CASE SITUATIONS AND

ANSWERS

Article III, IV and V

(1987 Philippine Constitution)

Submitted by:
Bantol, Regine S.
Cervantes, Liana S.
Magsico, Jeraldine C.
Mayuga, Kate L.
Tirapan, Jeneva J.

March 29, 2019

 Article III, IV and V

1. Can the Congress pass a law penalizing the acts that happen before the enactment
of such law?
Answer: NO, because according to the article III section 22, “no ex post facto law or
bill of attainder shall be enacted”. Sample: when I committed murder during year
2000 and there is no law for such crime before. And then during this time (2019) the
congress pass a law about murder, they have no right to arrest me because I
committed the crime before the congress pass the law.

2. Angelo’s house is the subject of the search warrant document of the Puerto
Princesa’s Police officers. However, when the police officers went to the subject of
their search, only Liza, the 18 years old daughter of the owner was there. Is it still
valid to pursue the search schedule on that day? Why?
Answer: NO, because according to the article IV section 6 “search and seizure”
6.2b. Houses rooms and other premises shall not be search except in the presence
of the lawful occupants or any member of occupants’ family or, in the absence of the
latter, the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality. Since Liza is the only one left in the house though she is in the right
age, still the police officers should not pursue their search since two witnesses are
needed in the absence of the occupant.

3. Last February 1, 2016, there was an incident in Sampalok Road, Brgy. Sta. Monica,
Puerto Princesa City. It was an accident between Jayson’s car and Christian’s car.
Jayson’s car was about to bump the car of Christian. It happens that it was a newly
purchased car of Christian. Motivated by too much anger, he went out of his car and
immediately shot Jayson. The crime was witnessed by Nikki. After 4 days, there was
no warrant of arrest issued against the person in-charge of the crime. As dictated by
conscience, Nikki went to the police station and testified about what she had
witnessed. While giving her statement, she noticed that Christian was at the police
station also reporting another incident. After validating that it was Christian, she
immediately told the police officer that Christian was the suspect of the incident that
happened last February 1. The police then detained him. He was thereafter charge
with Homicide. Was the apprehension to Christian lawful? Defend your answer.
Answer: The arrest to Christian was unlawful or invalid because there are two types
of arrest. First, the arrest without warrant or warrantless arrest. Second, the arrest
with warrant under Rule 113 of Rule of Criminal Procedure. You can arrest a person
by Hot Pursuit Operation if the incident was immediately reported to the police and
continuous/follow-up investigation. In the case of Christian, the incident of homicide
was committed on February 1 but after 4 days, the witness testify about the incident
and identify the perpetrator. The time lapse in 24 hours without identified suspect to
make a hot pursuit operation and to arrest the suspect.

4. What was the difference between accused and suspect?

Answer: Suspect is a person whom the judge or lawyer has reasonable grounds to
believe committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the tribunal while an accused is a
person who has been formally charged by the judge with a crime within the
jurisdiction of the tribunal.
5. Allysa and Don Ramon were married couple for almost 20 years. The Civil Code of
the Philippines provided that once the two individuals were bound by marriage,
conjugal property will then the rule between the couple. However, a month ago,
Allysa suspected that Don Ramon had an affair with Monica Joy. To validate her
suspicion, one night, while her husband was out of their room, she opened her
husband’s phone and there, he found out that her husband and Monica Joy had an
affair based on the messages that she had read. Does the evidence (text messages)
found in the phone of her husband admissible in the court and can be used as
evidence against her husband? Why? If yes, what was the case that could be
possibly filed against Don Ramon and Monica? If not, is there any way for Allysa to
win her case against Don Ramon?
Answer: Yes, because spousal betrayal is a crime in the Philippines. Relationship
with a married man or woman to another is penalized by our law. As long as the court
disallows the marriage, it is not free for a married man or woman to accompany
others. According to Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code possibly are treated as
infidelity in the Family Code filed to Don Ramon and Monica because they violated
the law because Allysa have the evidence (text messages) found in the phone of her
husband admissible in the court and can be used as evidence against her husband.
If the evidence is not enough, Allysa will still be able to challenge her husband if it is
repeated again and does not admit it. Repeated marital infidelity of a male or
repeated womanhood is considered a crime of psychological abuse or violence under
RA 9262 or the “Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004”, it
defines psychological violence is any male activity that causes mental or emotional
suffering to a woman.

6. The Mayor of Puerto Princes City issues a new ordinance prohibiting the prostitution
business in the City. In compliance to the new ordinance, he ordered the transport of
all respondents of prostitution business to Quezon, Palawan. Is it a valid act of the
Mayor? Why? If not, what particular right of all prostitutes has been violated?
Answer: Here in the Philippines, the status of prostitution is illegal and there is a
widespread of poverty in our country. Violence, mercenaries, robbery, the
consequences of poverty until the sale of the flesh. The problem is the reason why
prostitution is spreading. In our City, in our day now, being poor is not just a burden
on the stomach, the land that can be left behind at least a hut, a decent job, or a
child’s education according to the Article 202 and 341 of the revised Penal Code
(Enacting the Anti-Prostitution Law). The main thing to do by the government is to
solve the problem of poverty first.

7. President of the Philippines- Axl was suspected of committing graft and corruption in
the government, however, there is no sufficient evidence that would support the
accusation against him therefore there is a need for a thorough investigation. While
the investigation is on process, the president decided to have a vacation outside the
country. Unfortunately, the Court issued an order holding the departure of the
President. Does it violate the right to travel of the President? Why?
Answer: No, because according to Article III of 1987 Philippine Constitution Section
6 “Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law” because they are
suspect that they have no solid evidence that the President has committed graft and
corruption to the government and does not have sufficient evidence to support the
accusation against him so there is a need for a thorough investigation and he does it
violate to travel.
8. Jenica decided to build her house in the middle of the sea for she finds it more
comfortable and could help her economically through attracting tourists. However,
the government prohibit her in doing so because it was not an appropriate place to
reside in. Does it violate the liberty of abode of Jenica? Why?
Answer: No, because they did not violate the freedom of wealth according to Article
III Bill of Rights Section 6 “Liberty to abode and the right to travel”. Liberty to abode
includes the right to choose one’s residence to leave it whenever one pleases, within
the limits prescribed by law, to travel where one wills, and to return to his place of
residence, except in the interest of national security, public safety, and health. Jenica
violated the Article 1 of the Philippine Constitution the national territory comprises the
Philippine Archipelago.

9. Christiana was accused of killing her husband but since there is no sufficient
evidence that could support and validate allegation, the police officers were trying
their best to have strong one. One night, on her way home, they found Christiana
slugged. They saw it as a good opportunity to ask her the truth. They tried to ask
questions relevant to the crime and Christiana admitted everything, that she killed her
husband. Does Christiana confession can be used against her? Why?
Answer: No, because she was slugged. Christiana might denied it during her trial.
She can say that “I was drunk that time, I don’t remember everything what I’ve said”.
It can also consider as force confession because the interrogation was made when
Christiana was slugged and for our own opinion, the interrogation is illegal because it
was not done in a proper place and they should have a formal letter for them to
interrogate the accused.

10. Gaite Religious group was planning to conduct their activities at Mendoza Park-
Puerto Princesa City. Do they need to secure a permit from the City Government
before conducting their planned activities?
Answer: Yes, because Mendoza Park-Puerto Princesa City is a government owned
public place. Anyone can conduct activities on that area but with the permission of
the City Government for legal purposes. For us, securing a permit is just like a having
consent or waiver from the City Government so that if anything bad happens, there’s
an evidence if who is liable for that matter.

11. One of the rights of the accused is the right to remain silent. Is it absolute rule? Why
or why not? Give an example.
Answer: Yes, because according to Article III, Section12 that any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of
his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice and Section 17 states that no person shall be compelled and be a
witness against him/herself. Example is the case of Janet Lim-Napoles. When she
asked by the senators about her case, she always replied “I refused to answer”
because if she answer, there’s a possibility that her statement might use against her.

12. Dandal has been accused of killing her daughter. After the commission of crime, she
intentionally and voluntarily confessed the commission of crime without the presence
of the legal counsel. Does the said confession can be used against her? Why?
Answer: Yes, but it depends on the situation. Dandal’s statement about the crime
can be used against her even without the presence of the legal counsel but when the
 time comes that she change her mind and denied what she had been said before it
can be void since there is no legal arrangement between her and the legal counsel.

13. Rizza had an identical twin- Danica. Danica committed a crime and there were
sufficient evidences that would support the accusation. The court issued a warrant of
arrest for Danica and handed down to the police officers. The police officers
immediately begin their operation and they arrested Rizza based on what exactly
described in the document. During the interrogation process, Rizza, because she
loved her twin, admitted the crime. When the trial of the case was about to end the
decision was about to declared, Danica went to the court and confessed that she was
the one who did the crime. Everyone was shock that the two look exactly and
perfectly the same. But Rizza was so determined to admit the crime. They (Rizza and
Danica) are both admitting the commission of crime; the Court prevents itself from
rendering invalid verdict or decision. What is the proper way of settling the case?
Answer: First of all, what the police had done to Rizza was against Article 269.
A.269 is about Unlawful Arrest which states “a crime committed by any person,
whether a private person or public officer, who arrest or detains a person without
reasonable ground therefore, for the purpose of delivering him to the proper
authorities”. Yes, they have warrant with them but that is addressed for Danica not
Rizza. Though they both look alike, identical twins have different fingerprints which
should have been enough in correctly identifying her. Obviously, the police didn’t
perform proper procedures in identifying the accused and immediately concluded that
Rizza is Danica. It clearly shows that the correct identification of the subject was
lacking and the arrest made to Rizza was definitely a Mistaken Identity Case and that
means the police should be held responsible for that fault. However, Rizza, on the
other hand, had no problem being arrested as she did plead guilty on the crime her
identical twin committed. The court was about to do their verdict when Danica came
to the open and told the court it was really her while Rizza, for the sake of her love to
her identical twin still wants to admit the crime she didn’t commit. At this case,
Danica’s plea may be allowed to be heard inside the court, that way, it can prevent
the court from rendering invalid decisions against Rizza. The court verdict maybe
delayed in order to make time for the confirmation of the true identification of the
twins or the accused. Danica may be ordered to be examined in open-court under
the Rule 132 Presentation of Evidence Section 1. Moreover, even Rizza already
admitted the crime, it still doesn’t assure that she will be found guilty by the court
because under the Revised Rules Of Evidence, Rules 128 To 134, Rules Of Court
Section 4 Judicial admissions An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in
the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. Her identity
should have been correctly identified by then if the due process was done properly,
she will most likely to be acquitted because every accused should be found guilty
Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

14. Princess and Poala were best of friends since then. Unfortunately, one incident
changed their friendship status. Princess was drunk and publicly stated that Poala
was a robber and murderer. Poala filed a case against Princess. However, Princess
invoked that it was an exercise of her right of freedom of speech and expression. Is
the argument of Princess valid? Why? Is the freedom of speech and expression
absolute? If not, what is/are the exemptions?
Answer: Freedom of Speech is under Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution which states that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
 assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” A right that
Princess is evoking when Paola filed against her for public defamation. It is true that
freedom of speech is one of the human basic rights but her argument doesn’t make it
valid. Just because we were given rights to express it means we will already abuse.
Expression of Speech is a right that comes with responsibility. Words may not
physically hurt a person but it can definitely damage one’s dignity, reputation,
emotion, psychology and even their soul. Hurtful words have ruined so many
relationships and scarred so many souls already. What Princess did to her friend,
Paola, was a freedom of expression gone wrong and she is liable for Oral defamation
which falls under Article 359 Slander by Deed of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as
amended by Republic Act 10951. This defamation law was created in order to limit or
balance out the people’s rights of speech. This law prevents people like Princess
from hurting others and ruining one’s reputation and life with hurtful words and lies.
Freedom of Speech may be a basic human right but it is not absolute and must be
exercised with full responsibility. Public Safety, National Security, public morals,
public order, public health and respect for the right of reputation of other people are
just one of the exemptions or restrictions of our Freedom of Speech. If one was not
able to exercise his right of expression properly, with negligence and abuse, one can
be punished by the law and certain penalties will be given to anyone who tries to
violate it.

15. Can we file a case against the State? Why?

Answer: Yes, one can file a case against the state and that is called an
“Administrative Lawsuit”. If a citizen feels like or thinks that his civil rights as stated in
our 1987 Constitution was violated or neglected by the state, he can freely file a
lawsuit against the state because the state is responsible in protecting the dignity,
health and other basic rights of its people and having to fail doing that can give the
people reasons to sue for neglect of people’s rights and for causing the citizens
distress, injuries and other problems. However, the lawsuit must have legal basis and
must have enough evidence, requirements and relevant case law if available.

16. Is the exercise of right to vote compulsory? Defend your answer.

Answer: Filipino Citizens were given right to vote under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution Article 5, Section 1 Suffrage. Suffrage is non-compulsory and because it
is a right, most people will not see it as a duty in our State and they have the right to
participate or not to participate as they choose to. As usual, it is often neglected and
not exercised by some of the Filipinos. Due to corruptions going on to our
government especially during election times, some Filipino people finds voting as a
waste of time. Instead of seeing it as a chance to be able to make a difference in the
government they see it as a filthy game time for the running politician. To some
Filipinos the real purpose of voting is slowly fading and degrading in their minds. With
all the dirty elections, vote buying and cheatings, I, myself, cannot blame them. Since
its non-compulsory, people have no pressure on exercising it but I hope that they will
once again realize that their vote does matter and how much important their vote is to
the government and to the entire Philippines.

17. Which is prohibited by the Constitution: dual allegiance or dual citizenship? Why?
 Answer: Dual allegiance is prohibited by the Constitution. Dual allegiance is the
result of an individual violation while the citizenship is involuntary. According to
Philippine Constitution Article IV Section 5, Dual allegiance is prohibited by the
constitution versus dual citizenship because dual allegiance is different from dual
citizenship. Dual citizenship is when an individual is a citizen of two countries
because the laws of both countries confer upon his/her membership to their state and
also because of two respective countries. The dual citizenship cannot prohibit
because laws cannot control the laws of other states. Unlike dual allegiance, it is
prohibited because it is intentional while dual citizenship is generally unintentional,
and that is only accidentally cause by birth in a foreign state or marriage with a
foreigner.

18. Can we retain Death Penalty as punishment for heinous crimes? Why?
Answer: Death penalty is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is
killed by the state as a punishment for a crime. Here in the Philippines, we cannot
retain the death penalty as punishment for heinous crimes because in our
government, it is not really work as fair such in giving justice so many people die
because of that especially the people who cannot afford to file a case or fight their
rights when they are not really the criminal. Some of our police power are not
following the laws because of the political system, death penalty is not the solution to
solve the crimes that are continuously happening in our country. Our government
have a lot of a nice way to stop crimes instead they implement a lot of program to
minimize the poverty of community because poverty is one of the common cause of
crimes. Death penalty is not moral or appropriate punishment to those people who
committed crime because God is the only one who can judge to His sons/daughters.
We promote the Human Rights such as the right to life and we can give a second
chance to forgive the people who make a mistake as a forgiveness of God. God can
forgive, as well as we, as a human being.

19. The city issued an ordinance ordering that lawyers from Puerto Princesa should be
paid higher than lawyers that came from outside the city in rendering their service in
any of their client here. Is the ordinance a violation of equal protection of laws? Why?
Answer: No, because according to equal protection of the law, all persons should be
treated alike under the law in all circumstances.

20. What aspect of the right to due process is violated when an individual convicted of an
offense was given a penalty not proportionate to the degree of the offense he had
committed?
Answer: The right to bail and the right against excessive bail are violated.