Section 1, Article III Bill of Rights

Ang Ladlad LGBT v. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 190582, April 08, 2010
Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a
suspect class, the Supreme Court will uphold the classification as long as it bears a rational relationship
to some legitimate government end.
Law of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to
participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented
sectors.
The principle of non-discrimination requires that laws of general application relating to elections
be applied equally to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.
Using even the most liberal lenses, these Yogyakarta Principles, consisting of a declaration
formulated by various international law professors, are-at best-de lege ferenda and do not constitute
binding obligations on the Philippines.
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010
The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to administrative
proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain ones side or the opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas
G.R. No. 169523, June 16, 2010
The essence of due process is simply, an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of ruling
complained of.
A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him
by his employer. The determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised
with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Caya
A.M. No. P-09-2632, June 18, 2010
Where a respondents comment in an administrative case constituted a counter-complaint against
the complainant, who was then able to file a reply, allowing the latter to present her defense to the
counter-complaint, there was no violation of her right to due process.
Estampa Jr., v. City Government of Davao
G.R. No. 190681, June 21, 2010
Executive Order No. 292 allows the heads of the local units, like the mayor, the authority to
initiate administrative actions against subordinate officials or employees even without the complaints
being subscribed and sworn to.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines

G.R. No. 163835, July 07, 2010
The general rule is that appeals can only raise questions of law or fact that (a) were raised in the
court below, and (b) are within the issues framed by the parties therein. An issue which was neither
averred in the pleadings nor raised during trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. The rule was made for the benefit of the adverse party and the trial court as well. Raising new
issues at the appeal level is offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice and is violative of a partys
constitutional right to due process of law. Moreover, the trial court should be given a meaningful
opportunity to consider and pass upon all the issues, and to avoid or correct any alleged errors before
those issues or errors become the basis for an appeal.
A.Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc., v. Office of the President
G.R. No. 170623, July 07, 2010
It is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to
resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the
parties.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek for reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.
Erector Advertising Sign Group, Inc. v. Cloma
G.R. No. 167218, July 22, 2010
The requirement of notice, it has been stressed, is not a mere technicality but a requirement of
due process to which every employee is entitled.
New Puerto Commercial v. Lopez
G.R. No. 169999, July 26, 2010
In termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin
requirements of notice and hearing.
Rubia v. National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division
G.R. No. 178621, July 26, 2010
As long as petitioner was given an opportunity to explain his side, the requirements of due
process have been substantially complied with.
Obusan v. Philippine National Bank
G.R. No. 181178
Due process only requires that notice of the employers decision to retire an employee be given to
the employee.

Section 2

People v. Amper
G.R No. 172708, May 05, 2010
Supreme Court has consistently ruled that an accused is stopped from assailing the legality of his
arrest if he fails to raise this issue, or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this
ground, which should be made before arraignment.
Bordongan, Jr. v. Pea
G.R. No. 143591, May 05, 2010
The judges personal examination depends on the circumstances of each case, to be sure, he
cannot just rely on the bare certification alone but must go beyond it. This is because the warrant of arrest
issues not on the strength of the certification standing alone but because of the records which sustain it.
Santos v. Orda, Jr.
G.R. No. 189402, May 06, 2010
The task of the presiding judge when an information is filed with the court is first and foremost to
determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused; Probable cause
is such set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that the offense charged in the information or any offense included therein has been committed by the
person sought to be arrested.
The purpose of the mandate of the judge to first determine probable cause is to insulate from the
very start those falsely charged with crimes from the tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public trial.
People v. Mariacos
G.R. No. 188611, June 21, 2010
A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a store, dwelling house or
other immobile structure, but it is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is conducted on a
mobile ship, or an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought.
It is well to remember that in the instances we have recognized as exceptions to the requirement
of a judicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer effecting the arrest or seizure must have been impelled
to do so because of probable cause. The essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied before a
warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. Without probable cause, the articles seized
cannot be admitted in evidence against the person arrested.
A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a store, dwelling house or
other immobile structure. But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is conducted on a
mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality
or jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought.
A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police has
probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.
A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police has
probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.

Law and jurisprudence have laid down the instances when a warrantless search is valid. These
are: 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12 [now Section 13],
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; 2. Seizure of evidence in plain view, the
elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police
are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent[;] and;
(d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 3. Search of a moving vehicle.
Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy
especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to
probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; 4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search; 6. Stop and Frisk; and 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
It is well to remember that in the instances we have recognized as exceptions to the requirement
of a judicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer effecting the arrest or seizure must have been impelled
to
do
so
because
of
probable
cause.
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense
charged, and, the grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the
arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense
is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a store, dwelling house or
other immobile structure. But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is conducted on a
mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality
or jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought.
Rebellion v. People
G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010
A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private individual under any
of the following circumstances: Sec. 5. Arrests without warrant, when lawful-- A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest person: (a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just
been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstance that the person to be arrested has committed to it; and (c) When the person to be arrested
is a prisoner who had escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
is temporarily confined while his case I pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
Leviste v. Alameda
G.R. No. 182677, August 03, 2010
There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial; the executive
determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation; The judicial determination
of probable cause is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued
against the accused.
To move the court to conduct a judicial determination of probable cause is a mere superfluity, for
with or without such motion, the judge is duty-bound to personally evaluate the resolution of the public
prosecutor and the supporting evidence.
The accused cannot, as a matter of right, insist on hearing for determination of probable cause.

People v. Racho
G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010
Where the accused voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, he is deemed to have
waived his right to question of validity of his arrest, thus curing whatever defect may have attended his
arrest.
A search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it
becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a
judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose
of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and
seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.
The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that reliable information alone is not sufficient to
justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that
would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A
waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process
cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede
the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Thus, given the
factual milieu of the case, we have to determine whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest
appellant. Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it ordinarily signifies a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
People v. Marcelino
G.R. No. 189278, July 26, 2010
The accused is caught in the act andmust be apprehended on the spot; From the very nature
of a buy-bust operation, the absence of warrant does not make the arrest illegal.
Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the search was
also valid, an a warrant was likewise not needed to conduct it.
Section 3
Lee v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010
The grounds unreasonable and oppressive are proper for the quashing of a subpoena duces
tecumfor the production of documents and things in the possession of the witness, a command that has
a tendency to infringe on the right against invasion of privacybut not for quasing a subpoena ad
testificandum.

Section 4
Ang Ladlad LGBT v. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 190582, April 08, 2010
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and
this freedom applies not only to those that are favorable received but also to those that offend, shock or
disturb.
Government Service Insurance System v. Villaviza
G.R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010
Wearing similarly colored shirts, attending a public hearing at the Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS)-IU office, bringing with them recording gadgets, clenching their fists, some even
badmouthing the guards and PGM Garcia, are acts not constitutive of an (i) intent to effect work stoppage
or service disruption and (ii) for the purpose of realizing their demands of force concession.
Government workers, whatever their ranks, have as much right as any person in the land to voice
out their protests against what they believe to be a violation of their rights and interests; Civil Service does
not deprive them of their freedom of expression; It would be unfair to hold that by joining the government
service, the members thereof renounced or waived this basic liberty; This freedom can be reasonably
regulated only but can never be taken away.
Section 7
Antolin v. Domondon
G.R. No. 165036, July 5, 2010
In determining whether a particular information is of public concern there is no rigid test which
can be appliedpublic concern like public interest is a term that eludes exact definition, as both terms
embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because these directly
affect their lives or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.
Section 8
Ang Ladlad LGBT v. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 190582, April 08, 2010
Only if a political party incites violence or puts forward policies that are incompatible with
democracy does it fall outside the protection of the freedom of association guarantee.
Section 9
Republic v. Mangotara
G.R. No. 170375, July 07, 2010
Defendants in an expropriation case are not limited to the owners of the property to be
expropriated, and just compensation is not due to the property owner alone they include all other
persons owning, occupying or claiming to own the property. In the American jurisdiction, the term owner

when employed in statutes relating to eminent domain to designate the persons who are to be made
parties to the proceeding, refer, as is the rule in respect of those entitled to compensation, to all those
who have lawful interest in the property to be condemned, including a mortgagee, a lessee and a vendee
in possession under an executory contract.
Dismissal is not the remedy for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.
The owner of the property is not an indispensable party in an action for expropriation.
Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action the
remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
Forum-shopping takes place when a litigant files multiple suits involving the same parties, either
simultaneously
or
successively,
to
secure
a
favorable
judgment. Thus, it exists wherethe elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) identity of parties,
or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted
and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the
two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending
case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.
The filing of the complaint for reversion does not preclude the institution of an action for
expropriation even if the land is reverted back to the state, the same may still be subject to expropriation
as against the occupants thereof.
Section 14
People v. Siongco
G.R. No. 186472, July 5, 2010
There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio is appointed during the
absence of the accuseds counsel de parte, or in this case the regular counsel de oficio, pursuant to the
courts desire to finish the case as early as practicable under continuous trial system.
People v. Bartolini
G.R. No. 179498, August 3, 2010
The omission in the information of a specific averment of the victims age at the time the offense
against her was committed is fatal in the imposition of the supreme penalty of death against the offender
the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the
accused to be fully adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the constitutional requirement on due
process.
Section 15
Ampatuan v. Macaraig
G.R. No. 182497, June 29, 2010
A writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases if illegal confinement or detention by which any
person is deprived of his liberty. In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine
whether or not a particular person is legally held.

The writ should not be issued when the custody over the person is by virtue of a judicial process
on a valid judgment. In order to justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the restraint of the liberty
must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action.
Section 21
People v. Sandiganbayan (First Division)
G.R. No. 164577, July 5, 2010
The rule barring an appeal for judgment of acquittal is, however, not absolutethe following are
the recognized exceptions thereto: (i) when the prosecution is denied due process of law; and (ii) when
the trial court commits a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused demurrer to evidence.

People v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 161083, August 03, 2010
Double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the accused has not been arraigned and it was upon
his express motion that the case was dismissed; while the absence of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest is a ground for the dismissal of the case, the same does not result in the acquittal of
said accused.

People v. Tan
G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010
The elements of double jeopardy are (1) complaint or information was sufficient in form and
substance as to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned
and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed without his
express consent.
The rule on double jeopardy is not without exceptions; The only instance when double jeopardy
will not attach is when the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acted with grave abuse of discretion.