Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

OUTLINE AND SYLLABUS


Updated by Atty. Philip John L. Pojas, Ll.M.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON POLICE


POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION

A. Fundamental Principles on Constitutional Law and the Bill of Rights


Cases – MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
PAMATONG VS. COMELEC 427 SCRA 96 (2004)
YRASUEGI VS. PAL 569 SCRA 467 (2008)

B. Basic Principles on the Fundamental Powers of the State, their characteristics,


similarities and distinctions, and their limitations

C. DUE PROCESS IN GENERAL – Article III, Section 1, 1987 Constitution


Annotation on Due Process – 627 SCRA 558
Procedural and Substantive
Publication of Laws – TAÑADA RULINGS, E.O. 200
CASES – PEOPLE VS. SITON 600 SCRA 476 (2009)
DLSU VS. CA 541 SCRA 22 (2007)
ROMUALDEZ VS. COMELEC 573 SCRA 639 (2008)
GARCILLANO VS. COMMITTEES 575 SCRA 170 (2008)
SURIGAO ELECTRIC VS ERC 632 SCRA 96 (2010)
SOUTHERN VS ANTI-TERRORISM 632 SCRA 146
HERITAGE HOTEL VS. NUNHRAIN 639 SCRA 420 (2011)

D. DUE PROCESS AND POLICE POWER


CASES – WHITE LIGHT CORP. VS. CITY OF MANILA 576 SCRA 1416 (2009)
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR VS. AYALA 600 SCRA 617 (2009)
BSP MB VS. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA 602 SCRA 638 (2009)
ROXAS & CO. VS. DAMBA-NFSW 607 SCRA 33 (2009)
CHEVRON VS. BCDA 630 SCRA 519 (2010)
ESPINA VS. ZAMORA 631 SCRA 17 (2010)

E. DUE PROCESS AND EMINENT DOMAIN


Article III, Section 9, 1987 Constitution
CASES – SOLGEN VS. AYALA LAND 600 SCRA 617 (2009)
ORTEGA VS. CITY OF CEBU 602 SCRA 601 (2009)
EUSEBIO VS. LUIS 603 SCRA 576 (2009)
CITY OF ILOILO VS. CONTRERAS-BESANA 612 SCRA 458 (2010)
REPUBLIC VS. MANGORATA 624 SCRA 360 (2010)
REPUBLIC VS. MENDOZA 627 SCRA 443 (2010)

Annotation: JUST COMPENSATION IN EMINENT DOMAIM – 686 SCRA 869

F. EQUAL PROTECTION - Article III, Section 1, 1987 Constitution

1. Economic Equality – Art. II, Sec. 14


Art. III, Sec. 11 (free access)
Art. VIII, Sec. 5 [5] (legal aid)
Art. XII, Sec. 2 (Marine resources)
Sec. 10 (nationalization)
Art. XIII, Secs. 1-2 (social justice)
Sec. 3 (protection to labor)
2. Political Equality – Art. IX-C, Sec. 10 (discrimination)
Art. XIII, Sec. 1 (social justice)
CASE – DUMLAO VS. COMELEC 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
QUINTO VS. COMELEC 606 SCRA 258 (2009)
February 2010 Decision
ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC 618 SCRA 32 (2010)

3. Social Equality – Art. XIII, Sec. 1

Annotation – SOCIAL JUSTICE 645 SCRA 401 (2011)

4. OTHER CASES
TRILLANES VS. PIMENTEL 556 SCRA 471
BIRAOGO VS. PHIL TRUTH 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
BOCEA VS. TEVES 661 SCRA 589 (2011)

Annotation - REVISITING FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL


LAW 663 SCRA 661 (2012)

II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE

A. Arrests, Searches and Seizures, Privacy of Communications


Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution
Article III, Section 3, 1987 Constitution

1. Requirements for Search Warrants


See Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
CASES – IN RE MORALES 571 SCRA 361 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. NUÑEZ 591 SCRA 394 (2009)
DEL ROSARIO VS. DONATO SR. 614 SCRA 332 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. TUAN 628 SCRA 226 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. MAMARIL 632 SCRA 369 (2010)
TAN VS. SY TIONG GUE 638 SCRA 601 (2010)
TY VS. DE JEMIL 638 SCRA 671 (2010)

ANNOTATION – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – 291 SCRA 418


WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF
PROHIBITED DRUGS 610 SCRA 670 (2010)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE 643 SCRA 637 (2011)
LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON SEARCH
WARRANTS AND WARRANTLESS
SEARCHES 664 SCRA 450 (2012

2. Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures

(A) Search of Moving Vehicles


CASES – ANIAG VS. COMELEC 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
EPIE VS. ULAT-MARREDO 518 SCRA 641 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. TUASON 532 SCRA 152 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. MARIACOS 621 SCRA 327 (2010)

(B) Search Incident to a Valid Arrest


See Rule 126, Section 12, Rules on Criminal Procedure
CASES – DEL CASTILLO VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 450 (2012)
LUZ VS. PEOPLE 667 SCRA 421 (2012)
AMBRE VS. PEOPLE 678 SCRA 552 (2012)

(C) When things seized are within plain view of a searching party
ABENES VS. CA 515 SCRA 690 (2007)
ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE 629 SCRA 370 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. MARTINEZ 637 SCRA 791 (2010)

Annotation: PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE 609 SCRA 434 (2009)

(D) Stop and Frisk


POSADAS VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 188 SCRA 288
(1990)
PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE, 210 SCRA 14 (1992)
MANALILI VS. CA 280 SCRA 400 (1998)
ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE 629 SCRA 370 (2010)

(E) Express Waiver


VEROY VS. LAYAGUE, 210 SCRA 92 (1992)
PEOPLE VS. NUEVAS 516 SCRA 463 (2007)
PP VS. DEQUINA 640 SCRA 111 (2011)

(F) Search of Warehouse in Violation of Customs and Tariff Code


or to enforce customs laws
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. OGARIO 329 SCRA 289
(2000)
RIETA VS. PEOPLE 436 SCRA 237 (2004)
SALVADOR VS. PEOPLE 463 SCRA 489 (2005)

(G) Exigency
PEOPLE VS. DE GRACIA, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)

(H) Search and seizure by private persons


PEOPLE VS. MARTI, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
WATEROUS DRUG CORP VS. NLRC 280 SCRA 735
PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA 301 SCRA 66 (1999)
PEOPLE VS. BONGCARAWAN 384 SCRA 525 (2002)

(I) Airport Security

(J) Jail Safety


PEOPLE VS. CONDE 356 SCRA 525 (2002)

3. Constitutionality of checkpoints and “areal target zonings”


VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA, 170 SCRA 256 (1989)
VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA, 185 SCRA 665 (1990)
PEOPLE VS. EXALA 221 SCRA 494 (1993)
GUANZON VS. DE VILLA, 181 SCRA 623 (1990)
ABENES VS. CA 515 SCRA 690 (2007)

4. Wire tapping
REP. ACT NO. 4200
GAANAN VS. IAC, 145 SCRA 112 (1986)

5. What may be seized


RULE 126, sec. 2

6. Remedies in Cases of Violation

A. Exclusionary rule
Art. III sec. 3(2)
STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)
Waiver – PASTRANO VS. CA 281 SCRA 254 (1997)

B. Civil Action for damages (Art. 32, NCC)


ABERCA VS. VER, 160 SCRA 590 (1988)
FORBES VS. CHUOCO TIACO, 16 PHIL. 534 (1910)

C. Criminal Cases Under Revised Penal Code


Articles 128, 129 and 130

7. Requirements for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest


Section 6, Rule 112 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Compare with Section 4, Rule 126

CASES – PEOPLE VS. MARTINEZ 637 SCRA 791 (2010)


LUZ VS. PEOPLE 667 SCRA 421 (2012)
PEOPLE VS. MARIANO 685 SCRA 592 (2012)

8. When arrest may be made without a warrant


Rule 113, Sec. 5

(a) Strict enforcement of rule


LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. ARANETA 634 SCRA 475 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. UYBOCO 640 SCRA 146 (2011)

ANNOTATION – WARRANTLESS ARREST – 283 SCRA 190


WARRANTLESS ARREST AND WARRANTLESS
SEARCH IN BUY BUST 607 SCRA 830 (2009)

(b) Exceptions to strict enforcement

(1) Illegal Possessions of guns or drugs


PEOPLE VS. PEÑAFLORIDA 551 SCRA 111 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. SEMBRANO 628 SCRA 328 (2010)

(c) Waiver of Illegality of Arrest

(d) Effects of Declaration of Illegal Arrest


PEOPLE VS. BIYOC 532 SCRA 528 (2007)
VALDEZ VS. PEOPLE 538 SCRA 611 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. SANTOS 555 SCRA 578 (2008)

9. Immunity from arrest of members of Congress


Art. VI, sec. 11, 1987 Constitution

10. Privacy (Art. III, Section 2)


Case: OPLE VS. TORRES 293 SCRA 201 (1998)
IN RE: CAMILO SABIO 504 SCRA 704(2006)
SJS VS. DDB 570 SCRA 410 (2008)

ANNOTATION – Right to Privacy – 293 SCRA 201


CONCEPT OF PRIVACY – ZONES OF PRIVACY

11. Privacy of Communications


Art. III, Section 3, 1987 Constitution
CASE – ZULUETA VS. CA 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
OPLE VS. TORRES 293 SCRA 141 (1998)
IN RE ALEJANO 468 SCRA 188 (2005)
KMU VS. DIRECTOR 487 SCRA 623 (2006)
IN RE SABIO 504 SCRA 214 (2006)

III. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION


Art. III, sec. 4
Id., sec. 18(1)

A. Philosophic Basis of Guarantee

1. For the discovery of political truth

2. For self government

3. For individual perfection

B. Prior restraints/Subsequent Punishment


CASES - CHAVEZ VS. GONZALES 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
NEWSOUND BROADCASTING VS. DY 583 SCRA 333 (2009)
SORIANO VS. LAGUARDIA 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
615 SCRA 254 (2010)
ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC 618 SCRA 32 (2010)

C. Content-based Restrictions

1. Some Tests of Validity of content-based restrictions

Dangerous tendency: When the legislative body has


determined generally that utterances of a certain kind
involve such danger of substantive evil that they may be
punished, the question whether any specific utterance
coming within the prohibited class is likely, in and of itself,
to bring about the substantive evil is not open to
consideration. In such cases the general provision of the
statute may be constitutionally applied to the specific
utterance if its natural and probable effect was to bring
about the substantive evil that the legislative body might
prohibit. (Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S. 652 [1952])

Clear-and-present danger: The question in every case is


whether the words are used in such circumstances and are
of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger
that they will bring about the substantive evil that the state
has a right to prevent. (Schenck vs. United States, 249
U.S. 47 [1919])

Balancing of interest: The court must undertake the


delicate and difficult task of weighing the circumstances
and appraising the substantiality of the reasons advanced
in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of rights.
(American Communication Ass’n vs. Doubs, 339 U.S. 383,
cited in Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969)

Direct incitement: The guarantees of free speech and


free press do not permit a state to forbid or prescribe the
advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except
where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
such action. (Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969);
cited in Salonga vs. Cruz Pano, 134 SCRA 438 [1985])

Grave-but-improbable danger: Whether the gravity of


the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such an
invasion of speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.
(Dennis vs. United States, 341 U.S. 494 [1951])
2. Applications of tests in various contexts

a. Freedom of expression and national security

b. Freedom of expression and criticism of official conduct: The Test of


“Actual Malice” Read Rev. Penal Code, Arts., 353-354 and 361-362
Compare Act No. 2928, March 26, 1920 Com. Act No. 382, Sept. 6,
1938

CASES - SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR; BELTRAN VS. MAKASIAR,


167 SCRA 393 (1988)
BORJAL VS. CA 301 SCRA 1 (1999)
VASQUEZ VS. CA 314 SCRA 460 (2000)
TULFO VS. PEOPLE 565 SCRA 283 (2008)
ANNOTATION - 301 SCRA 34

c. Freedom of expression and the right of privacy


CASES - AYER PRODUCTIONS VS. CAPULONG, 160 SCRA
861 (1988)
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC. VS. THEONEN
477 SCRA 482 (2005)

d. Freedom of expression and the administration of


justice (contempt of court)
CASES - IN RE PUBLISHED . . . 385 SCRA 285 (2002)
IN THE MATTER – MACASAET 561 SCRA 395 (2008)
LEJANO VS. PEOPLE 638 SCRA 104 (2010)

e. Symbolic Expression – The Flag-burning case


CASE - TEXAS VS. JOHNSON, 491 U.S. 109 S. Ct.
2533 (1989)
Cf. Act No. 2928, March 26, 1920;
Com. Act No. 382, Sept. 5, 1938
Adm. Code of 1987, Bk. I, Ch. 4, secs. 12-13

f. Assembly and Petition


CASE – DELA CRUZ VS. CA 305 SCRA 303 (1999)

D. Content-neutral restrictions

O’Brien Test: A government regulation is sufficiently


justified if it is within the constitutional power of the
government; if it furthers an important or substantial
governmental interest; if the governmental interest is
unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the
incidental restriction on alleged freedom of expression is
no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that
interest. (United States vs. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968),
adopted, in Adiong vs. Comelec, 207 SCRA 712 [1992])

1. Regulation of political campaign/election activity


CASES – OSMEÑA VS. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447 (1998)
ABS-CBN VS. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811 (2000)
SWS VS. COMELEC, 357 SCRA 497 (2001)

2. Freedom of Assembly
LAW - BP Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985)
CASES – BAYAN VS. ERMITA 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
IBP VS. ATIENZA 613 SCRA 518 (2010)
3. Freedom of association and the right to strike
in the public sector
Art. III, sec. 8
Art. IX, sec. 2(5)
Art. XIII, sec. 3, par. 2
CASE - GSIS VS. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA
510 SCRA 622 (2006)
GSIS VS. VILLAVIZA 625 SCRA 669 (2010)

4. Movies Censorship
CASE - GONZALES VS. KALAW KATIGBAK, 137 SCRA 356 (1985)
IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996)

5. Radio broadcast
CASE - EASTERN BROADCASTING CORP. (DYRE) VS. DANS,
137 SCRA 647 (1985)

g. Freedom of Information
Art. III, sec. 7
CASES - NERI VS. SENATE 564 SCRA 152 (2008)
CPEG VS. COMELEC 631 SCRA 41 (2010)

E. Academic Freedom
CASES - GARCIA VS. FACULTY OF ADMISSION, 68 SCRA 277
(1975)
ANNOTATION – 313 SCRA 428
DLSU VS. CA 541 SCRA 22 (2007)
CSC VS. SOJOR 554 SCRA 160 (2008)
MERCADO VS. AMA 618 SCRA 218 (2010)

IV. FREEDOM OF RELIGION


Art. III, sec. 5

A. Non-establishment Clause
The establishment clause prohibits (1) excessive governmental
entanglement with religious institutions and (2) government endorsement or
disapproval of religion.

CASE - RE: REQUEST OF MUSLIM 477 SCRA 648 (2005)


TARUC VS. DELA CRUZ 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
ESTRADA VS. ESCRITUR 408 SCRA 1 (2003)
492 SCRA 1 (2006)
SORIANO VS. LAGUARDIA 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
615 SCRA 254 (2010)

1. Operation of Sectarian Schools


Art. XIV, sec. 4(2)

2. Religious instructions in public schools


Art. XIV, sec. 3(3)
Rev. Adm. Code, sec. 928
Civil Code, Art. 359 (1)

3. Tax exemption
Art. VI, sec. 28(3)
CASES - BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD,
51 Phil. 352 (1927)
TOLENTINO VS. SECRETARY, 235 SCRA
632 (1994)

4. Public aid to religion


Art. VI, sec. 29 (2)
CASES - AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ, 64 Phil. 201 (1937)

B. Free Exercise Clause

1. Flag salute
CASE - Ebralinag vs. Division Sup’t of Schools,
219 SCRA 256 (1993)

2. Freedom to propagate religious doctrines


CASES - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS. CITY OF
MANILA, 101 Phil. 386 (1957)
CENTENO VS. VILLALON, 236 SCRA 197 (1994)

3. Exemption from union shop


CASE - VICTORIANO VS. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS
UNION, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)

V. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF TRAVEL


Art. III, sec. 6
CASES - SALONGA VS. HERMOSO, 97 SCRA 121 (1980)
MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS, 177 SCRA 668 (1989) & 178
SCRA 760 (189)
SILVERIO VS. CA, 195 SCRA 760 (1991)
COJUANGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 300 SCRA 367 (1998)
YAP JR VS. CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
MIRASOL VS. DPWH 490 SCRA 318 (2006)
REYES VS. CA 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
OFFICE OF ADMNISTRATIVE SERVICES VS. MACARINE
677 SCRA 1 (2012)

VI. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION


LAW -Art. III, sec. 12
Rep. Act No. 7438

Source: MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)


CASES – HO WAI PANG vs. PEOPLE 659 SCRA 624 (2011)
LUZ VS. PEOPLE 667 SCRA 421 (2012

Annotation – EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION 649 SCRA 649 (2011)

1. Miranda rule not applicable to confessions


executed before Jan. 17, 1973
CASES - PEOPLE VS. RIBADAJO, 142 SCRA 637 (1986)
FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 263 SCRA 222 (1996)

2. Not applicable to res gestae statements/spontaneous statements


CASE - PEOPLE VS. BALOLOY 381 SCRA 31 (2002)
JESALVA VS. PEOPLE 640 SCRA 253 (2011)

3. Not applicable to statements given in


Administrative investigations
CASES - PEOPLE VS. TIN LAN UY 475 SCRA 248 (2005)
ASTUDILLO VS. PEOPLE 509 SCRA 509 (2006)

4. Custodial Phase of Investigation – Police lineups


CASES - DELA TORRE VS. CA 294 SCRA 196 (1998)
PEOLPLE VS. PAVILLARE 329 SCRA 684 (2000)

5. Tests of validity of Waiver of Miranda rights


“To be informed”
CASES - PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO 383 SCRA 390 (2002)
PEOPLE VS. SAYABOC 419 SCRA 659 (2004)
PEOPLE VS. BAGNATE 428 SCRA 633 (2004)

a. Pre-Galit rule (Jan. 17, 1973 to March 20, 1985)

b. The Galit rule (March 20, 1985 to February 2, 1987)


CASES - PEOPLE VS. GALIT, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)

DOES THE GALIT RULE HAVE RETROACTIVE


APPLICATION?

c. New rule on Waiver (Feb. 2, 1987)


Art. III, sec. 12(1); Waiver must be in
writing and made in the presence
of counsel of choice

CASES - SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 347 SCRA 386 (2000)


PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA 365 SCRA 289 (2001)

6. The burden of proving voluntariness of


waivers is on the prosecution
CASES - PEOPLE VS. BACOR 306 SCRA 522 (1999)

7. What may be waived: The right to remain


silent and to counsel, but not the right
to be given “Miranda warnings.”

8. Exclusionary rule
Art. III, sec. 12 (3)
CASES - PEOPLE VS. ANDAN 269 SCRA 95 (1997)
MARCELO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 302 SCRA 102 (1999)
PEOPLE VS. JANSON 400 SCRA 584 (2003)

VII. RIGHT TO BAIL


Art. III, sec. 13 – Rule 114 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

1. When right may be invoked


CASES - PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 529 SCRA 764 (2007)
VALERO VS. CA 535 SCRA 453 (2007)
TRILLANES VS. PIMENTEL 556 SCRA 471 (2008)
QUI VS. PEOPLE 682 SCRA 94 (2012)

2. When bail is a matter of right, when it is a matter of discretion


See Sections 4 and 5, Rule 114, Rules on Criminal Procedure
GACAL VS. JUDGE INFANTE AM-RTJ-04-1845 Oct. 5, 2011

3. Bail in military courts


CASES - COMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA, 200 SCRA 80 (1991)
ASWAT VS. GALIDO, 204 SCRA 205 (1991)

4. Standards for fixing bail


Rule 114, sec. 10
CASES - VILLASENOR VS. ABANO, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)
DE LA CAMARA VS. ENAGE, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
YAP JR VS. CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)

5. Right to bail and right to travel abroad


CASES - MANOTOK VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 142 SCRA 149 (1986)
SANTIAGO VS. VASQUEZ, 217 SCRA 633
SILVERIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 195 SCRA 760

6. Waiver of the Right to Bail


CASES - PEOPLE VS. DONATO, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
LARDIZABAL VS. REYES, 238 SCRA 640 (1994)
PEOPLE VS. PANES 303 SCRA 231 (1999)

7. READ: ANNOTATION ON BAIL 260 SCRA 161


RIGHT TO BAIL 647 SCRA 613 (2011)

VIII. RIGHTS DURING TRIAL (USED PURELY DELA BANDA HERE)


Art. III, sec. 14

1. Due Process in Criminal Cases


CASE – ALONTE VS. SAVELLANO 287 SCRA 245 (1998)
PEOPLE VS. MACARANG 424 SCRA 18 (2005)
ANNOTATION – DUE PROCESS – 287 SCRA 314

2. Presumption of innocence
CASES - BIRAOGO VS. PHIL TRUTH 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
LEJANO VS. PEOPLE 638 SCRA 104 (2010)
DEL CASTILLO VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 450 (2012)
ANNOTATION – 569 SCRA 903

3. Right to be heard personally or by counsel


CASES - PEOPLE VS. SIONGCO 623 SCRA 501 (2010)
MILLA VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 309 (2012)
PEOPLE VS. LARA 678 SCRA 332 (2012)

4. Right to free legal assistance


Art. III, sec. 11
CASE - PEOPLE VS. RIO, 201 SCRA 702 (1991)
MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)

5. Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation


CASES - PEOPLE VS. GUEVARRA 570 SCRA 288 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. BARTOLINI 626 SCRA 527 (2010)
PATULA VS. PEOPLE 669 SCRA 135 (2012)

6. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

(A) Speedy trial


CASES - JACOLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
MARI vs. PEOPLE 657 SCRA 414 (2011)
COCOFED VS. REPUBLIC 663 SCRA 514 (2012)
VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 519 (2012)

(B) Public trial


CASE - GARCIA VS. DOMINGO, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)

(C) Impartial trial


CASES - RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE
ESTRADA PLUNDER CASE - JUNE 29, 2001
(360 SCRA 248) AND SEPTEMBER 13, 2001
(365 SCRA 62)

(D) Right to an impartial tribunal and trial of civilians by military courts


CASES - OLAGUER VS. MC NO. 34, 150 SCRA 144 (1987)
CRUZ VS. PONCE ENRILE, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)

7. Right to confront witnesses


Case - HO WAI PANG vs. PEOPLE 659 SCRA 624 (2011)

8. Right to secure attendance of witnesses – Sec. 10, Rule 21

9. Trial in absentia
Rule 115, sec. 1 (c)
CASES - GIMENEZ VS. NAZARENO 160 SCRA 1 (1988)
PARADA VS. VENERACION 269 SCRA 371 (1997)
BERNARDO VS. PEOPLE GR 166980 April 4, 2007

10. When presence of the accused is a DUTY

a. Arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt


Rule 116, sec. 1 (b)

b. During trial, for identification


CASE- PEOPLE VS. SALAS, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)

c. Promulgation of sentence, unless it


is for a light offense, in which
case accused may appear by counsel,
or a representative (Rule 120, Sec. 6)

IX. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION


Art. III, sec. 17

1. Scope --- Applies only to compulsory


testimonial self-incrimination
CASES - IN RE SABIO: 504 SCRA 704 (2006)
SJS VS. DDB 570 SCRA 410 (2008) – “drug-testing”
PEOPLE VS. GAMIH 621 SCRA 159 (2010)
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 42 (2010)

2. In what proceedings available


CASES - PASCUAL VS. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS,
28 SCRA 344 (1969)
GALMAN VS. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
Compare PEOPLE VS. AYSON, 175 SCRA
216 (1989)
Legislative Inquiry – IN RE SABIO, 504 SCRA 704 (2006)

3. “Use Immunity” vs. “Transactional Immunity”

a. Transactional Immunity
Art. XIII, sec. 18(8)
Rep. Act No. 1379, sec. 8

b. Use and Fruit Immunity


CASE - GALMAN VS. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 274 (185)
P.D. No. 1886

Note – Executive Order No. 1 – “The Truth Commission”


4. Exclusionary rule
Art. III, sec. 12 (3)

5. Effect of denial of privileges by court


CASE - CHAVEZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 24 SCRA
663 (1968)

X. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES


Art. III, sec. 18
Art. VIII, sec. 15
Art. VII, sec. 18, par.3
Art. IX, A, sec. 7
CASES - DIMARUCOT VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 659 (2010)
ANGELES VS. SEMPIO-DIY 631 SCRA 456 (2010)
RAYMUNDO VS. ANDOY 632 SCRA 218 (2010)

XI. SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

A. What acts cannot be criminalized

1. Mere beliefs and aspirations


Art. III, sec. 18(1)

2. Debts and civil obligations


Art. III, sec. 20
CASES - LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
PEOPLE VS. NITAFAN, 202 SCRA 726 (1992)
VERGARA VS. GEDORIO, JR. 402 SCRA 520 (2003)

3. Acts which when done were innocent (Ex Post Facto Laws)
Art. III, sec. 22
CASES - KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
SALVADOR VS. MAPA 539 SCRA 37 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. CASTA 565 SCRA 341 (2008)
NASI-VILLAR VS. PEOPLE 571 SCRA 202 (2008)

Bills of attainder – Legislative adjudications of guilt


CASE – PEOPLE VS. FERRER, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
REPUBLIC VS. RMDC 426 SCRA 517 (2004)

B. What punishments cannot be imposed

1. Involuntary servitude
Art. III, sec. 18(2)
Case – SARMIENTO VS. TUICO 162 SCRA 676 (1988)

2. Excessive fines
Art. III, sec. 19(1)
CASES - PEOPLE VS. DELA CRUZ, 92 Phil. 906 (1953)
PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 901 (1989)
AGBANLOG VS. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)

3. Cruel, degrading and inhuman punishments


Art. III, sec. 19(1)
Id., sec. 12(2)
CASES - PEOPLE VS. ECHEGARAY 267 SCRA 682 (1997)
PEOPLE VS. TONGKO 290 SCRA 595 (1998)
ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY 297 SCRA 754 (1998)
LIM VS. PEOPLE 390 SCRA 194 (2002)
4. Indefinite Imprisonment
CASE - PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)

C. The protection against double jeopardy


Art. III, sec. 21

1. Two situations contemplated


CASES - PEOPLE VS. RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 154 SCRA 195 (1987)

2. Rules of Court Provisions


Rule 117, sec. 7
CASES - MELO VS. PEOPLE, 85 Phil. 776 (1950)
PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 121 SCRA 637 (1983)
PEOPLE VS. YORAC, 42 SCRA 230 (1971)

REQUISITES FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY:

FIRST JEOPARDY MUST FIRST JEOPARDY MUST SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE SAME
HAVE ATTACHED PRIOR HAVE BEEN VALIDLY OFFENSE OR FOR THE SAME ACT
TO THE SECOND TERMINATED
When first jeopardy When first jeopardy When 2nd jeopardy for When 2nd jeopardy for
attached? terminated? the same offense? the same act?

1. When there is a valid 1. When accused is 1. when the two 1. First


complaint or information acquitted offenses are identical charge is for an act
punished by a law
2. The complaint or 2. When accused is 2. when the second and an ordinance,
information was filed in a convicted is an attempt to and the second
competent court commit the first charge under either
3. When the case is is for the same act.
3. the accused has otherwise dismissed 3. When the second
been arraigned and has without the express is a frustration of the
pleaded consent of the accused first

4. when the first


necessarily includes
the second

5. when the first is


necessarily included
in the second

OTHER CASES :
IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO 635 SCRA 191 (2010)
YSIDORO VS. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO 665 SCRA 89 (2012)
BAUTISTA VS. CUNETA-PANGILINAN 684 SCRA 521 (2012)

D. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus


Art. III, sec. 15

1. Functions of the writ


CASES - VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
IN RE GONZALES 526 SCRA 483 (2007)
VELUZ VS. VILLANUEVA 543 SCRA 63 (2008)
FLETCHER VS. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU 593 SCRA 265 (2009)
AMPATUAN VS. MACARAIG 622 SCRA 266 (2010)

2. The writ of habeas corpus as a post conviction remedy


CASES - LAMEN VS. DIRECTOR, 241 SCRA 573 (1995)
3. Suspension of the privilege
Art. VIII, sec. 18
CASE - LANSANG VS. GARCIA, 42 SCRA 488 (1971)

E. Affirmative rights

1. Free access to the courts


Art. III, sec. 11
Case – MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)

2. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights


Art. III, sec. 12(4)
Art. VIII, sec. 5(5)
Art. XIII, sec. 18(3)

WRIT OF AMPARO - AM No. 07-9-12-SC of September


25, 2007 as amended on October 16, 2007)

Cases – TAPUZ VS. DEL ROSARIO 554 SCRA 768 (2008)


CANLAS VS. NAPICO 554 SCRA 209 (2008)
SEC OF DEFENSE VS. MANALO 568 SCRA 1 (2008)
REYES VS. CA 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
SO VS. TACLA 633 SCRA 563 (2010)
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. LIM 632 SCRA 195 (2010)

Annotation: WRIT OF AMPARO 605 SCRA 642 (2009)

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA – AM No. 08-1-16-SC of


22 January 2008)

Cases – GAMBOA VS. CHAN 677 SCRA 385 (2012)


SAEZ VS. ARROYO 681 SCRA 678 (2012)

3. Compensation to, and rehabilitation of victims of tortures


Art. III, sec. 12(4)

2018-2019/2nd Semester/CJC School of Law


Atty. Philip John L. Pojas, Ll.M.