Consti 2 Final Reviewer Protected)
January 30, 2017 | Author: xandra1209 | Category: N/A
Short Description
Download Consti 2 Final Reviewer Protected)...
Description
m
m
m
¯ Ã rmal declarati n r enumerati n the undamental rights secured and guaranteed by the C nstituti n t individuals t pr tect them r m arbitrary and desp tic exercise g vernmental p ers estricti ns are directed against the state and d n t g vern relati ns beteen private pers ns.
¯
¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ !"#$# m 3 lice 3 er Mm st essential, insistent and the least limitable p ers, extending t all the great public needs Mm 9nherent and plenary p er in the State, hich enables it t pr hibit all hurtul t the c m rt, saety, and elare s ciety. Mm est up n public necessity and the right state and public t selpr tecti n. Mm P dge in the legislature and may be delegated t the executive Mm equisites valid exercise: laul subject and laul means m gminent D main Mm ight the state t acquire private pr perty r public use up n payment just c mpensati n m "axati n Mm 3 er the state t raise revenues. Such must be r public purp se, equitable and uni rm m m m
m
m
m
Sh uld be mere regulati n n t pr hibiti n a pr essi n r calling that is legitimate. 3resumpti n c nstituti nality 3rincipal Yardstick against exercise p er m Due pr cess clause m gqual pr tecti n clause Pie ± n t just the pr tecti n the right t be alive r security ne¶s limb against physical harm. 9t is right t a g d lie emphasizing n the quality living Piberty ± measure reed m hich may be enj yed in a civilized c mmunity. 9t is the right the citizen t be ree t use his aculties in all laul ays. 3r perty ± include vested rights, d es n t include public ice, license r mere privilege unless such has ev lved int s me rm pr perty pr tected by the c nstituti n. "his is everything ver hich man may have exclusive d mini n r nership.
6 m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
%&' ! %( 3rimacy Human ights (3hilippine Bl ming ills gmpl yees Org. v. 3B C .)
ver 3r perty ights
&)*+*& m eed r n tice and pp rtunity t be heard (n t actual hearing) m Úuarantee pr cedural airness m 3urp se pr cedural due pr cess: (a.) c ntribute t the accuracy and thus minimize err r in deprivati n (b.) gives a sense rati nal participati n in a decisi n than can aect his destiny and thus enhances his dignity as a thinking pers n. m ai lati ns may be cured by m ti n r rec nsiderati n a. equirements )* ,& %# -*)%&%+ &)%#( (Banc Ãil v. 3alanca)CO 1.m urt r tribunal ith judicial p er t hear and determine cases. 2.m -urisdicti n must be laully acquired ver the pers n r pr perty 3.m pp rtunity t be heard 4.m -udgment rendered up n a laul hearing Ô 3r perty al ne is resp nsible r claim in pr ceedings, but the individual is still named as deendant (unlike tice t the deendant in this case is O" abs lutely essential. 3resumpti n regularity. "hat up n n tice t the pr perty, there is n tice t the individual. 3ublicati n is already deemed suicient r pr cedural due pr cess. 3 ere exp sure t publicity d es n t aect impartiality in this case. 3ers n alleging must have direct pr inluence, n t just mere p ssibility. "he public cann t be excluded, especially hen the issue is public interest. b. equirements )* ,& %# # ¯)$%#% %" &)%#( * %.-*)%&%+&)%#( (Ang "ibay v. C9)HCSSB9 1.m ight t %#( including right t present case and submit evidence 2.m "ribunal must &# %)evidence presented *,, itsel 3.m Decisi n must have s mething t 4.m gvidence must be */ #%+ 5.m Decisi n must be / ) # "%)#& presented r at least c ntained in the rec rd 6.m "ribunal r b dy must act n its n i#),#)# c nsiderati n 7.m B ard r b dy must render its decisi n in a manner here
1A 2010
m
1.m tice and Hearing (imp rtant r quasi judicial b dies because ith ut it the c urts uld lack jurisdicti n) 2.m ate must be reas nable and just (may be implied) 3.m ate must n t be c niscat ry and ppressive.
parties can kn the vari us issues and the # r decisi n. c. 0)%%#&)%#( 1.m gntitled t n tice and hearing be re issuance arrant ± O tice uld deeat the purp se the arrest. Úuilt is n t adjudged during these pr ceedings. 2.m gntitled t n tice and hearing during the pr ceedings. 3.m Bail/pr visi nal liberty n t generally given, but bail may be given under special circumstances: a.m When extraditee is O" a light risk b.m Special Humanitarian c nsiderati ns c.m gxtraditee d es O" p se a danger t the c mmunity. Once bail has been granted, it cann t be rev ked. gxtraudicial 3r ceedings c nsidered in the nature criminal cases because there is arrest detenti n and rced transer t an ther state. "hus due pr cess must be bserved by pr viding bail.
Ú vernment b dies have 2 p ers: 1.m Quasi Pegislative general rules, hich ill aect everyb dy in a certain class. rm n tice, hearing r cr ssexaminati n required. 2.m Quasijudicial applies exclusively t a speciic entity r pers n. Any change must be made ater due n tice and hearing. 3rice Ãixing is c nsidered as an exercise a quasilegislative uncti n (aceda v. gB)
e. Academic Cases ,&)*+1*%$# !&)$%&& (AD v. Capul ng) 9A9AC 1. #!$) in riting the nature the accusati n 2. ight t # charges, pti nally ith c unsel 3. ight accused t be %#!$) evidence against them 4. ight t ))*& n evidence 5. gvidence must be &# %)).
"#%" * ,# %# can be decreed n an icial under investigati n ater charges are br ught (even be re the charges are br ught and heard) since the same is n t in the nature penalty, but merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigati n. Suspensi n is n t a punishment r penalty r acts dish nesty and misc nduct in ice, but is nly a preventive measure. "here re it is n t a denial pr cedural due pr cess (Castill C v. Barbers)
gducati nal 9nstituti ns enj y academic reed m: 1. Wh may teach 2. What may be taught 3. H it is taught 4. Wh is admitted t study acc rding t students h vi late sch l rules and regulati ns.
% $% 1.m 2.m 3.m this, they may expel
. Dep rtati n 3r ceedings ± eect is 3enal in character, s there must be due pr cess .9WSHD 1.m 3reliminary #" %(%# t determine i they are aliens 2.m # Arrest issued ater inding just cause 3.m Charge must ,&%!'act r missi n 4.m ight t be )and present evidence up n laul hearing ( pr secut r because it is a summary judicial pr ceeding) 5.m Ãinal )&+%# dep rtati n ith basis g. Ãixing ates and egulati n 3r essi ns #)) !(*+%#!
Æ m
(*+%# ! ! %# a pr essi nal license bec mes a pr perty right ater its issuance. (C r na v. H3A3) cann t be taken aay ith ut due pr cess, n tice r hearing.
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
+%#%" &aHC ust be r a "+%) reas n ust be given the pp rtunity t be ), due pr cess Any evidence derived r m &#! %#/ c unsel is inadmissible. ight t c unsel is a right even in civil and administrative pr ceedings. "he Pab r C de expressly grants the right t c unsel. (Sala v. PC)
* When a statute lacks a c mprehensible standard, it vi lates due pr cess r ailure t acc rd pers ns, especially pers ns targeted by it, air n tice c nduct t av id, and it leaves la en rcers ith unbridled discreti n 9 carrying ut pr visi ns. "he lack c mprehensible standards means the statute is vague and am unts t a lack due pr cess because lack ÃA9 O"9Cg and there is D g DgPgÚA"9O. Overbreadth: Ú vernment purp se must n t be achieved ith means hich are unnecessarily br ad and invasive pr tected reed ms.
1A 2010
m
*' %, . ins surety b nds, signee (guarant r) agrees t anser r hatever decisi n might be rendered against the principal, hether r n t the surety as impleaded in the c mplaint. tice t the principal is n tice t the surety, thus they have been given an pp rtunity t participate in litigati n. 9 they ch se n t t intervene, it is deemed that they have aived their right t be heard. tice t the principal is als n tice t the surety (Str ngh ld v. CA) %!!#)* $ ) m à reiture pr ceedings are n t penal in nature there re uld nly need substantial evidence. "here is als n need r assistance c unsel (Ãeeder v. CA) "he right t be presumed inn cent is given nly t an individual in criminal cases; and n t t c rp rate entities. + * ,&)%#( are a valid exercise p lice p er the State t pr tect the public r m the dissipati n unds and bank runs. 9t d es n t need n tice and hearing as l ng as there is subsequent judicial revie. (CB v. CA) 3r cedure: gg 1.m 0$%#%# by Central Bank 2.m , by netary B ard n the bank c ncerned 3.m 3rima Ãacie "%)#& ab ut the bank¶s bad inancial c nditi n #&++%# ! ,' %( i deemed t be a cust m vi lates due pr cess (American 9nterashi n v. O3) 0, * initially as nly a privilege but eventually ev lved int a rm pr perty right hich sh uld n t be rem ved arbitrarily and ith ut due pr cess. 9nput taxes O" pr perties n r pr perty rights but mere statut ry privilege. */ #%"*& m 9nterest public requires such intererence and the means are reas nably necessary r the acc mplishment the purp se and n t unduly ppressive m Piberty the citizen may be restrained in the interest public health, public rder and saety, r anything else ithin the sc pe p lice p er. m 9t is the duty the legislature t : 9 1.m determine hat the i# the public require 2.m Determine hat $ * are necessary r the pr tecti n such interests. "he determinati n, the legislature n hat is a pr per exercise p lice p er is subject t the supervisi n the c urts ( S v. " ribi )
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
#)) !+%& 1.m Paul 3urp se r the general elare the c mmunity. 2.m Paul eth d reas nable, n n ppressive and n narbitrary means and meth ds empl yed in c nnecti n t the acc mplishment the purp se. 3 lice p er cann t interere ith private pr perty r purely aesthetic purp ses. But here the act is reas nably ithin a pr per c nsiderati n and care r the public health, saety r c m rt, it sh uld n t be disturbed by the c urts. (Churchill v. aerty) "he State may n t under the guise 3 lice 3 er, permanently divest ners the beneicial use their pr perty and practically c niscate them s lely t preserve r assure the aesthetic appearance the c mmunity. (3e ple v. Ãajard ) An rdinance may be c nsidered invalid i: P3PS 1.m 9t © +%$% the may r¶s discreti n 2.m 9t #,*, t be attained by requiring a permit 3.m enumerates n c nditi n r its grant r reusal 4.m &2 #)) , c nerring up n the may r arbitrary and unrestricted p er. 3*#%&%,++%&# ! c uld be classiied int : OO (1) "h se imp sed r (*+%#(&&*,%# r regular enterprises, (2) "he regulati n r restricti n ##.* !*+&&*,%# r enterprises, (3) Ã r "#* purp ses nly. Ordinance is a valid exercise p lice p er t minimize certain practices hurtul t public m rals. "he alarming increase in the rate pr stituti n, adultery and rnicati n in anila traceable in great part t the existence m tels. "axati n may be made t implement a p lice p er and the am unt, bject, and instance taxati n is dependent up n the l cal legislative b dy. P 0 p lice p er t regulate behavi r. C ngress can legislate m rality thr ugh sin taxes. (grmitaalate v. City ay r anila) "he extincti n rtgage and ther liens ned by legitimate credit rs AÚ9 c nstitutes a taking ith ut due pr cess. "he m rtgages and l ans are purely private and have n t sh n t be aected ith private interest; there re, there as n cause t deprive the private individuals vested pr perty rights. Outright c niscati n 3r perty ith ut O"9Cg and HgA9Ú is invalid. 9 there is a 2%#(, there must be ust C mpensati n. (DC v. 3hil aeterans Bank)
1A 2010
m
Pegislature, may n t, under the guise pr tecting public interest, arbitrarily interere ith private businesses, hich is a pr perty right the ner. "heaters, cinemas and ther exhibiti ns cann t be c nsidered 3 (Balacuit v. CÃ9)
(*# ± a statute r act is vague hen it lacks c mprehensible standards that men c mm n intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and dier as t its applicati n. 9t vi lates due pr cess r ailure t acc rd t pers n air n tice the c nduct t av id and it leaves la en rcers unbridled discreti n in carrying ut its pr visi ns and bec mes an arbitrary lexing g vernment muscles. %).!."(*# )&%# ± a statute hich either rbids r requires the d ing an act in terms s vague that men c mm n intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and dier as t its applicati n "/) )&%# ± a g vernmental purp se may n t be achieved by means hich seep unnecessarily br adly and thereby invade the area pr tected reed m !"+%))%##&C 3"Ú (a) d es n t &#"# the c nstituti n r statute (b) must *#!% r ppressive (c) must ,%+#))% &%$%#' (d) must pr hibit but may regulate ) (e) must be (#+ and c nsistent ith public p licy () must *# #/+ An rdinance must n t c ntravene the C nstituti n r any Statute (agtajas v. 3ryce) Due pr cess d es n t alays entail judicial pr ceedings, especially hen it c mes t taxati n.
! #/+# ! #4 0,&%# ! %"&' (Ople v. " rres) 1.m Whether by his c nduct, the individual has exhibited an expectati n privacy. 2.m Whether s ciety deems this expectati n reas nable. A statute must satisact rily sh the presence c mpelling state interest and that the la, rule, regulati n is narr ly dran t preclude abuses. 1*%$# ! */+%&%#. "he absence publicati n is atal as held in "anada v. "uvera. gven i a © is internal in nature, i its eects reach ut t pe ple ther than its empl yees, then it must be published. (3ilipinas Ka v. CA) All statutes, including th se l cal applicati n, and private las must be published as a c nditi n r their eectivity. Als c vered are 3D¶s, gO¶s and administrative rules and regulati ns in s ar as they implement existing la pursuant t a valid delegati n. Whether r n t the circular addresses a small gr up r n t, the act that it is an administrative circular hich en rces las, makes publicati n imperative. (3H9PSA v. Secretary Pab r) */+%& !!%& is n t a pr perty right but a statut ry right. C ngress may pr vide r requirements and limits t public ice. yalties: taking pr perty ith ut just c mpensati n. *#%&# . "he p ssessi n irearms, as ell as a gun license permitting the carrying irearms, is nly a privilege and O" a right. "he regulati n irearms all ithin the p lice p er the State, as it regulates its use and pr tecti n r the public saety and elare the general s ciety. (Chavez v. mul ) # %# . are n t c nsidered a gratuity. "hey are delayed c mpensati n hich vests the recipient ith a legitimate pr perty interest. (ÚS9S v. ntesclar s)
9n ++(+* !,', the acti n the p ssess r and n t the ner is binding. 9t serves t prevent urther illegal use the pr perty. "he state is n t required t c mpensate the ner r pr perty it has already laully acquired under the exercise g vernmental auth rity ther than the p er eminent d main. (Bennis v. ichigan)
%$# #!% . etirement beneits military pers nnel are gratuit us in character, as such they nly gave uture beneits. 9t is nly hen the empl yee retires and bec mes eligible, that he acquires a vested right t said beneits. (3arren v. COA)
! %#. is a legitimate subject 3 lice 3 er. S l ng as pr essi nals and ther rkers meet reas nably regulat ry standards, n such deprivati n pr perty exists. ( 3r m ti n and anagement v. CA) vi lati n pr perty rights, the state can regulate entry int business as l ng as it is reas nable.
3 lice 3 er, in the interest Úeneral Welare and 3ublic Health, AY impair c ntracts. (Beltran v. Sec. Health) $# . are like ther c ntracts, subject t the verriding demands, needs and interests the greater number as the State may determine in the exercise its p lice p er. ( BÃHA9 v. City ay r 3aranaque)
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
1A 2010
m
0m 3 lice p er, need n t pr ve exact scientiic c nclusiveness r research, as l ng as the exercise hich remains reas nable and n t unduly ppressive. (iras l v. D3WH)
&*%' ! #*. While the right rkers t security tenure is guaranteed by the C nstituti n, its exercise may be reas nably regulated pursuant t the p lice p er the State t saeguard health, m rals, peace, educati n, rder, saety, and the general elare the pe ple. 1*+&%#! m Úuarantees legal equality all be re the la m gqual pr tecti n clause can als be vi lated n t by denial equality but by creating a system that can ster inequality (3e ple v. aera) m "he guaranty gqual 3r tecti n is n t vi lated by a legislati n based n reas nable classiicati n.
&+ %!%&%# / #/+(3e ple v. Cayat)SÚPg 1.m 9t must rest n */ #%+ distincti ns 2.m 9t must be ($# t the purp se the la 3.m 9t must +%$%) t existing c nditi ns nly 4.m 9t must apply 1*++' t all members the same class it d es n t demand abs lute equality am ng residents, it merely requires that all pers ns similarly situated shall be treated alike, under like circumstances; b th as t privileges c nerred and liabilities en rced. ("iu v. CA) ¯+%# "he dierence in status beteen citizens and aliens c nstitute a basis r reas nable classiicati n in the exercise p lice p er. SC held that the disputed la as enacted t remedy an actual threat and danger t nat¶l ec n my p sed by alien d minance and c ntr l the retail trade, and uld ree citizens r m such d minance and c ntr l. (9ch ng v. Hernandez) "he 350.00 ee is unreas nable because it ails t c nsider valid substantial dierences in situati n am ng individual aliens h are required t pay it. "he same am unt is c llected r m every alien, hether he is a casual r permanent empl yee, parttime r ulltime, an empl yee r an executive. (aillegas v. Hui Chi ng 3a H ) "he term ³n nresident alien´ and its bverse ³resident alien,´ must be given their technical c nn tati n under ur la n immigrati n. "here lies substantial dierences beteen the t . (Úeneral illing C rp. v. " rres)
r m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
"he purp se the la is t all the emergence y unger bl g vernments, s the la as declared valid. (Dumla v. COgPgC)
d in l cal
#). is a valid classiicati n, the physical and psych l gical dierences make the distincti n reas nably related t the valid purp se. "he pr hibiti n men bartenders as attributed t the danger present in their rkplace, ith the bject pr tecting the m rals men. (Ú esart v. Cleary) 0%#( )%##&. "ax sh uld n t be passed r speciic c mpanies/entities nly, r it ill n t be applicable t uture c nditi ns, and ill serve t exclude any subsequently established sugar central, the same class as plainti, r m the c verage the tax. (Orm c Sugar C . v. "reasurer Orm c) 9t is inherent in the p er t tax that a state be ree t select the subjects taxati n, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities hich result r m a singling ut ne particular class r taxati n, r exempti n inringe n c nstituti nal limitati n. (Sis n r. v. Ancheta) Special grant tax exempti n in av r class legislati n. (Chavez v. 3CÚÚ)
the arc z heirs ill c nstitute
$/+%#(.ust h 3D 1869 in legalizing gambling c nducted by 3AÚCO is vi lative equal pr tecti n is n t clearly explained. "he mere act that s me gambling activities like c ckighting (3D 449) h rseracing (A 306, amended by A 983), seepstakes, l ttery and races (A 1169 amended by B3 42) are legalized under certain c nditi ns, hile thers are pr hibited, d es n t render these las, speciically 3D 1869, unc nstituti nal. "he g3C d es n t mean that all things called by the same name sh uld be treated the same ay. (Basc v. 3AÚCO)
&% % . Dismissal a case against ne deendant must apply t thers i n reas nable distincti ns exist. (epublic v. Sandiganbayan) $+ .9nequalities hich result r m the singling ut ne particular class r tax exempti n inringe n c nstituti nal limitati n. "here is a substantial distincti n beteen the h meless p r and the h meless less p r because the 2nd gr up can a rd t rent h uses in the meantime. (" lentin v. Sec. Ãinance) 3 lice p er inv lves the duty t pr vide r the real needs the pe ple. "he Burial Assistance 3r gram is a relie pauperism. 3aupers may be reas nably classiied. Dierent gr ups may receive varying treatment. Statutes have been passed giving rights and beneits t the disabled and the less rtunate. (Binay v. D ming )
1A 2010
m
* ,# %#!+%& !!%& .33 Oicers are treated dierently r m ther pers ns charged criminally r administratively ins ar as preventive suspensi n is c ncerned. 3 licemen carry eap ns and the badge la hich can be used t harass r intimidate itnesses against them, and there re needs t be suspended in rder t pr tect itnesses against him. (Himagan v. 3e ple)
#&% .a ranchise is n t in the strict sense a simple c ntract but rather it is m re imp rtantly, a mere privilege especially in matters hich are ithin the g vernment's p er t regulate and even pr hibit thr ugh the exercise the p lice p er. "hus, a gambling ranchise is alays subject t the exercise p lice p er r the public elare. (Pim v. 3acquing) "here is substantial distincti n beteen landbased and seabased Ãilipin verseas rkers in terms , am ng ther things, rk envir nment, saety, dangers and risks t lie and limb, and accessibility t s cial, civic, and spiritual activities. (C nerence aritime anning Agencies v. 3OgA) 9t is gr ssly unair t exempt ne similarly situated litigant r m pr secuti n ith ut all ing the same exempti n t the thers. "he equal pr tecti n guarantee perates against uneven applicati n legal n rms s that all pers ns under similar circumstances uld be acc rded the same treatment. (egala v. Sandiganbayan) "he per rmance legitimate and even essential duties by public icers has never been an excuse t ree a pers n validly in pris n. Ãuncti ns and duties the ice are n t substantial distincti ns hich lit the accused r m the class pris ners interrupted in their reed m and restricted in liberty m vement. (3e ple v. al sj s) "here are substantial dierences beteen big invest rs h are lured t establish their industries in the ³secured areas´ c mpared t business perat rs utside the area. "he irst can give ec n mic impact that is nati nal in sc pe, the ther, merely l cal ("iu v. CA) +&$$*#%&%# ."a and radi are m re pervasive and persuasive; print media d es n t really reach the hardt reach places in the 3hilippines hile access t "a and radi c ntent is practically simultane us ("gPgBA3 v. COgPgC) "he payment the civil liability is n t made a c nditi n t pr bati n. 3etiti ner¶s applicati n r pr bati n had already been granted. Satisacti n his civil liability as n t made a requirement be re he c uld avail pr bati n, but as a c nditi n r his c ntinued enj yment the
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
same. 3r bati n is n t an abs lute right. 9t is a mere privilege h se grant rests up n the discreti n the trial c urt. (S rian v. CA) +&%# . incumbents running r the same p siti n are n t c nsidered resigned because the intenti n the la is t all them t c ntinue serving their c nstituents and av id a disrupti n in the delivery essential services. "h se running r dierent p siti ns are c nsidered resigned because they are c nsidered t have aband ned their present p siti n by their act running r ther p sts. (Aguinald v. COgPgC) "he purp se the singling ut is t ensure the impartiality the electi n icers by preventing them r m devel ping amiliarity ith the pe ple in the place assigned t them. "he purp se the la is t break an imp rtant link in the chain c rrupti n. With ut the c mplicity such icials, largescale v ter registrati n an malies can hardly be carried ut. (De Úuzman v. COgPgC) "here are substantial distincti ns beteen glective and App intive Oicials: 1: elective icials ccupy ice by the maj rity¶s mandate ± they can nly be rem ved under stringent circumstances; app intive icials h ld ice by virtue designati n by an app inting auth rity 2: App intive icials are n t all ed t engage in partisan p litical activity, hile elective icials bvi usly may (Ãarinas v. gxecutive Secretary) 1*+'!1*+2.pers ns h rk r equal qualiicati ns, skill, e rt and resp nsibility, under similar c nditi ns, sh uld be paid equally. Salaries sh uld n t be used as an enticement r reignhires, t the prejudice l calhires. (9S v. Quisumbing) #+'."he death penalty la applies t all pers ns and all classes pers ns. particular gr up r classes pers ns are identiied by the la against h m the death penalty shall be exclusively imp sed. (3e ple v. ercad )
5 ¯ ¯
¯¯ ¯ ¯
¯ ¯ 6 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
7 ¯ ¯ 3 ¯ - ¯ 7¯3¯ ¯ ¯
3¯ 3¯ ¯
3¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 6
1A 2010
m
3 3 ¯ 0&,%#9 search is reas nable
%"+%) %*"+%) %* #* # # #8/' ,*, %" equirements: 1) 9ncidental t #)%"%)*+9 1) Subp ena 1) 9ssued up n laul arrest duces tecum pr bable cause (Sec 12, ule 1) SO3 (3e ple 2) Administrative 2) 3ers nally 126 ules vs. arti) 9nspecti n examined by the C urt) 2) Security Check judge 2) 3lain vie (3e ple vs 3) ving vehicle B ngcaraan) 3) gxamined 4) C nsented under ath and arrantless airmati n search 4) 3articularly 5) Cust ms describing the searches place t be 6) St p and Ãrisk searched and the 7) gxigent and pers ns r things t be seized gmergency (Sec. 2 Art. 999, circumstances y v. B9) 8) suspici nless 5) arrant must drug tests n t be r m re than ne ense (evised OC) ¯ )$!$ &#)¯ *, (a) " pr tect the privacy and sanctity his pers n, pr perty and h use (b) " guarantee against unlaul arrest and ther rms restraint. Secti n 2 is pr tecti n against unlaul searches by
and d es n t pr tect citizens r m unlaul searches and seizures by
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
private individuals. (3e ple v. arti) **remedy may be und in the Civil C de and in the 3C.
& ± an examinati n a man¶s h use r ther buildings r premises, r his pers n r his vehicle ith a vie t the disc very c ntraband, illicit and st len pr perty r s me evidence guilt t be used in pr secuti n a criminal acti n r s me crime r ense charged. #% &: &;%# ne can be c mpelled t j in an ass ciati n ith ut his c nsent. "he bylas r charters c rp rati n cann t bind r c mpel a pers n, n t party t the creati n the charter/bylas, t bec me a member the c rp rati n/ass ciati n because he has n t given his c nsent. (Sta. Clara H me ners Ass ciati n v. Úast n) But a ))! +, hich pr vides that the buyer must aut matically j in an ass ciati n, is binding because his participati n in the c ntract implies his c nsent. He c uld have ch sen t n t purchase the pr perty. nder the " rrens system registrati n, claims and liens hatever character except th se menti ned by la existing against the land binds the h lder the title and the h le rld. 3ADCO c uld have av ided membership by n t buying the land. (3ADCO vs. Ortigas Center Ass ciati n)
G ¯ ¯ ¯B - 3 ¯ 9m 0,,%%#%##+ $%##$%#
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
1*% % !"+%)0&% !,!$%##)$%# a.m "he pr perty taken must be private pr perty; b.m "here must be genuine necessity t take the private pr perty; c.m "he taking must be r public use; d.m "here must be payment just c mpensati n; and e.m "he taking must c mply ith due pr cess la. 1*% % !0&% $%##)$%# 1.m aalid and deinite er previ usly made t the ner but as n t accepted 2.m Ordinance enacted auth rizing such exercise 3.m 3 er enacted r public use, elare, purp se r r the beneit the p r and landless 4.m 3ayment just c mpensati n As underst d r m the c mm n and usual meaning the c njuncti n and, the pr visi ns 3D 1517 apply nly t areas declared t be l cated ithin b th an Area r 3ri rity Devel pment (A3D) and an rban Pand e rm Z ne ( PZ). (S landa v. CA) 9t is n ted that the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in m ney, primarily because the small land ner ill be needing it m re than the big land ners, h can a rd a bigger balance in b nds and ther things value. (Sant s v. Pand Bank) Despite the existence this legislative grant in av r l cal g vernments, it is still the duty the c urts t determine hether the p er eminent d main is being exercised in acc rdance ith the delegating la. "he requisites t be c nsidered by the c urts are: 1.m An rdinance is enacted by the l cal legislative c uncil auth rizing the l cal chie executive, in behal the l cal g vernment unit, t exercise the p er eminent d main r pursue expr priati n pr ceedings ver a particular private pr perty. x x x
1A 2010
m
9n the present case, the City andaluy ng seeks t exercise the p er eminent d main ver petiti ners' pr perty by means a res luti n, in c ntraventi n the irst requisite. Secti n 19 the C de requires an rdinance, n t a res luti n, r the exercise the p er eminent d main. "he C urt, in © 3 & . , distinguished beteen an rdinance and a res luti n. ³A municipal rdinance is dierent r m a res luti n. An rdinance is a la, but a res luti n is merely a declarati n the sentiment r pini n a lamaking b dy n a speciic matter. An rdinance p ssesses a general and permanent character, but a res luti n is temp rary in nature. Additi nally, the t are enacted dierently ² a third reading is necessary r an rdinance, but n t r a res luti n, unless decided therise by a maj rity all the Sanggunian members.´ (Heirs Albert Suguitan v. City andaluy ng)
%#+%'!-*)($#."he judgment giving HA the right t expr priate the pr perties menti ned became inal and execut ry. ³9t is arbitrary and caprici us r a g vernment agency t initiate expr priati n pr ceedings, seize a pers n¶s pr perty, all the judgment the c urt t bec me inal and execut ry and then reuse t pay n the gr und that there are n appr priati ns r the pr perty earlier taken and pr itably used.³ (HA v. Heirs 9sidr Úuivel nd ) 9n the case 3P-*, the C urt held that alth ugh an easement a right ay transmits n rights except the easement itsel, and resp ndent retains ull nership the pr perty, the acquisiti n such easement is, nevertheless, n t . C nsidering the nature and the eect the installati n p er lines, the limitati ns n the use the land r an indeinite peri d uld deprive resp ndent n rmal use the pr perty. Ã r this reas n, the latter is entitled t payment a just c mpensati n, hich must be neither m re n r less than the m netary equivalent the land. While Secti n 3(a) .A. .6395, as amended, and the implementing rule .A. . 8974 indeed state that nly 10% the market value the pr perty is due t the ner the pr perty subject t an easement right ay, said rule is n t binding n the C urt. Wellsettled is the rule that the determinati n "just c mpensati n" in eminent d main cases is a judicial uncti n. Any valuati n r just c mpensati n laid d n in the statutes may serve nly as guiding principle r ne the act rs in determining just c mpensati n but it may n t substitute the c urt's n judgment as t hat am unt sh uld be aarded and h t arrive at such am unt. (3C v. 3ure ds)
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
gxpr priati n is n t limited t the acquisiti n real pr perty ith a c rresp nding transer title r p ssessi n. "he right ay easement resulting in a restricti n r limitati n n pr perty rights ver the land traversed by transmissi n lines als alls ithin the ambit the term "expr priati n." -* &$,# %# % )!%#) !*++ #) !% 1*%"+# ! ,,' 2# !$ % # /' 0,,% $ * % # 2C (%# /* #C + "he rd "just" is used t intensiy the meaning the rd "c mpensati n" and t c nvey thereby the idea that the equivalent t be rendered r the pr perty t be taken shall be real, substantial, ull and ample. "he valuati n a pr perty in the tax declarati n cann t be an abs lute substitute t just c mpensati n. (3C v. Capin) /9m #)20,,%%#
*/ %*%#."he real party in interest in expr priati n cases is the epublic the 3hilippines. gxpr priati n suits are br ught in behal and r the beneit the epublic the 3hilippines. it ll s that the epublic the 3hilippines is entitled t be substituted in the expr priati n pr ceedings as partyplainti in lieu 9SA, the statut ry term 9SA having expired. 3ut a little dierently, the expirati n 9SA's statut ry term did n t by itsel require r justiy the dismissal the eminent d main pr ceedings. (9r n and Steel Auth rity v. CA) "hresh ld requisites r laul taking private pr perty r public use need t be examined here: ne is the necessity r the taking; an ther is the legal auth rity t eect the taking.A reas nable relati nship beteen that p er and the en rcement and administrati n electi n las by C melec must be sh n; it is n t casually t be assumed. (3hilippine 3ress 9nstitute v. COgPgC) (*+%#!%"%+(% #2%#( 9n truth, radi and televisi n br adcasting c mpanies, hich are given ranchises, d n t n the airaves and requencies thr ugh hich they transmit br adcast signals and images. "hey are merely given the temp rary privilege using them. Since a ranchise is a mere privilege, the exercise the privilege may reas nably be burdened ith the per rmance by the grantee s me rm public service. ("elebap v. COgPgC) $,+%#&%,&)*+)*,& % $#)'#)$#%# $* /+ 9n the same vein, expr priati n pr ceedings are t be res rted t nly ater the ther m des acquisiti n have been exhausted. C mpliance ith these c nditi ns is mandat ry because these are the nly
1A 2010
m
saeguards tentimes helpless ners private pr perty against vi lati n due pr cess hen their pr perty is rcibly taken r m them r public use. (gstate Heirs the Pate gxustice BP v. City anila) 3rivate lands rank last in the rder pri rity r purp ses s cialized h using. 9n the same vein, expr priati n pr ceedings may be res rted t nly ater the ther m des acquisiti n are exhausted. C mpliance ith these c nditi ns is mandat ry because these are the nly saeguards tentimes helpless ners private pr perty against hat may be a tyrannical vi lati n due pr cess hen their pr perty is rcibly taken r m them allegedly r public use. (Pagca v. Pabra) &9m %( ! #/!0,,%%# A cl se scrutiny the rec rds reveals that the Sangguniang Bayan did n t establish r maintain any public market n the subject l t. "he res luti n merely menti ned the plan t acquire the l t r expansi n the public market adjacent theret . #%+0,,%%#,&)%#( %# %*) %#&*+#)#&##/),%")!% %("+#). (Úreater Balanga v. unicipality Balanga) 9t must be stressed that the agreement t transer the pr perty as made in 1974. re than tenty years later, n actual transer had yet been made. nless and until the transer is c nsummated, r expr priati n pr ceedings instituted by the g vernment, private resp ndent c ntinues t retain nership the land subject this case. (aelarma v. CA) )9m +$# !2%#( equisites r "aking: 1.m "he expr priat r must enter up n the private pr perty 2.m "he entrance must n t be r a m mentary peri ds, that is, the entrance must be permanent 3.m "he entry must be under the arrant r c l r legal auth rity 4.m "he pr perty must be dev ted r public use 5.m tilizati n the pr perty must be in such a ay as t ust the ner and deprive him all beneicial enj yment the pr perty. (epublic v. ada. De Castelvi) Where there is n taking pr perty r purp ses eminent d main, n r c ndemnati n pr ceedings instituted, the basis r determinati n just c mpensati n is the time hen the trial c urt made its ) expr priati n. (Úarcia v. CA) *%++ !*, 3 lice 3 er d es n t include the p er t take
r m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
pr perty a e cases here there is a necessity t c niscate private pr perty in rder t destr y it r the purp se pr tecting peace and rder and t pr m te the general elare. By c niscating a part a private cemetery t be given t paupers, the city is n t exercising p lice p er but rather, the taking private pr perty, hich sh uld be c mpensated. (Úarcia v. CA) "he air is a public highay, as C ngress has declared. But this general principle d es n t apply here. 9 the land ner is t have ull enj yment the land, he must have exclusive c ntr l the immediate reaches the envel ping atm sphere. "h ugh nly an $#!!+%(is inv lved, that easement, i , uld be a deinite exercise c mplete d mini n and c ntr l ver the surace the land. "he act that the planes never t uched the surace uld be irrelevant. "he ner's right t p ssess and expl it the land that is t say, his beneicial nership it uld be destr yed. 9t is the Oner¶s P ss, O" the taker¶s gain, hich is imp rtant. C mpensable taking d es n t need t inv lve all the pr perty 9nterests, hich rm part the right t nership. When ne r m re the pr perty rights are appr priated and applied t a public purp se, there is taking even i the bare title t the pr perty still remains ith the private ner. ( S v. Causby) 3r perty rights essentially include the ull use the pr perty. An rdinance hich permanently restricts the use pr perty, that it cann t be used r any reas nable purp se, is rec gnized as a taking pr perty. 9 the municipality ants t assure that n structure uld bstruct the vie the plaza, they sh uld have given just c mpensati n r the land. (3e ple v. Ãajard ) */+%&%+%% While the epublic may n t c mpel 3PD" t enter int a c ntract, the epublic may, in the exercise eminent d main, require 3PD" t permit interc nnecti n the g vernment ph ne system / 3PD", subject t just c mpensati n t be determined by the c urt. "here is n reas n hy the State may n t require a public utility t render services in the general interest, pr vided just c mpensati n is paid there r. ltimately, the beneiciary the interc nnecting service uld be the users b th teleph ne systems, s that the c ndemnati n uld be r public use. (ep. v. 3PD") p n the iling the c mplaint in gminent D main pr ceedings, r at any time thereater, ater due n tice t deendant, the petiti ner has the right t take r enter up n the p ssessi n the real pr perty inv lved i he dep sits
1A 2010
m
an am unt equivalent t the assessed value the pr perty ith the 3B r purp ses taxati n. (3C v. cs n) "here is n taking since the landmark la had n t transerred c ntr l ver the pr perty t the city, but nly the appellant's expl itati n it. A state statute that substantially urthers imp rtant public p licies and the quality lie by preserving the character and desirable aesthetic eatures a city may s rustrate distinct 9agS"g"BACKgD 9"ggS"S. "here is a D9ÃÃggCg beteen gASOABPg use pr perty and OS" BggÃ9C9AP use pr perty = ³taking´ ccurs i ner can still reas nably use the pr perty, even i he may bear s me l sses due t State¶s restricti n/las. HOWgag, %&%##+,,'$'&# %*H2%#(H%!: a.m public purp se b.m Has an unduly harsh impact up n the ner's use the pr perty c.m Has same eect as the c mplete destructi n rights land ners(3enn Central "ransp rt v. YC) ) & . Despite their intangible nature, trade secrets have many the characteristics m re traditi nal rms pr perty. re ver, this C urt has und ther kinds intangible interests t be pr perty r purp ses the Clause. "he c urt als held that s l ng as the taking has a c nceivable public character, the means by hich it ill be attained is r c ngress t determine. 9n deciding ,%&*+("#$#+&%# (sh rt acquisiti n) !!&)2%#(, this C urt cuses n: 1)m "he character the g vernmental acti n 2)m "he ec n mic impact 3)m Whether the acti n intereres ith reas nable investmentbacked expectati ns (uckelshaus v. nsant ) An $#!%(!' transmits n rights except the easement itsel; resp ndent retains ull nership the pr perty. "he acquisiti n such easement is, nevertheless, . C nsidering the nature and the eect the installati n p er lines, the limitati ns n the use the land r an © uld deprive resp ndent n rmal use the pr perty. "he latter is entitled t just c mpensati n, hich must be neither m re n r less than the land¶s m netary equivalent. ust c mpensati n is deined as the ull and air equivalent the pr perty taken r m its ner by the expr priat r. 9n eminent d main r expr priati n
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
pr ceedings, the just c mpensati n is generally the market value. "he nature and character the land at the time its taking is the principal criteri n r determining h much just c mpensati n sh uld be given t the land ner. (3C v. anubay) >* &$,# %# is c nsidered t be the sum equivalent t the market value the pr perty, br adly described t be the pr perty¶s !%$2 "+*, r: ³"he price ixed by the seller in pen market in the usual and rdinary c urse legal acti n and c mpetiti n O the air value the pr perty as beteen ne h receives, and ne h desires t sell it, ixed at the time the its actual taking by the g vernment.´ 9n +3 right ay easement resulting in %&%# +%$%%# n pr perty rights als alls ithin the ambit ³expr priati n´ as there as l ud buzzing and expl ding s unds caused by the transmissi n lines, it aects the rights the ner t use r sell such land. (3C v. San 3edr ) 9n the determinati n [air market] value, the c urt is n t limited t the assessed value the pr perty r t the schedule market values determined by the pr vincial r city appraisal c mmittee; these values c nsist but ne act r in the judicial valuati n the pr perty. "he the land at the time its taking is the principal criteri n r determining h much just c mpensati n sh uld be given t the land ner. All the acts as t the © and , as ell as its , sh uld be c nsidered. 9 the easement is %##)) t perpetually r indeinitely deprive the ner his pr prietary rights by imp sing c nditi ns that aect the rdinary © $ the pr perty r thr ugh that are inc nsistent ith the exercise the attributes nership, r hen the intr ducti n structures r bjects hich, by their nature, © $ ©© and pr perty und n the land is necessary, then the ner sh uld be c mpensated r the m netary equivalent the land. (3C v. "iangc ) "he taking private lands under the (%#!$,($ partakes the nature an expr priati n pr ceeding. Since just c mpensati n embraces n t nly the c rrect determinati n the am unt t be paid t the ners the land, but als its payment ithin a reas nable time r m the taking the land, e think that the appellate c urt c rrectly imp sed an %# in the nature damages r the delay. (PB3 v.
1A 2010
m
9mperial) C nsidering the nature and the eect the installati n p er lines, the limitati ns n the use the land r an indeinite peri d uld deprive resp ndent n rmal use the pr perty. "he C urt has c nsistently held that the determinati n just c mpensati n is a judicial uncti n. statute, decree, r executive rder can mandate that its n determinati n shall prevail ver the c urt¶s indings. (3C v. B ngb ng) 3gA¶s entry int the pr perty ith the permissi n SADC, its previ us ner, as n t r the purp se expr priating the pr perty. SADC all ed 3gA t enter the land n c nditi n that it sh uld pay a m nthly rental 310K. Als , it must be n ted that ater its entry, 3gA requested SADC t d nate r sell the land t the g vernment. 9ndeed, there as n intenti n n the part 3gA t expr priate subject pr perty. Why did it ask permissi n? 9t c uld have simply exercised its p er eminent d main. ("an v. epublic) "he undergr und tunnels imp se limitati ns n resp ndents¶ use the pr perty r an indeinite peri d and deprive them its rdinary use. Based up n the reg ing, resp ndents are clearly entitled t the payment just c mpensati n. tithstanding the act that petiti ner nly ccupies the sub terrain p rti n, it is liable t pay n t merely an easement ee but rather the ull c mpensati n r land. "he nature the easement practically deprives the ners its n rmal beneicial use. (3C v. 9brahim) "he "C misapplied the ruling in by substituting such inlati n act r and r adjustment act r r the +(++' $#)) %# in the price t be paid as just c mpensati n in expr priati n cases. here in the said decisi n may it be inerred that damages r such delay in the payment just c mpensati n, ther than the legal interest pr vided by la, may be granted in additi n r c nsidered in c mputing the am unt just c mpensati n such as the inlati n act r applied by the trial c urt. (3OC v. aglasang) 9m */+%& ± any use that is beneit the public.
utility, advantage
r pr ductivity r the
³3ublic se´ requirement is a lexible, c mprehensive and ev lving c ncept. Whatever may be beneicially empl yed r the general elare satisies this requirement. "he c nstructi n l c st h using is rec gnized as a public purp se. 9t is made pursuant t the Sate¶s mandate t pr m te s cial justice in all phases nati nal devel pment.
purp se the taking is public, meaning, any act that may be beneicially empl yed r the general elare, then the p er eminent d main c mes int play.(Sumul ng v. Úuerrer )
"he City anila, thr ugh its legislative branch, has the express p er t acquire private lands and subdivide these lands int h me l ts r sale t b na ide tenants r ccupants, and t lab rers and l salaried empl yees the city. "hat nly a e c uld actually beneit r m the expr priati n the pr perty d es n t diminish its public use character. 9t is simply n t p ssible t pr vide all at nce land and shelter r all h need them ( ). 3ublic use n includes the br ader n ti n indirect public beneit r advantage, including in particular, urban land re rm and h using.(3hil. C lumbian Ass c. v. H n. 3anis) "he idea that "public use" is strictly limited t clear cases "use by the public" has l ng been discarded. "hat nly a e uld actually beneit r m the expr priati n pr perty d es n t necessarily diminish the essence and character public use. As l ng as the public has right use, hether exercised by ne r many members, a "public advantage" r "public beneit" accrues, suicient t c nstitute a public use. 9t may be limited t the inhabitants a small r restricted l cality, but must be in c mm n, and n t r a particular individual(s) al ne. (an sca v. CA) "he establishment a pil t devel pment center uld inure t the direct beneit and advantage the pe ple the 3r vince Camarines Sur. Once perati nal, the center uld make available t the c mmunity invaluable in rmati n and techn l gy n agriculture, ishery and the c ttage industry. "he h using pr ject als satisies the public purp se requirement the C nstituti n. (3r vince Cam Sur v. CA) 9t is ell settled that expr priati n private land r urban devel pment and slum clearance is r a public purp se even i the devel ped area is © s ld t private h me ners, c mmercial irms, entertainment, and service c mpanies. (eyes v. HA) Ater scrutinizing the rec rds, the C urt und that the basis the rdinance as t beneit the elendres C mp und H me ners Ass ciati n, a private, n npr it rganizati n, # the residents Cani gan in general. 9t can be seen that the ass ciati n anted a private playgr und and recreati nal acility and asikip¶s pr perty as the cl sest l t available. "hus, the taking as # a public character. re ver, there as already an alternative acility r sp rts and recreati n in the area, the ain rest 3ark. (asikip v. 3asig)
&%+%=)* %#(.alls ithin the c nine public use. As l ng as the
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
1A 2010
m
3%#%#( d es n t entail a simple right ay, hich is rdinarily all ed by the Civil C de. ining perati ns c nsist a c nsiderable c nstructi n and depl yment that ill deinitely ust ners r ccupants beneicial nership their lands. Once mining perati ns c mmence, there is already c mpensable taking. re ver, mining is r a public beneit. All requisites taking are there re present. (Dipidi v. garth Savers v. Ú zun) "he limited meaning attached t "public use" is "use by the public" r "public empl yment," that "a duty must dev lve n the pers n r c rp rati n h lding pr perty appr priated by right eminent d main t urnish the public ith the use intended, and that there must be a right n the part the public, r s me p rti n it, r s me public r quasipublic agency n behal the public, t use the pr perty ater it is c ndemned." "he m re generally accepted vie sees "public use" as "public advantage, c nvenience, r beneit, and that anything hich tends t enlarge the res urces, increase the industrial energies, and pr m te the pr ductive p er any c nsiderable number the inhabitants a secti n the state, r hich leads t the gr th t ns and the creati n ne res urces r the empl yment capital and lab r, [hich] c ntributes t the general elare and the pr sperity the h le c mmunity." 9n this jurisdicti n, "public use" is deined as "hatever is beneicially empl yed r the c mmunity." (Barangay v. CA) "he p er eminent d main is an inherent and indispensable p er the State. Als called the p er expr priati n, it is described as ³the highest and m st exact idea pr perty remaining in the g vernment´ that may be acquired r s me public purp se thr ugh a meth d ³in the nature a c mpuls ry sale t the State.´ By virtue its s vereign character, the exercise the p er prevails ver the n nimpairment clause, and is clearly superi r t the inal and execut ry judgment rendered by a c urt in an ejectment case. (anapat v. CA) eaningul statements in the b dy the - arrant the c nclusi n that the expr priated pr perties uld remain t be s until it as c nirmed that Pahug Airp rt as n l nger " ". "his inerence urther implies that ater the Pahug Airp rt ceased its undertaking as such and the expr priated l ts ere n t being used r any airp rt expansi n pr ject, the rights "/" the expr priated P ts s. 916 and 920 as beteen the State and their rmer ners, petiti ners herein, $* /1*%/+')>* ) 9n execut ry c ntracts there is a ide ield r raud because unless they be in riting there is n palpable evidence the intenti n the c ntracting parties. "he statute has precisely been enacted t prevent raud. H ever, i a c ntract has been t tally r partially per rmed, the exclusi n par l
ü m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
evidence uld pr m te raud r bad aith, r it uld enable the deendant t keep the beneits already delivered by him r m the transacti n in litigati n, and, at the same time, evade the bligati ns, resp nsibilities r liabilities assumed r c ntracted by him thereby. (actan v. "udtud) !9m -* &$,# %# ± just and c mplete equivalent the l ss, hich the ner has t suer by reas n the expr priati n. Sum equivalent t market value. ust be direct payments and n t just dep sits. -* $,# %#IÃair arket aalue (+) c nsequential Damages () c nsequential Beneits
%32+*."he market value a piece land is attained by a c nsiderati n all th se acts, hich make it c mmercially valuable. "he rule that sh uld be ll ed is that: the market value a pr perty 9s the price hich 9t ill bring hen 9t is ered r sale by ne h desires, but is n t bliged t sell it, and is b ught by ne h us under n necessity having it. "he vie the c mmissi ners h are disinterested land ners 9s given greater eight than that an rdinary tier acts. (City anila v. gstrada) #+ *+ value must be as the time the iling, hich is als the time the taking. Mm Ãiling c mes later than the taking ± value at the taking Mm aalue increased independently ± value is at the iling Mm ust be determined n trial by c mmissi ners (gAPCO v. 3ineda) but the rep rt is n t inal r c nclusive but rec mmendat ry Mm ay be in the rm m ney r g vernment b nds, as l ng as it is certain Mm Ãact rs t be c nsidered: nature the pr perty, uture c nvertibility, change in value pes , value standing cr ps, time taking " all the c urt t change the am unt the dep sit as it sees it, at any time during the pr ceeding, the right p ssessi n granted t the railr ad c mpany might ell bec me illus ry and there re makes the c urt's acti n unc nstituti nal. (anila ailr ad v. 3aredes) When the plainti takes p ssessi n /!the instituti n the c ndemnati n pr ceedings, the value sh uld be ixed as the time the taking the said p ssessi n, n t the iling the c mplaint, and the latter sh uld be the basis r the determinati n the value. When the taking the pr perty inv lved &%#&%) %% */ 1*#, the c mmencement ,&)%#( , it ill be the basis the value the land. (unicipality Daet v. CA)
1A 2010
m
" determine just c mpensati n r lands appr priated by the g vernment, the basis sh uld be the value the land r price at the time it as taken r m the ner and appr priated by the g vernment n t its uture p tential. (3C v. CA) 9n an expr priati n pr ceeding, the c urt technically has the p er t determine the just c mpensati n r the pr perty. 3r visi ns hich encr ach up n judicial prer gatives and renders the c urt inutile in a matter hich is reserved t it r inal determinati n is v id. (g3ZA v. Dulay) "he nature land bank b nd rtiies the vie that resp ndent may be c mpelled t accept th se b nds at their ace value. Agrarian re rm cann t be ully realized ith ut the interventi n the g vernment particularly in the payment just c mpensati n it is nly ith the supp rt the g vernment that payment just c mpensati n t land ner may be realized. (addumba v. ÚS9S) Am ng the act r t be c nsidered in arriving at a air market value the pr perty are the c st acquisiti n, the current value the pr perties, its actual r p tential uses and tax declarati ns. C mmissi ner's rep rt alth ugh nly advis ry and persuasive and by n means inal, there re, may be used as basis r determinati n just c mpensati n. (Berkent tter v. CA) A trial be re the C mmissi ners is indispensable t all the parties t present evidence n the issue just c mpensati n there re, the app intment c mmissi ners is mandat ry requirement 9n expr priati n cases r it is a substantial right that may n t be d ne aay ith ut any reas n (eralc v. 3ineda/3C v. CA) ust c mpensati n means n t nly the c rrect determinati n the am unt t be paid t the ner the land but als the payment the land ithin reas nable time r m its taking. (Pand Bank v. CA) 9n light the declared unc nstituti nality 3.D. . 76, 3.D. .1533 and just 3.D. . 42 ins ar as they sancti n executive determinati n c mpensati n in expr priati n cases, %% %$,%"#'%( %$$)%, %#! */>&,,'&&*%#( ,#)# ¯ $* /!%$+' (*#))#"+%)&$,+%#&% &%# 5 ! *+ ?, .., there must be a dep sit ith the ati nal r 3r vincial "reasurer the value the subject pr perty as pr visi nally and pr mptly ascertained and ixed by the c urt having jurisdicti n the pr ceedings. (3anes v. a9SCA) %(%#+-*% )%&%#! ,&%+¯(%#* .Special Agrarian C urts, hich are egi nal "rial C urts, are given riginal and exclusive jurisdicti n
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
ver t categ ries cases, t it: (1) "all petiti ns r the determinati n just c mpensati n t land ners" and (2) "the pr secuti n all criminal enses under [.A. . 6657]. "he valuati n pr perty in eminent d main is #%++'>*)%&%+ !*#&%# hich cann t be vested in administrative agencies. (epublic v. CA) $%#%#!!%$2"+*."he nature and character the land at the time its taking is the principal criteri n t determine just c mpensati n t the land ner. "he air market valuati n land t be taken sh uld n t be based n the value adjacent l ts i the nature the adjacent l ts is dierent r m the land s ught t be expr priated. (3C v. Hens n) ¯)$%#% %"(*%)+%# !)$%#%#!>* &$,# %# ##&# %*%#+*#+ %% &#&+* %"*,#-*)%&%' ),%"%#($!%,(%"."he bjecti n that 3.D. 27 is unc nstituti nal as it sets limitati ns n the judicial prer gative determining just c mpensati n is beret merit. "he determinati n just c mpensati n under 3.D. . 27, like in Secti n 16 (d) .A. 6657 r the CA3 Pa, is n t inal r c nclusive. nless b th the land ner and the tenantarmer accept the valuati n the pr perty by the Barri C mmittee n Pand 3r ducti n and the DA, the parties may bring the dispute t c urt in rder t determine the appr priate am unt c mpensati n, a task unmistakably ithin the prer gative the c urt. (Sigre v. CA) ¯#++()*#>* &$,# %#% ##*()% &#%#* 0,,%%# +)'/&$!%#+#)0&*.3etiti ner alleges that the intended public use as rendered nugat ry by the unreas nable just c mpensati n ixed by the c urt, hich is bey nd the means the intended beneiciaries the s cialized h using pr ject. ,*/+%&,*, ! &%+%=)* %#(,>&% #%##'' )%$%#% )/'$*#!>* &$,# %#&* !%0) 3etiti ner cann t be permitted t institute c ndemnati n pr ceedings against resp ndents nly t aband n it later hen it inds the am unt just c mpensati n unacceptable. (HA v. Heirs 9sidr Úuivel nd ) 0)% ."he tax credit that is c ntemplated under the Seni r Citizens Act is a rm just c mpensati n r private pr perty taken by the State r public use, n t a remedy r taxes that ere err ne usly r illegally assessed/c llected. (C9 v. Central Puz n)
1A 2010
m
"ax credit is n t "ax deducti n. "he tax credit is the am unt representing the 20 percent disc unt granted t a qualiied seni r citizen by all establishments relative t their utilizati n transp rtati n services, h tels and similar l dging establishments, restaurants, drugst res, recreati n centers, theaters, cinema h uses, c ncert halls, circuses, carnivals and ther similar places culture, leisure and amusement, hich disc unt shall be deducted by the said establishments r m their gr ss inc me r inc me tax purp ses and r m their gr ss sales r valueadded tax r ther percentage tax purp ses. "ax credit accrued during a iscal year hen n taxes ere paid may be applied t succeeding iscal years. (C9 v. Bic landia) 9n the event hen the g vernment is bliged t return the land expr priated and the private party is bliged t return the purchase price but the g vernment ails t c mply, such ailure am unts t expr priati n ith ut just c mpensati n. "he private party is entitled t c mpensati n in the rm rentals and interest. (actan v. rgell ) gxpr priati n pr ceedings initiated 56 years ag by the g vernment but n t acted up n (n payment c mpensati n, n legislative appr val, and n actual entry) is n t a valid expr priati n. 9t transers n rights t the expr priating party and d es n t deprive the ner its auth rity ver the land. "he n npayment just c mpensati n and the am unt time that has passed may als be a bar t the g vernment because laches. (San que v. epublic) (9m -*)%&%+ "% the exercise eminent d main is limited the ll ing areas c ncern: 1.m adequacy c mpensati n, 2.m necessity the taking, and 3.m public use character the purp se the taking gxcepti n: hen land is r subdivisi n and resale r s cial justice by legislature. Ú vernment may n t caprici usly r arbitrarily ch se hat private pr perty sh uld be taken. Due pr cess must be served. With due rec gniti n the p er C ngress t designate the particular pr perty t bet taken and h much there may be c ndemned in the exercise the p er expr priati n, it is still a judicial questi n hether in the exercise such c mpetence, the party adversely aected is a victim partiality and prejudice. (De Knecht v. Bautista) B3 340 eectively superseded the decisi n the c urt and the trial c urt did n t c mmit any grave abuse discreti n in dismissing the case pending be re it n the gr und the enactment B3 340. Said decisi n is n
- m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
bstacle t the legislative arm the g vernment. (epublic v. De Knecht) Ãixing just c mpensati n is a judicial uncti n. arket value al ne cann t substitute the c urt's judgment 9n expr priati n pr ceeding. (an t c v. HA) "here is n extreme necessity t inv lve judicial acti n i petiti ner has n t exhausted his administrative remedies (ilitante v. CA)
J ¯ 3¯ ¯ ¯
¯¯
When d es la impair bligati ns c ntracts: i.m 9 it changes the terms and c nditi ns a legal c ntract ither as t the time r m de per rmance ii.m 9 it imp ses ne c nditi ns r dispenses ith th se expressed iii.m 9 it auth rizes r its satisacti n s mething dierent r m that pr vided in its terms. A mere change in pr cedural remedies hich d es n t change the substance the c ntract and hich still leaves a remedy r en rcement d es n t impair bligati ns c ntracts. (H me Building and P an Assn. v. Blaisdell; utter v. gsteban) +%&.All c ntracts are made subject t an implied reservati n the pr tective p er the state and that there re statutes, hich validly exercise this, reserved p er d es n t impair c ntracts (Del sari v. Del s Sant s) 9n all cases: m 9mpairment sh uld nly reer t the remedy and n t t substantive right, m State must p stp ne the en rcement bligati n but cann t destr y it by making the remedy utile and m "he alterati n r change that the ne legislati n desires t rite must n t be burdened ith restricti ns and c nditi ns that uld make the remedy hard t pursue. "here re, p lice p er may nly be inv ked and justiied by: 1) an emergency, 2) temp rary in nature, 3) can nly be exercised up n reas nable c nditi ns. "he c ntract may be altered validly i it inv lves the public interest, t hich private interests must yield lies a p stulate the existing s cial rder. 9n
1A 2010
m
rman vs. Baltim re, the c urt stressed that every c ntract inv lving the public interest suers inirmity and may be changed i required by public interest. (3hilippine aeterans Bank gmpl yees v. 3hilippine aeterans Bank) Pegislati n appr priate t saeguard said interest may m diy r abr gate c ntracts already in eect. Ã r n t nly are existing las read int c ntracts in rder t ix the bligati ns as beteen the parties but the reservati n essential attributes s vereign p er is als read int c ntracts as a p stulate the legal rder. " c me under the c nstituti nal pr hibiti n, the la must eect a change in the rights the parties ith reerence t each ther and n t ith reerence t n nparties. (Abella v. PC) 3*#%&%,+ +*%#. alth ugh n t strictly an rdinance is a z ning regulati n hich is a p lice p er measure hich the municipality has the p er t pass. (3resley v. BelAir aillage Assn. als held in Ortigas v. ÃgA"9 Bank) "he requirement n tice the rescissi n under the aceda la d esn¶t change the time r m de per rmance r imp se ne c nditi ns r dispense ith the stipulati ns regarding the binding eect the c ntract. either d es it ithdra the remedy r its en rcement. At m st, it merely pr vides r a pr cedure in aid the remedy rescissi n. "here re, it d esn¶t impair the bligati ns a c ntract. (S9SKA Devel pment v. Oice the 3resident) m
9ncludes ranchises but n t licenses r permits since these are special privileges, marriage c ntracts, public ice
A pr visi n la pr hibiting the use the all tted m dernizati n unds r payment a c ntract already entered int by the g vernment is vi lative the C nstituti nal 3r hibiti n n the passage las that impair the bligati n c ntracts. (3hilc nsa v. gnriquez) the State, in the exercise p lice p er, may n t be precluded by the restricti n n n nimpairment c ntract r m altering, m diying and amending the mining leases r agreements. (iners Ass c. v. Ãact ran) "he unilateral cancellati n the ranchise, hich has the status a c ntract, %*#%&%#(#)>* %!%/+&* is int lerable in any system here the ule Pa prevails. (Pim v 3acquing) A la pr viding ne gr unds r the ejectment tenants cann t be applied retr actively t existing c ntracts but is deemed t be read int the c ntracts hen the lease is reneed. (uarez v CA)
-6 m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
C nservat rs a bank may verrule administrative acts the management, but it may n t interere r impair the per rmance a validly perected c ntract. (Ã39B v. CA) C ntracts lab r are impressed ith public interest and may be subject t state regulati n and must yield t the c mm n g d. atters inv lving the public interest and elare cann t be placed by c ntract bey nd the p er the State t regulate and c ntr l. (CA v 3OgA) Statutes that are curative and remedial in nature, h se purp se is t saeguard the interest the public (such as real estate buyers) r m unscrupul us schemers must be given retr active eect and sh uld aect c ntracts that are already in existence. "he C urt cann t all the injustice that ill be r ught by a strictly pr spective applicati n the la. 9 3.D. 957 ere t exclude r m its c verage the m rtgage c ntract herein, the purp se 3D. 957 ill be translated int a eeble exercise p lice p er. (3B v. Oice the 3resident; gugeni v. Dril n) "he n nimpairment clause the C nstituti n must yield t the l tier purp ses targeted by the g vernment. ( v. CA citing gugeni v. Dril n in justiying the regulat ry measures taken by the 3OgA inv lving Overseas per rming artists) %$/+%&# ,$% #)+%&# ($# are $ ,%"%+( granted by the State t qualiiedentities, and d n t vest in the latter a permanent rirrev cable right. "hey may be validly amended, m diied, replaced r rescinded by the Chie gxecutive hennati nal interests s require. "hey are #)$)&#& ithin the purvie the due pr cess laclause, merely instruments by hich the Stateregulates the utilizati n and disp siti n rest res urces t the end that public elare is pr m ted. (C& "imber v Alcala) 3residential Warranty is n t a c ntract but a mere license r privilege. 9t has been c nsistently held that licenses, especially c ncerning timber harvest, are neither pr perty n r pr perty rights and d n t create a vested right. All licenses may be rev ked r rescinded by executive acti n. (Alvarez v. 39CO3 es urces) A tax exempti n c ntained in the Certiicates egistrati n is ar r m being c ntractual in nature in the sense that the n nimpairment clause the C nstituti n can rightly be inv ked. (epublic v. Cagui a)
1A 2010
m
"he Central bank may prevent the shareh lders a bank under c nservat rship r m c llecting dividends i public interest s requires. 3ublic elare is superi r t private rights. (epublic 3lanters Bank v. H n. Agana) "he p er a bank¶s c nservat r cann t extend t the rev cati n existing valid c ntracts. 9 the legislature itsel cann t rev ke a valid existing c ntract, h can it delegate such a n nexisting p er t a mere c nservat r? (3r ducers Bank the 3hil v. PC) 9ncentive pay r beneit is in the nature a b nus hich is n t a demandable r en rceable bligati n. "he rced reund, pursuant t a la r an executive rder, an incentive pay hich as r ngly released, d es n t c nstitute an impairment c ntracts. (Blaquera v. Alcala) #&*+00$,%# " * !#&% 00$,%# C ntractual tax exempti ns must n t be c nused ith tax exempti ns granted under ranchises. A ranchise partakes the nature a grant hich is bey nd the purvie the n nimpairment clause the C nstituti n. nder the C nstituti n, a ranchise is alays under the c nditi n that it shall be subject t amendment, alterati n r repeal by C ngress hen the c mm n g d s requires. C ntractual tax exempti ns, h ever, may inv ke the n n impairment clause. (gAPCO v. 3r vince Paguna) A license vi lating pr visi n la is v id ± any rev cati n there r declarati n nullity d es n t vi late n nimpairment clause. (epublic v sem r) gnd rsement billb ards an elect ral candidate may be regulated/rem ved by COgPgC ith ut vi lating the n nimpairment clause as a valid exercise p lice p er because the billb ards assumed partisan p litical character hen he iled r candidacy. (Chavez v COgPgC) A m rtgage inv lving inalienable land is v id ab initi and cann t be the s urce rights. "he n nimpairment clause may n t be inv ked, because the state¶s restraint n private individuals r m h lding nership r vested rights n the said land (Ã rest) is a valid exercise p lice p er. (Pand Bank the 3hilippines v. epublic the 3hilippines, represented by the Direct r Pands)
¯
¯ ¯ .-¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
-Æ m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
5 89 ¯ ¯ 33
¯
¯ ¯ 3 3¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 3 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
3 ¯ ¯ 7 ¯ 859 ¯3¯ ¯ 3¯ ¯ ¯ ¯¯ 3
¯
¯ 33¯ 3¯ 3 ¯ 89 ¯
¯3
¯ ¯ ? ¯¯3
¯¯ 3 8-9 ¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 3 ¯ ¯ ¯¯ 3 3¯ ¯ ¯ ¯3 ¯* )%+#" %(%# m Questi ning initiated by la en rcement icer ater ne is taken int cust dy r deprived his reed m acti n in any signiicant ay %( : (1) t remain silent (2) t c unsel and (3) t be in rmed rights **ight t c unsel is intended t preclude the slightest c erci n as uld lead the accused t admit s mething alse. "he layer sh uld never prevent the accused r m reely and v luntarily speaking the truth (3e ple v. Payus ) "he rules n cust dial investigati ns d n t apply hen the c nessi n is made t a private individual because that situati n uld n t be ne a cust dial investigati n. (3e ple v. "aat) "he presumpti n regularity icial acts d es n t apply t ³incust dy c nessi ns.´ 9n rder r it t be admissible, the pr secuti n must sh that the c nstituti nal saeguards ere bserved in btaining the c nessi n. (3e ple v. " lentin ) 3%#) %( ¯3* /&%) Y u have a right t remain silent Anything y u say r d ill be used against y u in c urt
1A 2010
m
Y u have a right t c nsult ith a layer and t have him during the interr gati n. 9 y u are an indigent, a layer ill be app inted t represent y u. . gven i the pers n c nsents t anser questi ns ith ut the assistance c unsel, the m ment he asks r a layer at any p int in the investigati n, the interr gati n must cease until an att rney is present. 9 the reg ing pr tecti ns and arnings are n t dem nstrated during the trial t have been bserved by the pr secuti n, n evidence btained as a result the interr gati n can be used against him. (iranda v. Ariz na) "hese rights bec me available hen the investigati n is n l nger a general inquiry int an uns lved crime but has begun t cus n a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken int p lice cust dy, the p lice carry ut a pr cess interr gati n that lends itsel t eliciting incriminating statements; usually ater a pers n has been taken int cust dy r therise deprived his reed m acti n in any signiicant ay. ¯ ¯¯¯ (3. v. "an) 1. Ater a pers n has been taken int cust dy 2. When a pers n is therise deprived his reed m acti n in any signiicant ay (3. v. Cagui a) 3. When the investigati n is being undertaken by the g vernment ith respect t a criminal ense. (9n 3. v. rad , a baranggay captain¶s c nversati n ith the accused is part an ng ing investigati n. But in 3. v. Zuela,hen the accused talked ith a may r AS COÃ9DA" and n t as a la en rcement icer, his admissi n is admissible) 4. Signing arrest rep rt and b king sheets (3. v. Sim n) n t until there is a p lice investigati n. gx: a pers n g ing thr ugh an audit d es n t have these rights, a pers n presenting himsel r his admissi n (v luntary surrender), 3 lice line up (unless there is a m ve t elicit admissi n), admissi n t s me ne n t a public icer (verbal c nessi ns t a radi ann uncer) **A 7438 has extended the C nstituti nal guarantee t situati ns in hich an individual has n t been rmally arrested but has merely been ³invited´ r questi ning. (3e ple v. D mantay; 3e ple v. "an) &) ,+#() %#!+%/'#)!&)# ! )$#)%#( !++%#(,&)%#( ³"emp rary detenti n´ may be a necessary step in the pr cess extraditi n, but the length time the detenti n sh uld be reas nable. ec rds sh that un z )/# )%#)!"859' %*"%#(/#&#"%&)! #'&%$ "he timeh n red principle demands that the 3hilippines h n r its bligati ns under the gxtraditi n "reaty it entered int ith the H ng K ng Special Administrative egi n. H ever, it d es n t necessarily mean that in keeping ith its treaty bligati ns, the 3hilippines sh uld diminish a p tential extraditee¶s rights t lie, liberty, and due pr cess. re s , here these rights are guaranteed als by internati nal c nventi ns, t hich the 3hilippines is a party. We sh uld n t deprive an extraditee his
1A 2010
m
right t apply r bail, pr vided that a certain standard r the grant is satisact rily met. (Ú vernment HK v. Olalia) **gxtraditi n is a criminal pr ceeding. Hence, since bail is available nly in criminal pr ceedings, a resp ndent in an extraditi n pr ceeding is n t entitled t bail. He sh uld apply r bail in the c urt here he ill be tried. ( nited States v. udge 3uruganan, 2002)
& )$%#%#(/%+ 1.m Ability t p st bail 2.m ature the ense 3.m imp sable penalty, 4.m character and reputati n the accused, 5.m health the accused, 6.m strength the evidence, 7.m pr bability appearing r the trial, 8.m reiture b nds, 9.m hether accused as a ugitive hen arrested, 10.m 9 under b nd in an ther case. (Sunga v. udge Salud) 3%+%'*#)*3 ++.A s ldier under c urt martial d es n t enj y the right t bail because the disciplinary structure the military and because s ldiers are all ed the iduciary right t bear arms and can cause great hav c. Ãurtherm re, traditi n has rec gnized the n nexistence the right t bail. gqual pr tecti n cann t be inv ked because it nly applies t th se h are equally situated. (C mmendad r v. de ailla) 0& %"%+.Where the right t bail exists, it sh uld n t be rendered nugat ry by requiring a sum that is excessive. 9 the C nstituti n did n t pr hibit his, the right t bail bec mes meaningless. "he s le permissible uncti n m ney bail is t assure the accused's presence at trial, and declared that bail set at a higher igure than an am unt reas nably calculated t ulill thus purp se is "excessive"(De Pa Camara v. gnage) A judge cann t require a strictly cash b nd and disall an attempt t p st a surety b nd r pr visi nal liberty. "he burden imp sed by requiring a strictly cash b nd can make the bail c nstituti nally ³excessive.´ (Almeda v. aillaluz) m "he accused must inv ke such right then bail hearing ill c mmence ll ing due pr cess *% !%+-*)(%##¯,,+%&%#!%+ 1) tiy the pr secut r the hearing r bail 2) C nduct a hearing r such applicati n, even i pr secuti n d es n t
- m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
present evidence 3) Decide i the evidence guilt is str ng 4) 9 the evidence is n t str ng, grant bail (Basc v. apatal ) (gvidence is str ng hen there is evident guilt r a great presumpti n guilt) !"%)#E, *$,%#( 0m Clear, str ng evidence hich leads a ellguarded dispassi nate judgement t the c nclusi n that the ense has been c mmitted as charged, that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he ill pr bably be punished capitally i the la is administered 0m Str ng, clear, and c nvincing t an unbiased judgment and excludes all reas nable pr bability any ther c nclusi n. 0m "est is n t hether the evidence establishes guilt bey nd reas nable d ubt but rather hether it sh s evident guilt r a great presumpti n guilt. (3e ple v. udge Cabral) # &*%#) #, #"%)#& gven hen the pr secut r reuses t adduce evidence in pp siti n t the applicati n t grant and ix bail, the c urt may ask the pr secuti n such questi ns as uld ascertain the strength the state¶s evidence r judge the adequacy the am unt bail. (" lentin v. udge Camana , r.) &(#%=#& ± A means, aside r m bail, here an accused may btain pr visi nal liberty. 9t is an bligati n rec rd entered int be re a c urt guaranteeing the appearance the accused r trial. 9t is in the nature a c ntract beteen the surety and the State. (3e ple v. Abner)
- 89 ¯ ¯ ¯ 3¯
¯ 859 ¯ 3¯ ¯ ¯ 3 ¯ ¯ ¯ - ¯ 3 ¯ 3 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯¯ 3 ¯ ¯ 3¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 3
¯ ¯¯ ¯ 3
¯¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯3 ¯ 3¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯¯ - ¯
1A 2010
m
¯ %( !¯&&* ) *& m A judge may replace an ther judge in rendering decisi n even i he nly partially heard the testim ny the itnesses m "he replacement judge may base his judgment c mpletely n c ld rec rd be re him, in the same manner appellate c urts d . (3e ple v. araj s) m Since administrative agencies are n t b und t ll the rules criminal pr cedure, they may n t imp se criminal penalties. (Sc ty¶s Department St re v. icaller) m ³due pr cess´ = that pr cedure established by la t ully pr tect lie, liberty, and pr perty the citizens the State. (uňez v. Sandiganbayan) .%(#$#)*% !-*)( 1.m 9n rm right t c unsel be re arraignment 2.m Ask i he desires aid c unsel 3.m Úrant reas nable time t d s 4.m 9 n ne, c urt assigns a de ici 3%+%'%/*#+ SC, generally, has n aland ni)
supervis ry auth rity
ver military c urts. (Kur da v.
But by virtue "he ati nal Security C de (3D 1498), the SC d es n t revie decisi ns military c mmissi ns but the C urt ilitary Appeals in cases appealed t the later by military c mmissi ns. (Buscayn & Sis n v. ilitary C mmissi ns) ilitary "ribunals cann t try civilians, even i civil c urts are cl sed during artial Pa. Civilians are entitled t udicial pr cess. ilitary "ribunals bel ng t the gxecutive department. (Olaguer v. ilitary C mmissi n) Once jurisdicti n is acquired, a pers n h is dr pped r m the military can still be tried by military tribunals. urisdicti n, nce acquired, is n t l st up n the instance the parties but c ntinue until terminati n the case. (Abadilla v. am s) a military c mmissi n r tribunal cann t try and exercise jurisdicti n, even during the peri d martial la, ver civilians r enses allegedly c mmitted by them as l ng as the civil c urts are pen and uncti ning, and that any judgment rendered by such b dy relating t a civilian is null and v id r lack jurisdicti n n the part the military tribunal c ncerned. (Olaguer v. ilitary C mmissi n)
-ü m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
Due pr cess la demands that in all criminal pr secuti ns (here the accused stands t l se either his lie r his liberty), the accused shall be entitled t , am ng thers, a trial. "he trial c ntemplated by the due pr cess clause the C nstituti n, in relati n t the Charter as a h le, is a trial by udicial 3r cess, n t by executive r military pr cess. ilitary C mmissi ns r "ribunals, by hatever name they are called, are n t c urts ithin the 3hilippine judicial system. (Olaguer v. ilitary) *$,%#!##&#& With ut c nvicti n, a pers n is entitled t reinstatement. B3 52: ³"he iling charges r the c mmissi n such crimes be re a civil c urt military tribunal ater preliminary investigati n shall be © evidence such act (disqualiicati n)´ is invalid because the © evidence makes the accused suer as i already guilty even be re trial. (Dumla v. C melec) 3reventive suspensi n is n t a penalty there re n presumed inn cent
vi lati n
right t
be
"here are s me cases in hich prima acie evidence establishes a rati nal c nnecti n t guilt. i.e. 9n alversati n, inability t pr duce the m ney entrusted t public icial, alth ugh prima acie evidence guilt, may still be dispr ved by c ntradict ry evidence (shits the burden pr t the accused) "he State, having the right t declare hich acts are criminal, ithin certain elldeined limitati ns, has the right t speciy hat act(s) shall c nstitute a crime, as ell as hat pr shall c nstitute prima acie evidence guilt, and then t put up n the deendant the burden sh ing that such act(s) are inn cent and are n t c mmitted ith any criminal intent r intenti n. ( S v. Puling) "he pr visi n the glecti n C de that the iling charges r the c mmissi n crimes be re a civil r military c urt shall be prima acie evidence the c mmissi n an act disl yalty t the state is , as it c ndemns a pers n be re he is inally heard. (Dumla v. C melec) "he presumpti n inn cence may be verc me by a c ntrary presumpti n unded up n the experience human c nduct. Pegislature may pr vide e © evidence guilt the accused and shit the burden pr pr vided there be a rati nal c nnecti n beteen the acts pr vided and the ultimate act presumed. (3e ple v. ing a; Banares v. CA)
1A 2010
m
%(/ ) +$# !%(/) 1.m " be present at the trial 2.m ight t c unsel 3.m ight t an impartial judge 4.m ight t c nr ntati n 5.m ight t c mpuls ry pr cess t secure attendance itness %(/, #.%+%#¯/ #% Sc pe right t be present at the trial ± beteen arraignment and pr mulgati n sentence C nditi n r aiver ± ater arraignment, he may be c mpelled t appear r identiicati n 1*% % !%+%#¯/ #% 1.m Accused already arraigned 2.m Duly n tiied the trial 3.m Ãailure t appear is unjustiiable (3arada v. aeneraci n) C nstituti n n unqualiiedly permits trial in absentia even capital enses, pr vided that (1) © © © 9 © © (2) & © © © . eas n r requiring the presence the accused, despite his aiver, is, i all ed t be absent in all the stages the pr ceedings ith ut giving the 3e ple's itnesses the pp rtunity t 9dentiy him in c urt, he may in his deense say that he as never 9dentiied as the pers n charged in the in rmati n and, there re, is entitled t an acquittal. (3e ple v. 3residing udge) * the accused in case his n nappearance ater arraignment despite due n tice simply means that he thereby aives his right t meet the itnesses ace t ace, am ng thers. An express aiver appearance ater arraignment is the same eect. H ever, such aiver appearance and trial in absentia d es n t mean that the pr secuti n is thereby deprived its right t require the presence the accused r purp ses identiicati n by its itnesses, hich is vital r the c nvicti n the accused. (Carred v. 3e ple)
%(*# + C unsel de Oici may be given by the c urts during arraignment.
- m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
er c unsel t the Sten graphic n tes sh ing that the c urts ailed t accused is n t en ugh t verturn a c nvicti n. "he presumpti n is that the c urts ll ed pr per pr cedure. "he right t c unsel is necessary and indispensable: During Cust dial 9nvestigati n t prevent the use duress and ther undue inluence in extracting c nessi ns. gven ater the c nvicti n the accused; even hen the case is n appeal. When accused gives a qualiied plea. When a s rn statement as extracted r m the accused. (3e ple v. H lgad ) Duties imp sed n the judge by this right: 9 the deendant appears ith ut c unsel he must be in rmed by the c urt that he has a right t have c unsel be re being arraigned, and must be asked i he desires the aid c unsel. 9 he desires and is unable t empl y c unsel the c urt must assign c unsel t deend him. "his is a right hich the deendant sh uld n t be deprived , and the ailure the c urt t assign c unsel r, ater c unsel has been assigned, t require him t per rm this duty by appearing and deending the accused uld be suicient cause r the reversal the case. (3e ple v. Úimen ) ight t c unsel is right t & © c unsel. (eaning member the Bar) 3rearraignment duties the udge 1.m t in rm the accused that he has the right t have his n c unsel be re being arraigned; 2.m ater giving such in rmati n, t ask accused hether he desires the aid c unsel; 3.m i he s desires t pr cure the services c unsel, the c urt must grant him reas nable time t d s ; and 4.m i he s desires t have c unsel but is unable t empl y ne, the c urt must assign c unsel © t deend him. (3e ple v. Agbayani) "he duty t app int a c unsel © is mandat ry nly t the time arraignment. such duty exists here the accused has pr ceeded t arraignment and then trial ith a c unsel his n ch ice. (Pibuit v. 3e ple) At m st, the app intment a c unsel © in a situati n like the present case [c unsel c nsistently ailed t appear r cr ss examinati n] uld be discreti nary ith the trial c urt, hich discreti n ill n t be interered ith in the absence grave abuse. (Pibuit v. 3e ple) "here is n denial the right t c unsel hen a c unsel © as
1A 2010
m
app inted during the absence the accused¶s c unsel (3e ple v. Parraňaga) An accused h s ught t ithdra his appeal t the SC sh uld n t be all ed n the gr und that he cann t a rd c unsel. He sh uld be given c unsel © instead. (3e ple v. i ) %(/#!$) "he bject a ritten accusati n 1.m Ãurnish the accused ith such a descripti n the charge against him as ill enable him t make a deense. 2.m Avail himsel his c nvicti n r acquittal r pr tecti n against urther pr secuti n r the same cause. 3.m " in rm the c urt the acts alleged, s that it may decide hether they are suicient in la t supp rt a c nvicti n, i ne sh uld be had. ( .S. v. Karelsen) m 9n rder that this requirement be satisied, acts must be stated, n t c nclusi ns la. "he C mplaint must c ntain a speciic allegati n every act and circumstance necessary t c nstitute the crime charged ( S v. Karelsen) Criminal 1.m 2.m 3.m 4.m 5.m 6.m
in rmati n must c ntain: name the accused, designati n given t the ense by the statute, acts r missi n d ne c nstituting the ense, ame the ended party, Appr ximate time and date the c mmissi n the ense "he place the c mmissi n the ense. (3e ple v. Quitl ng)
!!# #¯++()%##!$%# A pers n cann t be charged m re than that c ntained in the in rmati n. Qualiying circumstances must be alleged in the in rmati n as ell. i.e. nly 2 c unts rape ere alleged in the charges. Alth ugh 6 c unts rape ere pr ven during trial, the accused can nly be c nvicted n the 2 c unts alleged in the in rmati n. "he appellant cann t be c nvicted the c mplex crime h micide ith assault up n an agent a pers n in auth rity because the in rmati n iled against the appellant the essential elements assault that the accused then kne that, be re r at the time the c mmissi n the assault, the victim as an agent the pers n in auth rity. (3e ple v. egala) Disregarding the bjecti nable phrasing that uld c mplex rebelli n ith murder and multiple rustrated murder, that indictment is t be read as
r m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
charging simple rebelli n. "he c mplaint petiti ner¶s c unsel that he is charged ith a crime that d es n t exist in the statute b ks, hile technically c rrect s ar as the c urt has ruled that rebelli n may n t be c mplexed ith ther enses c mmitted n the ccasi n there , must there re be dismissed as a mere light rhet ric. "he in rmati n d es indeed charge the petiti ner ith a crime deined and punished by the evised 3enal C de: simple rebelli n. (gnrile v. Salazar) An accused charged under Arts. 293, 294, 296 the 3C may be c nvicted under Art 335 pr vided that the in rmati n alleges acts under Art. 335. the real questi n r issue is hether r n t he per rmed the acts alleged in the in rmati n in the manner therein set rth. 9 he did, it is n c nsequence t him, either as a matter pr cedure r substantive right, h the la den minates the crime hich th se acts c nstitute. (3e ple v. Pabad ) An accused charged ith nly ne ense rape may n t be c nvicted six c unts rape. He cann t be held liable r m re than hat he as charged ith. (3e ple v. anid ) Date and time the Oense: A pers n need n t speciy the exact time the c mmissi n the ense time is an essential element that ense. appr ximati n suiciently meets the requirement la. %( ,)'%+ glements t be c nsidered: 1.m Pength delay 2.m eas n r delay 3.m "he e rt the deendant t assert his right 4.m 3rejudice caused t the deendant Speedy Disp siti n: 9s usually relative t the circumstances case. C unting )+' © iling the in rmati n
the particular
O"g: Dismissal n the gr unds speedy trial is the same as an acquittal and is a bar t an ther pr secuti n r the same ense (D uble e pardy attaches) Speedy trial means ne that can be had as s n ater indictment is iled as the pr secuti n can ith reas nable diligence prepare r trial. m
Pength delay is certainly a act r t c nsider; but ther act rs must als be c nsidered such as the # r the delay, !! the deendant t assert his right, and the ,>*)%& caused the deendant.
"he right
an accused t
1A 2010
speedy trial sh uld n t be utilized t
deprive the
m
State a reas nable Úines)
pp rtunity
airly indicting criminals. (3e ple v.
elie in 3 stp nements ith ut g d causeWhere a pr secuting icer, ith ut g d cause, secures p stp nements the trial a deendant against his pr test bey nd a reas nable peri d time, the accused is entitled t relie by a pr ceeding in t c mpel a dismissal the in rmati n, r i he be restrained his liberty, by t btain his reed m. (C nde v. ivera)
%($,%+%+ "rial by 3ublicity " have prejudice t due pr cess, there must be allegati n and pr that judges have been duly inluenced by the publicity. " arrant a inding prejudicial publicity, there must be © that the judges have been unduly inluenced, n t simply that they might be, by the barrage publicity. 3etiti ners cann t rely n the subliminal eects publicity. (Webb v. de Pe n; 3e ple v. "eehankee) Outside pecuniary interest, relati nship, r previ us participati n in the matter that calls r adjudicati n, there may be ther causes that c uld c nceivably er de the trait bjectivity, thus calling r . 9 any such sh uld make its appearance and pr ve diicult t resist, the better c urse r a judge is t & © himsel. (ate r. v. aillaluz) 9t is ttimes expedient r necessary in the due and aithul administrati n justice r the presiding judge t reexamine a itness in rder that his judgment hen rendered may rest up n a ull and clear understanding the acts. (3e ple v. anal : hen a judge intervened in the cr ssexaminati n) %(*/+%&%+ "rial is public hen attendance is pen t all irrespective relati nship t deendant. 0 hen the evidence presented may be characterized as ensive t decency r public m rals, the pr ceeding may be limited t riends, relatives and c unsel. (Úarcia v. D ming ) "his right serves as a saeguard against any attempt t empl y ur c urt as instruments persecuti n. "he kn ledge that every criminal trial is subject t c ntemp rane us revie in the rum public pini n is an eective restraint n p ssible abuse judicial p er. (Úarcia v. D ming ) %(
r6 m
.0$%#L$%#
!&..!&
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
3urp se right t c nr ntati n: 1.m A rd the accused an pp rtunity t test the testim ny cr ssexaminati n 2.m r the judge t bserve the dep rtati n the itness.
the itness by
gxcepti n t right c nr ntati n: (1) dying declarati n (2) trial in absentia O"g: ight t C nr ntati n is n t available in preliminary investigati n. m Accused is n t entitled as a matter right t be present during the preliminary examinati n n r t cr ssexamine the itnesses presented against him be re his arrest m "his right is available during trial hich nly begins up n arraignment m there is n right t c nr ntati n against in rmants h aided in the arrest r in rmants h are n t itnesses Secti n 7 the Special ules 3r cedure prescribed r Sharia¶s c urts pr vide that i the plainti has n evidence t pr ve his claim, the deendant shall take an ath and judgment shall be rendered in his av r by the C urt. Sh uld deendant reuse t take an ath, plainti can airm his claim under ath, in hich case judgment shall be rendered in his av r. Said pr visi n eectively deprives a litigant his right t due pr cess. 9t denies ap arty his right t c nr nt the itness against him and t cr ssexamine them. 9t sh uld have n place even in the Special ules 3r cedure in the Shari¶ah c urts the c untry. ("ampar v. sman) $,*+ '& m C mpuls ry pr cess is n t nly t ³secure the attendance itnesses in his behal´ but als t ³secure the pr ducti n evidence in his behal.´ %"! %( m 3resumpti n is alays against the aiver m 3r secuti n must pr ve ith str ngly c nvincing evidence that the accused and submitted his c nessi n and maniested that he as n t interested in having a layer assist him during the taking that c nessi n. (3e ple v. ara)
r ¯¯ ¯ 7 ¯ ¯ ¯ m Writ Habeas C rpus ± rit directed t the pers n detaining an ther c mmanding him t pr duce the b dy the pris ner at a designated time and place, ith the day and cause his capti n and detenti n, t d , submit t , and receive hatever the c urt r judge aarding the rit shall c nsider in that behal
1A 2010
m
m m
"here must be a deprivati n pers nal liberty t begin ith. 3rivilege the rit habeas c rpus ± right t have an immediate determinati n the legality the deprivati n physical liberty. "he is never suspended, it is the privilege the rit that may be suspended.
1*% % ! * ,# %#!%"%+( 1.m gxistence Actual invasi n r ebelli n 2.m 3ublic Saety requires the suspensi n (d es n t c me ith suspensi n Bail) 0m "he 3resident has the p er t suspend the privilege, subject t the limits in Article a99, sec. 18 A resp ndent in a petiti n r have the burden t pr ve that they had indeed released the detainees i their inv king it as their deense. 9 the resp ndents have n t satisied the burden, the case must be reerred t the CH. (Diz n v. gduard )
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ -¯ ¯ . -¯ ¯3 ¯ m Speedy trial in Secti n 14 c vers nly the trial phase criminal cases hereas &%# &" ++ , ! #' >*)%&%+ 1* %. >*)%&%+)$%#% %",&)%#( m emedy i there has been unreas nable delay in the res luti n a case: Dismissal thr ugh mandamus ( que v. Ombudsman) 9n the applicati n the c nstituti nal guaranty the right t speedy disp siti n cases, particular regard must be taken the acts and circumstances peculiar t each case. Wellsettled is the rule that the right t a speedy disp siti n cases, like the right t a speedy trial, is deemed vi lated nly hen the pr ceeding is attended by vexati us, caprici us, and ppressive delay. 9n the determinati n hether r n t that right has been vi lated, the act rs that may be c nsidered and balanced are: the length delay, the reas ns r such delay, the asserti n r ailure t assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.
aived. 9t must there re be asserted. "hus, i there as a delay in the trial the case, petiti ners are n t entirely ith ut blame. Ãurtherm re, the right an accused t a speedy trial is guaranteed t him by the C nstituti n but the same shall n t be utilized t deprive the State a reas nable pp rtunity airly indicting criminals. A party's individual rights sh uld n t rk against and preclude the pe ple's equally imp rtant right t public justice. (Úuiani v. Sandiganbayan)
? ¯ 3 ¯
¯¯ 3 3urp se: " prevent perjury and c nessi n under duress. ¯*#(%# +!.#&%$%#%# m When is a questi n incriminating? Mm A crime may c ntain t r m re elements, a questi n uld be incriminating i it tends t establish even ne the elements Mm "estiying t a act hich uld be a necessary link in a chain evidence t pr ve the c mmissi n the crime m
ight applies nly t testim nial c mpulsi n, n t bject evidence (aillal r v. Summers)
m
One may n t be c mpelled t pr duce a sample his riting as evidence since it is s mething m re than a m ving b dy but als requires applicati n intelligence and attenti n (Beltran v. Sams n)
D cumentary gvidence: C mpuls ry pr ducti n private b ks and d cuments c mpelling him t be a itness against himsel.
the
ner is
"he privilege hich exists as t private papers, cann t be maintained in relati n t rec rds required by la t be kept in rder that there may be suitable in rmati n transacti ns hich are the appr priate subjects g vernmental regulati n and the en rcement restricti ns validly established.
"he c ncept ³speedy disp siti n cases´ is lexible and is c nsistent ith #/+ delay. (Caballer v. Al ns , r.)
m
Only natural pers ns are pr tected by this right; juridical entities, like c rp rati ns, are n t.
"he right t a speedy trial as ell as ther rights c nerred by the C nstituti n r statute, except hen therise expressly s pr vided by la, may be
m
Stage hen right against sel incriminati n may be asserted: r m the m ment he is asked t testiy.
rÆ m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
1A 2010
m
State Witness/ Accused Criminal Case
Civil Case
Administrative Case
He may reuse t take the itness stand during the trial r cust dial investigati n. 9 n trial, ne may reuse t anser He may n t reuse t take the itness stand. He may reuse t anser incriminating questi n. He may reuse t take the itness stand i it is criminal in nature like reiture r dep rtati n
Ordinary Witness
He may n t reuse t take the itness stand. He may reuse t anser an incriminating questi n
A penal la that pr vides r a higher penalty against the accused h reuses t testiy r make statements that uld be tantam unt t an admissi n guilt vi lates the right against selincriminati n. "he accused has a right t rely n the presumpti n inn cence until pr secuti n pr ves the elements the crime charged against him. Silence cann t be taken as pr against him. ( S v. avarr ) What is pr hibited by the c nstituti nal guarantee is the use physical r m ral c mpulsi n t ext rt c mmunicati n r m the itness, n t an inclusi n his b dy in evide hen it is material. "hus, substance emitting r m the b dy the deendant can be received as evidence. ( S v. "an "eng; S. vs. Ong; aillal r v. Summers; S v. Ong SiuH ng) A drug test, urine test, pregnancy test, bl d test, disease test d es n t all under the pr hibiti n against sel incriminati n. Writing is n t a purely mechanical act, because it requires the applicati n intelligence and attenti n, there re, it c nstitutes an evidence against the accused. gvidence that requires a p sitive intelligent act r m the accused alls under the right against sel incriminati n. (Beltran v. Sams n; Bermudez v. Castill ) C mpelling a itnessaccused t take the stand is a vi lati n his right against sel incriminati n. His testim ny may n t be admissible against him. (Chavez v. CA, the à rd "hunderbird case) C mpelling the accused in an Antigrat pr ceeding t take the stand r the pr secuti n against him against his ill is a vi lati n his right against sel
r m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
incriminati n. (Cabal v. Kapunan, r.) "he right against sel incriminati n extends even t administrative pr ceedings hich p ssess a criminal r penal aspect. (3ascual r. v. B ard edical gxaminers) ight against selincriminati n can nly be inv ked in penal/criminal pr ceedings. 9t cann t be inv ked in a Pegislative 9nquiry. (Standard Chartered v. Senate)
@ 89 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯¯ ¯ 859 ¯ ¯ 3 ¯7 7 ¯ ¯ 3 ¯ 3 ¯ ¯ ¯ 9nv luntary Servitude ± every c nditi n en rced r c mpuls ry service ne t an ther n matter under hat rm such servitude may be disguised. 0&,%# (1) i such is punishment here the party is c nvicted, (2) in the interest nati nal deense, citizens may be c mpelled t render pers nal military r civil service, (3) a return t rk rder, (4) merchants and marines c mpelled t remain until the end v yage, (5) a p sse c mitatus ± a male at a certain age may be validly pressed int service r the apprehensi n criminals thr ugh legitimate exercise p lice p er, (6) parental auth rity
G 89 7
¯ 3 ¯ 3¯ 3
¯ ¯ ¯ 3
3 ¯ 3
¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯ 3 ¯ ¯ 859 3 3 ¯ ¯ ¯ 3¯¯ ¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯ 3¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯0& %"!%# m A ine is excessive hen it is dispr p rti nate t
1A 2010
the circumstance
the
m
(1) "he raudulent debt c nstitutes a crime (estaa) (2) "he debt r has been duly c nvicted
ense *+()%#(#*$#*#% $# m ere severity the punishment d es n t make it cruel r unusual. 9t must be lagrantly and plainly ppressive, h lly dispr p rti nate t the nature the ense as t sh ck the m ral sense the c mmunity (3e ple v. gst ista) m
Úuides t determine i it is cruel and unusual 1.m 3unishment must n t be s severe as t be degrading t dignity 2.m 9t must n t be arbitrary 3.m 9t must n t be unacceptable t c ntemp rary s ciety 4.m 9t must n t be excessive
human
Hein us Crime ± hein us r being griev us, di us, and hateul enses and hich by reas n their inherent r maniest ickedness, vici usness, atr city and perversity are repugnant and utrage us t the c mm n standards and n rms decency and m rality in a just, civilized and rdered s ciety "he p er the State t imp se the death penalty is implied in secti n 1 Article 3. ³ pers n shall be deprived , liberty, r pr perty ith ut due pr cess la.´ Secti n 19 merely pr vides the limit t that plenary p er the State. "he c ngress has the p er t rest re the death penalty hich merely requires that: (1) the c ngress deine r describe hat is meant by hein us crimes; (2) that c ngress speciy and penalize by death nly crimes that qualiy as hein us in acc rdance ith the deiniti n r descripti n set in the death penalty bill (3) the c ngress sh uld be singularly m tivated by c mpelling reas n inv lving hein us crimes. (3e ple v. gchegaray)
3 ll "ax ± cedula tax r residence tax 55 "he gravamen the ense punished by B3 22 is the act issuing a rthless check r a check that is dish n red. 9t is n t the n npayment an bligati n that is penalized. "he thrust the la is t pr hibit, under pain penal sancti ns, the making rthless checks. (3e ple v. P zan )
5 ¯ - ¯ 3 ¯3
¯¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯3¯ m nder the irst sentence, ne can be charged r the same act i it c nstitutes at least t dierent enses under t statutes r t rdinances. But this d es n apply t c ntinuing crimes Ã9S" gO3ADY A""ACHgD 1.m Ú d 9ndictment 2.m Be re a c mpetent C urt 3.m Ater arraignment 4.m Ater a valid plea m Ã9S" gO3ADY "g9A"gD
"he punishment death by itsel is neither cruel n r unusual. 9t is nly cruel hen it inv lves lingering death. (3e ple v. gchegaray)
5J ¯ 3 ¯3 ¯ ¯7 Debt ± liability t pay m ney gr ing ur c ntract, express r implied A pers n may nly be impris ned r raudulent debt i:
rm
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
aerbal dismissal is n t inal until ritten and signed by a judge Same gvidence "est hether the evidence needed r ne case ill supp rt a c nvicti n in the ther.
m SgCOD gO3ADY A""ACHgD
1A 2010
Deective c mplaint did n t pace the accused in irst je pardy 1.m By Acquittal 2.m Ãinal C nvicti n 3.m Dismissal ith ut express c nsent the accused 4.m Dismissal n the merits
m
2.m 9dentical 3.m 9n the attempted r rustrated rm an ther 4.m ecessarily includes 5.m ecessarily included ¯¯&$#!-,)' "he rule against d uble je pardy pr tects the accused n t against the peril sec nd punishment, but against being again tried r the same ense. (3e ple v. Ylagan) 1*% % !+%)!# !*/+-,)' 9m Ãirst e pardy must have attached pri r t the 2nd gvidence seldeense am unts t ithdraal his riginal plea. A deective c mplaint d es O" attach je pardy up n a grant a m ti n t quash. 9 the C urt has O jurisdicti n, je pardy shall n t attach. 59m Ãirst e pardy must have "g9A"gD $%#%#!-,)' D uble e pardy cann t be inv ked as a deense hen the ther case used as the basis the irst e pardy has n t been terminated. (Bula ng v. 3e ple) $%#%# ++/ a.m An ther pr secuti n r the ense charged. b.m Any attempt t c mmit the same, c.m Or rustrati n there , d.m Or r any ense hich necessarily includes r is necessarily included in the c mplaint/in rmati n. "an appeal by the pr secuti n r m the Order Dismissal by the trial c urt shall n t c nstitute D uble e pardy i: 1.m Dismissal is made up n m ti n, r ith the express c nsent the deendant. 2.m "he dismissal is n t an acquittal based up n c nsiderati n the evidence r the merits the case. 3.m "he questi n t be passed up n by the appellate c urt is purely legal s that sh uld the dismissal be und inc rrect, the case uld have t be remanded t the c urt rigin r urther pr ceedings, in rder t determine guilt/inn cence the deendant. te: a verbal dismissal is n t inal until ritten d n and signed by the udge. 9m "he 2nd e pardy must be r the same ense as that in the irst
rr m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
¯,,+ udgment Acquittal ± immediately inal. (decided n merits) udgment C nvicti n ± inal hen the peri d r appeal has lapsed sentence is served r right t appeal is aived r applied r pr bati n
r
%" ,,+ 9 an accused iles t dismiss the case r lack jurisdicti n, it is made via his n aiver, there re 1st je pardy d es O" attach. 9 there is c nsent t a pr visi nal dismissal by the accused, je pardy d es n t attach. rdinary appeal, actinding, certi rari, impeachment, je pardy in: legislati n in aid legislati n *+# *,"#%#( & Supervening gvent± When the 2nd ense as n t in existence at the time the irst pr secuti n, r the simple reas n that in such a case there is n p ssibility r the accused t be c nvicted r an ense that as then inexistent. Supervening Ãact±Where ater the irst pr secuti n, a ne act supervenes r hich the deendant is resp nsible, hich changes the character the ense, and, t gether ith the acts existing at the time, c nstitutes a ne and distinct ense, there is n d uble je pardy. " determine d uble je pardy, it is essential t pr ve the existence b th enses during the pendency the irst pr secuti n. "he sec nd charge as inexistent in this case at that time because the victim as still alive. "here as a supervening act in this case calling r the amendment the in rmati n. (3e ple v. el ) But i reas n r the amendment the charge as already existing during the irst examinati n but as n t c nsidered in the charge because the negligence the examiner, then d uble je pardy may attach because there is n Supervening event. (3e ple v. Buling) $ !!# Oenses need n t be the same, but they sh uld c me r m the same act. hen ne act vi lates t dierent statutes r t dierent pr visi ns a statute. 9 ne act results in 2 dierent enses, pr secuti n under ne is n t a bar t pr secuti n under the ther. A special la pr hibiting the illegal p ssessi n irearms, even i it pr vides r a higher penalty i the eap n as used in a h micide/murder, d es n t
1A 2010
m
create a irst je pardy t the pr secuti n r the h micide/murder. D uble e pardy may nly be inv ked r the same ense r identical enses. A simple act may be an ense against t dierent pr visi ns la. 9 ne pr visi n requires pr an additi nal act that is n t included in the ther, an acquittal r c nvicti n under ne d es n t bar pr secuti n r the ther. "he accused cann t plead ne as a bar t an ther. ( 3e ple v "i z n) )%##&#) * 9 an act is punished by la and an rdinance, c nvicti n r acquittal under either shall c nstitute a bar t an ther pr secuti n r the same act. (3e ple v. el va) When the dismissal r terminati n the case is br ught ab ut at the instance the accused, there is n d uble je pardy.
¯,,+%)%$,&$#& gstrada cann t claim that the impeachment pr ceeding as ³terminated n its merits´ and that there as a ³ailure t pr secute´ him. By resigning, he c nsented t the terminati n the impeachment case against him. (gstrada v Desiert )
55 7 ¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯ gx 3 st Ãact Pa ± (a) ne hich makes an acti n d ne be re the passing the la and hich as inn cent hen d ne criminal and punishes such acti n, (b) hich aggravates a crime r makes it greater than hen it as c mmitted, (c) hich changes the punishment and inlicts a greater punishment, (d) hich alters the legal rules evidence and receive less r dierent testim ny than the la required at the time the c mmissi n the ense, (e) assumes t regulate civil rights and remedies nly but in eect imp ses a penalty r deprivati n a right hich hen d ne as laul, () deprives a pers n accused a crime s me laul pr tecti n t hich he has bec me entitled. O"g: 9t nly pr hibits retr spective penal las (las hich imp se a penalty r prescribes a burden equivalent t a penalty) DOgS O" apply t substantive las like the expansi n jurisdicti n
r m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
a certain c urt. Bill Attainder a legislative act hich inlicts punishment ith ut judicial trial glements: a.m "here must be a la, b.m Which imp ses a penal burden n a named individual r easily ascertainable members a gr up, c.m imp sed directly by the la ith ut judicial trial. A Pa punishing any pers n h · © and by vert acts ailiates himsel ith, bec mes r remains a member´ the C mmunist 3arty r any ther similar ³subversive´ rganizati n is n t a Bill Attainder because it d es n t dispense ith udicial determinati n the guilt the accused. 9ntent still needs t be pr ven in c urt. (3e ple v. Ãerrer) A bill attainder is a legislative act hich inlicts punishment ith ut judicial trial. 9ts essence is the substituti n a legislative r a judicial determinati n guilt. "he gO is n t a Bill Attainder because it makes it perectly clear that any judgment guilt in the amassing acquisiti n 'illg tten ealth' is t be handed d n by a judicial tribunal, in this case the Sandiganbayan. (airata v. Sandiganbayan) "he retr active applicati n A 8249, hich expands the jurisdicti n the Sandiganbayan, cann t be c nsidered as an © la. 9t is n t a penal la but a substantive la n jurisdicti n. Only the retr active applicati n a penal la can be c nsidered as an © la. (Pacs n v. gxecutive Secretary)
¯ 6
¯ 6 89m ¯ 6 ¯ 3 ¯ 859m ¯ 3 ¯ 6 89m -¯¯ ? G? 3 6 ¯ ¯ 3¯- L¯ 8-9m ¯ ¯ ¯6¯ ¯ ¯ m Citizenship ± pers nal and m re r less permanent membership in a
1A 2010
m
p litical c mmunity. des Acquiring Citizenship: 1. us sanguinis ± n the basis bl d; 2. us s li ± basis place birth; 3. aturalizati n ± legal act ad pting an alien and cl thing him ith the privilege a native b rn. We ll us sanguinis and naturalizati n. m Citizenship makes n distincti n beteen legitimate r illegitimate children i lineage is clear ("ecs n v. COgPgC) m Child b rn under the 1973 r 1987 C nstituti n Ãilipina m ther and an alien ather (a) i the m ther is still a citizenship at the time birth, he is a natural b rn (b) i the m ther has changed citizenship, need t naturalize m Kinds aturalizati n la: Úeneral, Special, ass, Úeneral la applied thr ugh c mbinati n administrative pr cess and presidential legislative pr cess, administrative Mm 3r cedural requirements: declarati n intenti n, iling petiti n, hearing and initial judgment, peri d pr bati n, rehearing and inal judgment Mm Substantive requirements: b rn r residing in the c untry since birth, 18 years ab ve, ÚC and believes in the principles the c nstituti n, must received primary and sec ndary educati n t a sch l rec gnized by DgCS, must have kn n trade, business, pr essi n r ccupati n, able t read, rite, speak Ãilipin , must have mingled ith citizens and evinced desire t learn A natural b rn citizen the 3hilippines h ns dual citizenship, but n t ( r instance, a natural b rn citizen, h by $ , als acquires alien citizenship) is deemed t have ren unced his alien citizenship up n the iling an applicati n r a Certiicate Candidacy. (aalles v. C melec, ercad v. anzan )
m
"he mere act that a pers n is b rn in a territ ry that ll s the rule 5 d es n t mean that he is n l nger a Ãilipin citizen. At the m st, it grants him dual citizenship as l ng as ne his parents is a Ãilipin . (aalles v. C melec) *+%=%# m aturalizati n may be by a P (Pa best ing citizenship t an alien), (A 9139), r by a udicial Act (C mm nealth Act 473) m An Applicant r naturalizati n nder CA 473 must the strict requirements CA 473. He cann t be granted citizenship even i he uld have been qualiied under A 9139 (S v. epublic)
r m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
aturalizati n las sh uld be rigidly en rced and c nstrued strictly in av r the g vernment and against the applicant. aturalizati n requires b th substantial and pr cedural c mpliance (Ong Chia v epublic) 9n naturalizati n pr ceedings, it is the burden the applicant t pr ve n t nly his n g d m ral character but als the g d m ral character his/her itnesses, h must be credible pers ns. (S v. epublic) A naturalizati n pr ceeding is n t a judicial adversary pr ceeding, and the decisi n rendered therein d es n t c nstitute res judicata. A certiicate naturalizati n may be cancelled i it is subsequently disc vered that the applicant btained it by misleading the c urt up n any material act. (S v. epublic) "he d ctrine $ d es n t apply t citizenship. (Pab v C melec) 9n rder r $ t apply, there must be: 1.m a pers n's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a c ntr versy here said pers n is a party; 2.m the S licit r Úeneral r his auth rized representative t k active part in the res luti n there , and; 3.m the inding r citizenship is airmed by this C urt. (Úatchalian v. B ard C mmissi ners)
%+%%# ."he child a Ãilipin ather and an alien m ther is a Ãilipin as l ng as paternity is clear because $ . "here is n distincti n beteen legitimate and illegitimate children. ("ecs n v COgPgC)
5¯ ¯ 6 ¯ ¯ 6 3 ¯ 3 ¯ ¯ ¯ 6 6 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 89 ¯3¯ ¯ A Child b rn be re an 17, 1973 t an alien ather and a Ãilipin m ther d es n t have t elect 3hilippine Citizenship i his ather has bec me a naturalized Ãilipin citizen be re he c uld reach the age maj rity. He cann t elect an ther citizenship because his ather as already a Ãilipin citizen. He is deemed t be a natural b rn citizen by virtue the curative nature Secti n 2 because his m ther is a Ãilipina, and he d es n t have t per rm any acts t perect his Ãilipin citizenship.
1A 2010
m
Citizenship is an indispensible requirement r h lding elective v C melec, 1996)
(C v Hg") 9n ,%%#, hich is the relevant m de in this case, the rec very and rest rati n the riginal nati nality ccurs. A natural b rn citizen h l ses his citizenship, then applies r repatriati n is deemed t be a natural b rn citizen. "his is in spite the pr visi n Secti n 2. (Bengs n v Hg")
6 3¯ ¯ 3¯ ¯ m aturalizati n las all cancellati n certiicate i it is und t have btained ³raudulently r illegally´ r that he vi lated c nditi ns p sed n him. "his must be pr ven in a clear, unequiv cal and c nvincing evidence m H may citizenship be reacquired: aturalizati n, Direct act C ngress and epatriati n m P ss Citizenship Mm aturalizati n Mm gxpress renunciati n Mm Subscribing ath allegiance t a reign c untry Mm Serving in the armed rces an enemy c untry Mm Being a deserter the AÃ3 m epatriati n ± rec very riginal citizenship. Mm Deserti n the armed rces Mm Service in the armed rced the allied rces during the W rld War 99 Mm Service in the armed rces the S at any ther time Mm arriage a Ãilipin man t an alien Mm 3 litical and ec n mic necessity A naturalized Ãilipin h c ntinues t declare 3 rtugese citizenship in c mmercial d cuments and subsequently btains a 3 rtugese passp rt is deemed t have expressly ren unced his 3hilippine citizenship by c ntinuing t represent himsel as an alien. His acts are gr ssly inc nsistent ith naturalizati n. (Yu v. Deens rSantiag ) A Ãilipin h naturalizes as an Australian, ren uncing his Ãilipin citizenship in the pr cess, cann t validly claim that he is still a Ãilipin citizen because his acquisiti n Australian citizenship as impr per. He has already validly ren unced his Ãilipin citizenship, and the validity his naturalizati n is beteen him and Australia. ntil he takes the steps necessary t validly reacquire 3hilippine citizenship, he is disqualiied r m running r ice. (Pab r. v C melec, 1989)
rü m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
ice. (Pab
r
A Ãilipin h claims that he as naturalized as an American citizen in rder t pr tect himsel r m the arc s regime is disqualiied r m running r ice. any Ãilipin s are similarly situated in the States but did n t ind it necessary t aband n Ãilipin citizenship. He may validly reacquire his citizenship thr ugh repatriati n t qualiy himsel r ice. (Ãrivald v. C melec, 1989) Ã r elective icials, citizenship is required at the time he is pr claimed t ice and at the start his term. epatriati n retr actively applies t the date applicati n. (Ãrivald v C melec, 1996)
- 6 3¯ ¯
¯ ¯ 6
¯ 3 ¯ 3 ¯ ¯
r ¯ ¯¯ 6 3¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯ m Pa has all ed dual citizenship m Dual citizenship is n t dual allegiance m Derivative aturalizati n= citizenship derived r m that an ther as r m a pers n h h lds citizenship by virtue naturalizati n A atural b rn Ãilipin h acquires alien citizenship by naturalizati n, then subsequently applies r repatriati n in rder t retain/reacquire his Ãilipin citizenship is c nsidered t all under the term ³dual allegiance´. (ac t v. Dal) "he rule in ercad v. anzan and aalles v. C melec is inapplicable here a Ãilipin citizen acquires reign citizenship thr ugh naturalizati n, then subsequently repatriates under A 9225. He is n t c nsidered t have ren unced his allegiance t the reign c untry up n his iling a COC. He must irst take an ath expressly ren uncing his reign allegiance be re he may be qualiied t ile r candidacy. (ac t v. Dal) Dual allegiance is dierent r m dual citizenship. Dual Citizenship arises hen, as a result the c ncurrent applicati n the dierent las t r m re states, a pers n is simultane usly c nsidered a nati nal by the said states (e.g. jus s li, jus sanguinis) Dual allegiance reers t the situati n in hich a pers n simultane usly es, by s me p sitive act, l yalty t t r m re states. 9t is the result an individual¶s v liti n. (ercad v. anzan )
1A 2010
m
A Dual Citizen h repatriates under A 9225 is deemed t implicitly ren unce his allegiance t the reign c untry. (AASSCalilung v Datuman ng)
because the turbulent p litical climate cann t be c nsidered t have aband ned his d micile. His departure cann t be c nsidered v luntary and ith ut evidence his intenti n t aband n the ld d micile, he cann t be presumed t have ad pted a ne ne. ( mualdez v. "C)
¯
¯
m
¯ 3¯ 7 ¯ 6 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 7 3 33¯ ¯ ¯ 3 ¯ 3 7
¯ m Surage ± right t v te in electi n m " acquire ne d micile: (1) residence r b dily presence in the ne l cality, (2) an intenti n t remain there, (3) intenti n t aband n the ld d micile m t qualiy t v te: th se sentence by inal judgment t suer impris nment n t less than ne year but shall aut matically reacquire the right up n expirati n ive years ater service sentence, any pers n adjudged by inal c nvicti n vi lating his allegiance, insane r eebleminded pers ns. " be sure, the right surage is n t at all abs lute. eedless t say, the exercise the right surage, as in the enj yment all ther rights, is subject t existing substantive and pr cedural requirements emb died in ur C nstituti n, statute b ks and ther rep sit ries la. As t the pr cedural limitati n, the right a citizen t v te is necessarily c nditi ned up n certain pr cedural requirements he must underg : am ng thers, the pr cess registrati n. 3r ceeding r m the signiicance registrati n as a necessary requisite t the right t v te, the State, in the exercise its inherent p lice p er, may then enact las t saeguard and regulate the act v ter¶s registrati n r the ultimate purp se c nducting h nest, rderly and peaceul electi n, t the incidental yet generally imp rtant end, that even preelecti n activities c uld be per rmed by the duly c nstituted auth rities in a realistic and rderly manner. (Akbayan v. C melec; the C urt deending C melec¶s ban r registrati n 120 days be re the electi n) A pers n h
let the c untry t
r m
seek asylum abr ad
ut
ear r his saety
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
Acquisiti n a ne d micile requires and 6 1.m esidence, b dily presence in ne l cality 2.m 9 t remain in the ne l cality 3.m 9 t
5
¯ ¯ 3 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 3
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯ ¯ ¯ 7 ¯ ¯ ¯ 33
3¯ 3¯ ¯ m Absentee v ting all ed under A 9189 nder A 9189, a Ãilipin immigrant h has been absent r 3 years is presumed t have aband ned his residence. H ever, he may execute an aidavit his intenti n t return. "his serves as implicit pr that he has n t aband ned his d micile, and is there re d es n t vi late the residency requirement Secti n 1. (acalintal v. C melec) Dual Citizens under A 9225 are all ed t v te thr ugh the Overseas Absentee v ter la, ith ut the need r residency. Secti n 2 Auth rizes absentee v ting and pr vides an exempti n r m the residency requirement. (ic lasPeis v. C melec) ¯ 7 ¯- ¯ 3¯
&%# "he C ngress shall give highest pri rity t the enactment measures that pr tect and enhance the right all the pe ple t human dignity, reduce s cial, ec n mic, and p litical inequalities, and rem ve cultural inequities by equitably diusing ealth and p litical p er r the c mm n g d. " this end, the State shall regulate the acquisiti n, nership, use, and disp siti n pr perty and its increments. "he C nstituti n speciically pr vides that lab r is entitled t "humane c nditi ns rk. 9t als directs the State t pr m te "equality
1A 2010
m
empl yment pp rtunities r all." Similarly, the Pab r C de pr vides that the State shall "ensure equal rk pp rtunities regardless sex, race r creed." 9t uld be an ar nt t b th the spirit and letter these pr visi ns the State, i in spite its prim rdial bligati n t pr m te and ensure equal empl yment pp rtunities, it cl ses its eyes t unequal and discriminat ry terms and c nditi ns empl yment. (9nternati nal Sch l Alliance gducat rs v. Quisumbing) m
" principal activities state is c mmanded t attend t achieve s cial justice (1) creati n m re ec n mic pp rtunities and m re ealth (2)cl ser regulati n the acquisiti n, nership, use and disp siti n pr perty t achieve m re equitable distributi n r ealth and p er
m m
" acquire ne d micile: (1) residence r b dily presence in the ne l cality, (2) an intenti n t remain there, (3) intenti n t aband n the ld d micile
&%# 5 "he pr m ti n s cial justice shall include the c mmitment t create ec n mic pp rtunities based n reed m initiative and selreliance. ¯
&%# "he State shall a rd ull pr tecti n t lab r, l cal and verseas, rganized and un rganized, and pr m te ull empl yment and equality empl yment pp rtunities r all. 9t shall guarantee the rights all rkers t sel rganizati n, c llective bargaining and neg tiati ns, and peaceul c ncerted activities, including the right t strike in acc rdance ith la. "hey shall be entitled t security tenure, humane c nditi ns rk, and a living age. "hey shall als participate in p licy and decisi nmaking pr cesses aecting their rights and beneits as may be pr vided by la. "he State shall pr m te the principle shared resp nsibility beteen rkers and empl yers and the preerential use v luntary m des in settling disputes, including c nciliati n, and shall en rce their mutual c mpliance thereith t ster industrial peace. "he State shall regulate the relati ns beteen rkers and empl yers, rec gnizing the right lab r t its just share in the ruits pr ducti n and the right enterprises t reas nable returns t investments, and t expansi n and gr th. ¯ ¯ ¯¯¯ ¯ 3
&%# - "he State shall, by la, undertake an agrarian re rm pr gram unded n the right armers and regular arm rkers h are landless, t n directly r c llectively the lands they till r, in the case ther arm rkers, t receive a just share the ruits there . " this end, the State shall enc urage and undertake the just distributi n all agricultural lands, subject t such pri rities and reas nable retenti n limits as the C ngress may prescribe, taking int acc unt ec l gical, devel pmental, r equity
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
c nsiderati ns, and subject t the payment just c mpensati n. 9n determining retenti n limits, the State shall respect the right small land ners. "he State shall urther pr vide incentives r v luntary land sharing. +%&!$%##$%#
View more...
Comments