The right to unionize is not explicitly recognized and granted to employees
establishing, confirming, supporting, justifying or explaining official of both the government and private sector
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 Page 31
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

SSS v. CA 1. Determination of the authority of the LGU to exercise the power of


eminent domain and the propriety of such exercise
• The rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and 2. Determination by the court of the just compensation for the property
negotiations and peaceful concerted activities including the right to strike sought to be taken
in accordance with the law guaranteed • The exercise of eminent domain is necessarily in derogation of private
• Framers of the Constitution intended to limit the right to the formation of rights, and the rule is that it must be strictly construed against the
unions or associations only, without including the right to strike authority
• 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 Iron and Steel Authority v. CA
of Memorandum Circular No. 6 and as implied in E.O. No. 180
• Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by • The President has a long-standing delegated authority under the Revised
law, government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by Administrative Code to exercise the power of eminent domain on behalf of
workers in the private sector to ensure concessions from their employers the government. He/she determines when it is necessary or advantageous
to exercise this right

UPCSU v. Laguesma
Greater Balanga v. Municipality of Balanga
• The Commission intended the absolute right to organize of government
workers, supervisory employees, and security guards. But no similar • Until expropriation proceedings are instituted I court, the landowner cannot
absolute constitutional right to organize for labor purposes should be be deprived of its right over the land
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 Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi
employees
• Managerial employees: “managers” per se, who have the authority to • 2 general elements for the taking of a particular property:
devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies 1. Entrance and occupation
• Supervisors: their task is imply to ensure that such policies are carried our 2. Devoting it to a public purpose
by the rank-and-file employees of an organization • Requirements for ‘taking’ under expropriation:
1. The expropriator must enter the property
2. Entrance must be for more than a momentary period
Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong 3. Entry should be under warrant or color of authority
4. Property must be devoted to public use
• Courts have an obligation to determine whether the following requisites 5. Must exclude and deprive the owner of all rights with regard to the
have been complied with by the LGU concerned: property
1. An ordinance is enacted to exercise the power of eminent domain or • Fair market value must be determined at the time when the case was filed
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 City Government v. Judge Ericta
determined the amount of just compensation
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose, or • To validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights:
welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless 1. There must be a reasonable or rational relation between the means
3. There is payment of just compensation employed by the law and its object or purpose
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the 2. The law must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or oppressive
property sought to be expropriated but said offer was not accepted
• Elements of Eminent Domain:
• Two stages of an expropriation proceeding:
Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 32
Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

1. There is a ‘taking’ of private property • The right to use/the enjoyment of property is tempered by and has to yield
2. The taking must be for public use to the demands of common good
3. There must be just compensation
• In police power, property is regulated. In eminent domain, property is
taken with compensation Philippine Columbian Association v. Hon. Panis
US v. Causby
• That only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation of the
• There is a taking when there is a limitation of the utility of the land and property does not diminish its public use character
when a diminution of its value is caused • Public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or
• If the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have advantage, including, in particular, urban land reform and housing
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 Province of Camarines Sur v. CA

• LGUs have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only
People v. Fajardo
when expressly authorized by the legislature. And the legislature may limit
this authority expressly, either in the law conferring the power or in other
• The State may prohibit structure offensive to sight, but the State may not, legislations
under police power, permanently divest owners of properties solely to • The old concept that condemned property must actually be used by the
preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community. There must general public has been expanded to include everything that confers public
be just compensation advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the
general welfare and prosperity of the whole community

Republic v. PLDT
Lagcao v. Labra
• Use of service by any government instrumentality is equivalent to the use
of the government itself. Hence, any taking of private property. Even from • Private lands rank least in the order of priority for the purposes of social
a legislative franchise holder, is valid, as long as there is just compensation housing
and it is justified by reasons of public interest
• Expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only after other modes of
acquisitions are exhausted
• Compliance with these conditions is mandatory
NPC v. Jocson

• The determination of just compensation in eminent domain is a judicial Manila Railroad v. Paredes
function and should not be left to the landowner’s prerogative
• The expropriator may enter and take possession of the land before actual
payment, provided that a certain and adequate remedy is available by
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto which the owner can obtain prompt adjudication and payment of just
compensation without unreasonable delay
• ‘Taking’ of property includes taking of intellectual property, like data

Municipality of Daet v. CA
Sumulong v. Guerrero

Fraternal Order of Utopia Page 33


Ian Layno Constitutional Law II – Case Doctrines

• The value should be as of the time of the rendition of the judgment. If • Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount
possession had been taken earlier, it could have been as of the time of the to be paid to the owner, but also the payment within a reasonable time
possession, with legal interest from its taking. Without prompt payment, the compensation cannot be
• The commissioners’ report is not final and conclusive but merely considered just because the property owner is made to suffer the
recommendatory, and thus requires hearing consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to
• Provisional values set will only apply if no value has been fixed by the court wait before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss
yet

De Knecht v. Bautista

• The right of the government to expropriate property should not be


exercised capriciously or arbitrarily

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
Home Building and Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell

B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. CA • Impairment of contract obligation – relief to mortgage debtors from the
foreclosure of valid mortgages – could only be justified by the economic
• Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property emergency, and could only be of a character appropriate to that
sought to be expropriated. The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the emergency, and granted only upon reasonable condition
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, Rutter v. Esteban
which should be added the consequential damages after deducting
therefrom the consequential benefits which may arise from the • The test to determine whether a moratorium clause violates the
expropriation impairment of contracts clause is the time frame it sets for the non-
• Factors to consider in arriving at the fair market value: enforcement of the obligation. It must not be unreasonable and oppressive
1. Cost of acquisition to creditors
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 Abella v. NLRC
5. Just compensation is to be ascertained at the time of the taking, which
usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation
• Legislation impairing contracts can be sustained when it is enacted for the
proceedings. Where the institution of the action precedes entry into
promotion of the general good of the people and when the means adopted
the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained at the time of
is legitimate
the filing of the complaint
• 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
Land Bank v. CA

Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance

Fraternal Order of Utopia 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