Consti2 Lecture Outline March 2012

NOTES AND CASES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Prepared by: ATTY. LARRY D. GACAYAN Professor (Constitutional Law Review, Constitutional Law I, Constitutional Law II and Wills and Succession) COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS Baguio City MARCH 2012

PRE-BAR REVIEWER CPRS PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Baguio City, Cagayan de Oro City, Zamboanga City, Iloilo City and Davao City) EXCELLENT PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Baguio City, Naga City, Cebu City and Tacloban City) POWERHAUS PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Baguio City, Manila, Santiago City, San Fernando City, [LU] and Tagbilaran City) HOLY TRINITY COLLEGE PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (General Santos City) COSMOPOLITAN BAR REVIEW CENTER (Baguio City) LEX REVIEW CENTER University of Pangasinan Dagupan City

2

CHAPTER I FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE (Police Power) a. ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL VS. MAYOR OF MANILA, July 31, 1967 (Requiring customers of motels to show ID’s, etc.) b. WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION VS. CITY OF MANILA, January 20, 2009 (Prohibiting “short time”) c. CITY OF MANILA VS. JUDGE LAGUIO, 455 SCRA 308 (Requiring motel owners to convert their motels to flower shops, restaurants, antique shops, souvenir shops, handicrafts display centers; art galleries; records and music shops, coffee shops, etc., within 3 months or transfer the motels to other parts of the City of Manila. It is not a valid exercise of police power because if it is immoral to operate said motels in the Ermita-Malate area, the same will likewise be immoral to operate in any other part of the City of Manila) d. DE LA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569 (Nightclubs in Bocaue, Bulacan were ordered closed and prohibited by a Municipal Ordinance. The SC held that nightclubs are not illegal per se and therefore, they could not be prohibited but merely to be regulated) Requisites of a valid ordinance: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

must not contravene the Constitution or any law; must not be unfair or oppressive; must not be partial or discriminatory; must not prohibit but regulate trade; must be general and consistent with public policy; and 6. must not be unreasonable. e.

JMM Promotions vs. CA, 260 SCRA 319 (Artist’s Record Book must be accomplished with TESDA before women could be deployed to Japan. Otherwise, 2

3

if they have no formal training before going to Japan, they will end up as prostitutes. It started after the death of Maricris Sioson in Japan) f. ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ, 101 Phil. 1155 (Retail Trade Nationalization Act prohibiting foreigners from engaging in retail trade is a valid exercise of police power) g. US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85 (Slaughtering of carabaos was prohibited by a law which was declared constitutional to promote general welfare considering the importance of carabaos to our country whicl is agriculture-based) h. VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983 i. AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195 [Early warning device promotes public safety to the motoring public] j. TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. BOT, 119 SCRA 597 (Phasing out of taxicabs over 6 years old valid . However, even taxicabs more than 6 years are still allowed outside MM because they are not as dilapidated as those operating in Metro manila which are being used 24 hours daily) k. BAUTISTA VS. JUINIO, 127 SCRA 329 (Law prohibiting the use of Heavy and Extra Heavy vehicles during weekends and holidays when there is energy crisis is valid…for the general welfare) l. ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, 175 SCRA 343 (CARP Law is valid. Combination of police power and power of eminent domain) m.DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 n. VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21, 1987 (Permit earlier issued by the Municipal Mayor for the vendors to have a Talipapa along the National Highway of San Fernando City, Pampanga may be validly revoked by the new mayor and could be justified under the police power to promote public health) o. PRC vs. De Guzman, et al., June 21, 2004 (Fatima College of Medicine graduates had “unusually and exceptionally high” in the 2 most difficult subjects of the exam, i.e., Biochemistry and Obstetrics and Gynecology. The NBI investigation revealed that they had “early access” to test questions. They can’t compel 3

4

the PRC to give them their licenses. Valid police power measure to safeguard the heath and general welfare of the people) p. DIDIPIO VS. GOZUN, 485 SCRA 586 (Distinctions between police power and power of eminent domain and taxation) 5-a. Not a valid exercise of police power a.

b.

c.

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY VS. ERICTA, 122 SCRA 759 (Requiring private cemeteries to set aside 6% of their land area to be given free as burial places for paupers) YNOT VS. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (Inter-provincial transport of carabaos and carabeefs. The LOI which gives the Director of Animal Industry of the Chairman of the National Meat Commission to dispose of the confiscated animals “in any manner he deems fit” as unconstitutional) DELA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569 (Prohibition on the operation of nightclubs in Bocaue, Bulacan) CHAPTER II Section 1 DUE PROCESS

1. Requisites of “judicial due process”. CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, G.R. No. 184869, September 21, 2010 There is violation of the right of CMU to due process of law when the President through a Presidential Proclamation took away lands of the University intended for its operation and given by the President to indigenous people of Mindanao---without notice or hearing. a. b.

BANCO ESPANOL VS. PALANCA, 37 Phil. 92 (Four (4) Requisites of judicial due process) IMELDA MARCOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, October 6, 1998 (Deciding a case with the participation 4

5

c.

d.

e.

f.

of another justice who is not a member of the division that tried her case violates her right to due process. Likewise, the fact that Justice Garchitorena asked 179 questions to the 73 by the Prosecutor clearly shows partiality and violation of her right to due process. [Rental of P102, 760.00 per month then sub-leased to P734,000.00 per month for 25 years after only 19 days] PEOPLE VS. OPIDA, June 13, 1986 [The Supreme Court held that the right of the accused to due process of law and impartial trial were violated when it was the judge who conducted the cross-examination of the accused and his witness instead of the Prosecutor coupled with his sarcastic and insulting remarks and ended with the question, “Do you want me to dictate the decision now”? The judge likewise required the accused to remove his shirt and described for the record all the tattoos found on his body. Clearly, the judge had allied himself with the prosecution] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BENANCIO MORTERA, G.R. No. 188104, April 23, 2010 [There is no violation of the right to due process and impartial trial as a result of the comment of the Judge that “if you are not telling the truth to your own lawyer, how would I know that you are telling the truth now” as a result of his change of defense from a negative defense to self-defense in a murder case. The comment of the judge shall be considered based on the entirety of his questions and the circumstances surrounding said utterance.The accused described the clarificatory questions of the judge as “prosecutor-like conduct” and therefore, lacked the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. DELGADO VS. CA, November 10, 1986 (The accused was represented by a non-lawyer during the trial of her case for estafa. She was not aware that Atty. Ico is not a member of the bar. She is entitled to a new trial since her right to due process was violated) Consulta vs. People, February 12, 2009 (He was represented during the presentation of prosecution’s evidence by “Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyes” who turned out to be a non-lawyer. He was represented by a PAO Lawyer during the presentation of his evidence. No 5

6

violation of his right to due process since he was represented by a real lawyer during the presentation of his evidence.) g. DBP VS. CA, January 29, 1999 h. JAVIER VS. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194 i. DAVID VS. AQUILIZAN, 94 SCRA 707 j.ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING VS. CA, 94 SCRA 261 (THE SECRETARY OF THE DENR may not review his own decision when he was still the Director of Mines without violating the parties’ right to due process of law k. ANZALDO VS. CLAVE, 119 SCRA 353 (The Deputy Executive Secretary may not validly review his very own decision as the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission) l.MAYOR ALONTE VS. JUDGE SAVELLANO, 287 SCRA 245 (December 17, 1997 , there was a notice of Promulgation of Decision and on December 18, 1997, a Decision of conviction was promulgated without trial…the right of mayor Alonte to due process of law was violated) • TAN VS. TAN, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010 A party cannot complain of violation of her right to due process when the court awarded custody of their children to the husband because she was notified but failed to appear during the hearing of said motion. • TAN VS. JUDGE MARIA CLARITA TABIN, MTC 4, BAGUIO CITY, A.M. No. MTJ-09-1729, January 20, 2009 The Judge violated the right of the petitioner to due process when she ordered for her arrest in a BP 22 case for allegedly failing to appear in court during the scheduled hearing EVEN THOUGH SHE IS FROM QUEZON CITY AND SHE WAS NOT NOTIFIED. 2. Procedural due process before administrative bodies a.

ATTY. ROMEO ERECE VS. MACALINGAY, ET AL., G.R. No. 166809, April 22, 2008 (No right to cross6

7

examine the complainant and witnesses nor a formal hearing required as long as already given the opportunity to present evidence, i.e., counter-affidavit and affidavit of witnesses) b. DATUFAX MANGUDADATU VS. HRET, December 18, 2008 (Summons by registered mail is not valid. Violation of the right to due process) c. DEP ED VS. CUANAN, December 16, 2008 (Not furnished a copy of the MR of DepED before the Civil Service Commission even though the private complainants did not question the Decision of the CSC. The right to due process of Cuanan was violated when the CSC reversed its decision based on the Motion for Reconsideration where no notice was given to Cuanan) d. ANG TIBAY VS. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 (Seven (7) cardinal primary requisites of due process before administrative bodies) 4. Procedural due process in disciplinary actions against students DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY VS. COURT OF APPEALS, DECEMBER 19, 2007 (STUDENTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND FOR CROSSEXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES. IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT HE WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE HIS ANSWER AND OTHER EVIDENCE. Due process is deemed complied with) B.GUZMAN VS. NU, 142 SCRA 706 (5 REQUISITES) a.

1. In administrative proceedings, does due process require that a party be assisted by counsel? LUMIQUED VS. EXENEA, 282 SCRA 125 • JOSE ATIENZA ET AL VS. COMELEC and MANUEL ROXAS II, FRANKLIN DRILON AND NEREUS ACOSTA, G.R. No. 188920, February 16, 2010 There is no violation of the right to due process when the group of Drilon expelled Atienza and company without notice and hearing because administrative due process in accordance with Ang 7

8

Tibay could be invoked only in bodies created by the State through which governmental acts or functions are performed. An administrative agency “contemplates an authority to which the state delegates governmental powers for the performance of state function.” The right to due process is meant to protect ordinary citizens against arbitrary government action but not from acts committed by private individuals or entities. The right to due process guards against unwarranted encroachment by the State into the fundamental rights of its citizens and cannot be invoked in private controversies involving private rights. CHAPTER III Section 1 THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE ELEAZAR QUINTO VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010, reversing the Decision dated December 1, 2009, Per CJ Puno (Mancuso vs. Taft was abandoned and reversed in US Civil Service Commission vs. National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO and Broadrick vs. State of Oklahoma) VICTORIA GUTTIERREZ VS. DBM, G.R. No.153266, March 18, 2010. [Inclusion of allowances and other fringe benefits for government workers in the national government, state universities and colleges, including those in the local government under the Compensation and Position classification Act of 1989 while those in the AFP and PNP did not, does not violate the equal protection clause because there is real and substantial distinction. Being charged of the actual defense of the country, uniformed personnel of the government are expected to be stationed virtually anywhere in the country. They are likely to be assigned to a variety of low, moderate and high cost areas. Since their basic pay does not vary on location, the continued grant of COLA is intended to help them offset the effects of living in higher cost areas. LOUIS “BAROK” C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner, v. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010, Respondent., G.R. No. 192935 : December 7, 2010 (Executive Order No. 1 of President Benigno Aquino III creating the Truth Commission of 2010 “to investigate reports of graft and corruption of such scale and magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of the people, committed by public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration; and thereafter recommend the appropriate action or measure to be taken thereon to ensure that the full measure of justice shall be served without fear or favor.” Is 8

9

unconstitutional because it singled out the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo while not investigating the previous administrations as violative of the equal protection of the law. 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

HIMAGAN VS. PEOPLE, October 7, 1994 [Preventive suspension of a policeman charged of a criminal case up to his acquittal while other government officials like those facing graft charges are to be preventively suspended only for 90 days after arraignment is not violative of the equal protection clause, there being real and substantial distinction because policemen are armed and if they are allowed to do so during the pendency of his case, witnesses might be afraid to testify] PHIL. JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. PRADO, November 11, 1993 [Franking privileges for the courts removed while Congress and legislature were not. It is a violation of the equal protection clause] Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 [In 1950, they were convicted of rebellion complexed with murder. In 1954, accused similarly situated like Hernandez were sentenced to the penalty for rebellion only after the SC held that there is no such thing as rebellion complexed with murder. They are entitled to have their penalties be reduced , otherwise, their right to equal protection will be violated.] PANFILO LACSON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, January 20, 1999 [Only 1 chance of appeal from SB to SC by Certiorari while other accused have several appeals from MTC to RTC to CA then to SC. No violation of equal protection because there is real and substantial distinction between government employees and private employees or individuals] Taxicab Operators vs. BOT, September 30,l982 [There’s a valid distinction when taxicabs in Baguio City and in Manila. The latter are used 24 hours daily while the former are used only for few hours] Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 [Over 65 years old are not allowed to ran for the same position held before. Valid because it infuses young blood to our political system] UNIDO vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 38 [Free airtime to the President when he campaigned “YES” to the proposed amendments to the Constitution while proponents of “NO” shall pay. No discrimination since there is a real distinction. Marcos was addressing the people as the President of the Philippines, not as a head of a political party] 9

10

CHAPTER IV Section 2 THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISION

NOTE: THE ANTI-TERRORISM LAW, RA NO. 9372, Section 18, 19 and 26 on arrest and detention. NEW CASES: SUSAN ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010 “Stop and Frisk”—valid exception to a Warrantless search and seizure If the person who claims that he was illegally arrested did not question the validity of her Warrantless arrest before her arraignment nor moved to quash the information but raised said issues for the first time on appeal, the same is already deemed waived. LEVISTE VS. JUDGE ALAMEDA, RTC MAKATI, G,.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010 There is no waiver of the illegality of the arrest if the accused refused to enter a voluntary plea during arraignment and continued to question the validity of the preliminary investigation which resulted in the filing of the information in court. THERE ARE TWO (2) KINDS OF PROBABLE CAUSE 1. The executive determination of probable cause on whether a crime was allegedly committed and file a criminal case in court; and 2. Judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

10

11

• The place to be searched AS INDICATED in the warrant is controlling PEOPLE VS. CA, 291 SCRA 400 [4 apartment doors at the rear of Abigail Variety Store in QC]

• As a general rule: Validity of warrantless searches and seizures as a result of an informer’s tip. PEOPLE VS. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 626 [On December 13, 1988, Olongapo Police received a tip…8.5 kilos of marijuana] PEOPLE VS. MONTILLA, 284 SCRA 703 [Dasmarinas, Cavite Police received a tip on June 19, 1994…The marijuana courier will alight at the waiting shed of Barangay Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite…28 kilos of marijuana] P VS. CLAUDIO, 160 SCRA 646 [There is probable cause in the Warrantless search of a bag (behind him in a bus) by a NARCOM agent when he allegedly smelled marijuana therein. By reason of his training, he could smell marijuana and therefore, he has personal knowledge and therefore, probable cause was present making the search legal] PEOPLE VS. SPO3 SANGKI ARA, G.R. No. 185011, December 23, 2009..[buy-bust operation infront of St. Peter’s College in Toril, Davao City resulted in 25.6563 grams of shabu. c. General or roving warrants Read: 1. Stonehill vs. Diokno,June 19,1967 [General warrant for violation of CB Laws, TCC, NIRC and RPC] NOTE: In TAMBASEN VS. PEOPLE, July 14, 1995 and People vs. CA, 216 SCRA 101, the Supreme Court described a search warrant for estafa, robbery, theft and qualified theft was described as SCATTER-SHOT WARRANT 2. Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 [The clerk of court received the evidence of the applicant for a search warrant] 11

12

2-a. Pendon vs. CA, Nov. 16, 1990 [When the questions asked by the judge to the applicant are pre-typed, the search warrant is not valid since there could have been no searching questions] 3. Secretary vs. Marcos, 76 SCRA 301 [Illegal possession of firearm and violation of CB Laws…Golden Buddha] 4. Castro vs. Pabalan, April 30, l976 [The search warrant is implemented in an adjoining Barrio of Bangar, La Union] 5. Asian Surety vs. Herrera, 52 SCRA 312 [Search warrant for estafa, falsification, tax evasion and insurance fraud is a general warrant despite two carloads of evidence seized] • Define probable cause. Who determines probable cause? a. VICENTE

LIM VS. HON. FELIX [Warrant of arrest issued by the RTC Makati based on the Resolution and the Information filed by the Fiscal is not valid since the record of the case with the affidavits of witnesses is still in Masbate] 1. Amarga vs. Abbas, 98 Phil. 739

1-b. Quintero vs. NBI, 162 SCRA 467 [Searching parties searched different rooms simultaneously thereby resulting in no witnesses in the other rooms searched, the search is not valid] 1-d. SOLIVEN & BELTRAN VS. MAKASIAR, NOVEMBER 18, 1988 (Note that this was widely criticized) [There is no need for the judge to examine the complainant and the witnesses face to face in order to determine probable cause. It is enough that he shall personally examine the affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses and if he is convinced that there is probable cause, he can validly issue the warrant of arrest] 2-a. P. vs. Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465 (The judge may validly refuse to issue warrants of arrest if he believes that there is no probable cause to for their issuance…despite the findings of probable cause by the filing Prosecutor since that was for purposes of filing only) 2-b. Placer vs. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463 3. Tolentino vs. Villaluz,July 27,1987 4. Cruz vs. Gatan, 74 SCRA 226 5. Olaes vs. P., 155 SCRA 486 12

13

6. GERONIMO VS. RAMOS, 136 SCRA 435 [Warrants of arrest issued in 70 plus cases against several accused after less than 1 hour from receipt of the records of the cases are not valid. Judge could not have determined probable cause in so short a time] 7.JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS. JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR, ET AL., G.R.NO. 92163, June 5, 1990 [Warrant of arrest issued against Senator Enrile after1 hour and 20 minutes from receipt of the records of the case consisting of several thousands of pages is valid. There is no need to read all the affidavits or evidence therein. It is sufficient that he is convinced of the existence of probable cause] d. Warrantless searches and seizures--when valid or not. Is "Operation Kapkap" valid? Warrantless search of alleged obscene magazines. Read: PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE, G.R. No. 87059, June, 1992 [Arrest without warrant because of a bulging tummy which looks like a gun tucked therein is not valid. There was no personal knowledge nor probable cause] PEOPLE VS. GO, 354 SCRA 338 [Search of a gun which could be seen tucked in the waist of the accused in a nightclub is valid. Likewise, the sachets of shabu seen on the front sear of the car of the accused when he opened the car is admissible under the plain view doctrine] MANALILI VS. PEOPLE, October 9, 1997 [The policemen saw several suspicion-looking men at dawn and when they approached said persons, they ran but were caught. The unlicensed firearm confiscated after the policemen search them is admissible] PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO, July 10, 1994 [The policemen gave P100.00 to the informant to buy marijuana from the accused. After he returned with the marijuana, the policemen went to arrest the accused. The arrest is not valid since the same does not fall under Section 5 Rule 113. They have no personal knowledge]

13

14

MALACAT VS. CA, 283 SCRA 159 [Mere suspicions by the police are not sufficient to validate a Warrantless search and seizure or Warrantless arrest] PITA VS. CA, 178 SCRA 362 [Requisites before the Mayor could confiscate magazines which are allegedly obscene] Warrantless Search and seizure by a private person. PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA, 301 SCRA 66 SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL VS. SOLUTA, 482 SCRA 660 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANDRE MARTI, G.R. NO. 81561, January 18, 1991 VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE: 1. Search made incidental to a valid arrest NOLASCO VS. PANO, 139 SCRA 541 (One who was arrested on board a passenger jeepney may not be brought to her residence and then search the same. That could not be considered as search incidental to a valid arrest) b. P vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 [The arrest of an alleged NPA member while plowing his field is not valid since he is not committing a crime. Likewise, the consent for the search for unlicensed firearm given by his wife is not valid] c. ESPANO VS. CA, 288 SCRA 588 (If accused was arrested on the street in front of his house selling prohibited drugs, the arresting officers may not search his house without warrant based on “search incidental to a valid arrest” rule. a.

2. Search of moving vehicles PEOPLE VS. BELEN MARIACOS, G.R. No. 18861, June 16, 2010 (Tip that the accused has with her marijuana on her bag at the topload of a passenger jeepney justifies the police authorities to conduct a valid Warrantless search since they have no more time to secure a search warrant) 14

15

a. b. c. d. e.

Carrol vs. US, 267 US 132 PEOPLE VS. LO HO WING, 190 SCRA 122 PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT, 198 SCRA 401 MUSTANG LUMBER VS. CA, 257 SCRA 430 PEOPLE vs. AMINNUDIN Y AHNI, JULY 6,1988 (TIP RECEIVED BY THE ILOILO CITY POLICE FROM INFORMANT IN ZAMBOANGA CITY THAT ACCUSED HAS MARIJUANA IN HIS BAG does not amount to probable cause because the Iloilo Police have no personal knowledge. Further, there was plenty of time to secure a search warrant from the court]

• Seizure of goods concealed to avoid duties/taxes a. b. c. d.

Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 Pacis vs. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16 HIZON VS. CA, 265 SCRA 517 PEOPLE VS. QUE, 265 SCRA 721

• Seize of evidence in plain view a.

b.

PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ, 341 SCRA 25 [The policemen were informed that the accused had fully grown marijuana planted in his yard. They went to see for themselves the tip and found the same to be true. They arrested the accused and took pictures of him beside his marijuana plants and thereafter uprooted said plant, again with his pictures. There was no valid Warrantless search under the plain view doctrine since they were looking for it and not INADVERTENTLY COME ACROSS THE ILLEGAL ITEMS] a-1. ELENITA FAJARDO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011 ..Plain view as a valid exception to a Warrantless searches and seizure.

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the “plain view” of an officer, who has a right to be in the position to have that 15

16

view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. It applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand, and its discovery inadvertent. 7. Harris vs. US, 390 US 234 8. PEOPLE VS. DAMASO, 212 SCRA 547 9. PEOPLE VS. VELOSO, 252 SCRA 135 10.PEOPLE VS. LESANGIN, 252 SCRA 213 When there is waiver of right or gives his consent; VEROY VS. LAYAGUE, 210 SCRA 97 (The consent given by the owner of the house to the soldiers to “look for rebel soldiers” does not justify them to search for unlicensed firearm inside the house by opening cabinets therein) b. Lopez vs. Commissioner, 65 SCRA 336 c. PEOPLE VS. DAMASO, 212 SCRA 547 (Consent given by the owner of the apartment for the police to search the room being rented to Basilio Damaso is not valid) a.

STOP & FRISK or search in checkpoints 1. RICARDO VALMONTE VS. GEN RENATO DE VILLA, GR No. 83988, September 29, 1989

16

17

2.

SUSAN ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010 “Stop and Frisk”—valid exception to a Warrantless search and seizure

Read also the RESOLUTION ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION dated JUNE 15, 1990, 185 SCRA 665 a. PEOPLE VS. POSADAS, 188 SCRA 288 b. MANALILI VS. PEOPLE, October 9, 1997 c. MALACAT VS. CA, 283 SCRA 159 • Search of “Hot Logs” under the Forestry Code MUSTANG LUMBER VS. CA, 257 SCRA 430 •

If the judge finds that there's probable cause, must he issue a warrant of arrest as a matter of course? 1. Samulde vs. Salvani, September 26, 1988 2. GOZO VS. TAC-AN, 300 SCRA 265 Searching questions

DR. NEMESIO PRUDENTE VS. THE HON. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, RTC 33, Manila & People of the Philippines, GR No. 82870, December 14, 1989 (En Banc) [a SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED BECAUSE OF A very reliable tip obtained by the police against Dr. Nemesio Prudente, President of Polytechnic University of the Philippines and implemented on November 1, 1987, a Sunday and All Saints Day despite Circular No. 19 of the SC… b. Pendon vs. CA, Nov. 16, 1990 [Pre-typed questions as a basis of probable cause not valid. No searching questions] 6. Mata vs. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 [The deposition of the complainant and the witnesses shall be attached to the search warrant as well as in the record of the case, without which, the search for masiao tickets is not valid] 9. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 [Mere conclusions of law by the applicant that there are subversive a.

17

18

documents at the offices of the newspaper “WE FORUM” during martial law does not justify a finding of probable cause] 12. Ponsica vs. Ignalaga, July 31,1987 [If the statements of the complainant and the witnesses of an applicant for a search warrant are mere generalities, mere conclusions of law and not positive statements of particular facts, the search warrant is not valid] 13. Aberca vs. Ver, April 15,1988 [The superiors, including Capt. Panfilo Lacson, are liable civilly for the illegal search conducted by their subordinates] •

PEOPLE VS. GALVEZ, 355 SCRA 246 [The policemen arrested the accused because of what a private person told them, i.e., he sold marijuana to him. The arrest is illegal but could no longer question the validity of his arrest because he entered a plea during the arraignment] Century Fox vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (The master tape must be presented if one alleges that the tapes to be seized are illegal and pirated] 2. COLUMBIA PICTURES VS. CA, 261 SCRA 144 1.

CHAPTER IV-A THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY PLEASE NOTE: Section 7. Surveillance of suspects and interception and recording of communications (Except between lawyer and clients; doctors and patients; and journalists and their sources) Section 27. Judicial authorization to examine bank deposits and records 1.

OPLE VS. TORRES, July 23, 1998 [National ID System (Admin. Order No. 308, December 12, 1996 of President Ramos) through biometrics technology where the people will have to furnish the government with their fingerprints, retinal scan, hand geometry, facial features and others to be stored in a super computer. Held: Since there is no safeguard that these informations 18

19

2.

3.

4.

will not be used illegally, the EO is unconstitutional. It falls short of assuring that personal information gathered from the people will be used for the specified purposes without violating the citizen’s right to privacy. ZULUETA VS. CA, February 10, 1996 [The intimacies of husband and wife does not justify the latter from breaking cabinets in the clinic of the physician-husband and take the diaries, checks, greeting cards, pictures of his alleged paramours] KMU VS. ERMITA, & BAYAN MUNA VS. ERMITA, April 19, 2006 & June 20, 2006 [Proclamation No. 420 of GMA requiring mandatory ID system is valid because it applies only to national government employees and within her power of control under Section 17, Art. VII of the Constitution] SABIO VS. GORDON, October 17, 2006 [Limited right to privacy of government officials] CHAPTER V FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, EXPRESSION, etc.

NOTE: VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH DOCTRINES APPLY ONLY TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, NOT TO PENAL STATUTES. PEOPLE VS. SITON, G.R. No. 160364, September 18, 2009. The above doctrine could not be used to declare Art. 202 of the RPC on Vagrancy. • US vs. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 • Rule on criticisms on private individuals who are “public figures” •

Baguio Midland Courier vs. CA & Ramon Labo, Jr., 444 SCRA 28 19

20

PABLITO V. SANIDAD VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 90878, January 29, 1990 [The State could not dictate the time and place for a citizen to exercise his freedom of speech, expression or of the press UNLESS there is clear and present danger] • De la Cruz vs. Ela, 99 Phil. 346 [Transferring the place of rally from the eastern part of the town plaza facing the Roman Catholic Church to the other end of the plaza for the Jehovah’s Witnesses to rally is valid since there is clear and present danger like what happened in the previous occasions when there were fights between the Catholics and the members of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a result of verbal attacks by the latter to the former] • In re: Ramon Tulfo, March 19, 1990 • In re: Atty. Emil Jurado, July 12, 1990 • Elizalde vs. Gutierrez,76 SCRA 448 [News items of an ongoing criminal proceedings in court is valid provided: (1) it must be a true and fair report of the proceedings in court; (2) it must be written in good faith; and (3) there must be no comments or remarks by the author. • Policarpio vs. Manila Times, 5 SCRA 148 [Lady Lawyer charged in court] • Lopez vs. CA, 34 SCRA 116 [Hoax of the Year---Fidel Cruz] • Kapisanan vs. Camara Shoes, 11 SCRA 477 [“Under protest” written by an employee in the payroll should not be a ground to suspend her for 1 month. It is a valid exercise of freedom of expression] • IN RE: Atty. Tipon, 79 SCRA 372 •

• Obscenity; test of Read: a. P. vs. Kottinger, 45 Phil. 352 b. P vs. GO PIN, August 8, 1955 c. Miller vs. California, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 Tests of obscenity: a. Whether the average person applying to contemporary community standards would find the work appeals to prurient interest; 20

21

b. Whether the work depicts or describes a patently offensive sexual conduct; c. Whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. d. Ginsberg vs. New York,390 U.S. 629 e. Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362 [City Mayor Bagatsing could not just order the confiscation of copies of Pinoy Playboy because he considers the same as “obscene magazine” even without a search warrant. That will make him the complainant, prosecutor and judge rolled into one. He must: i. Secure a copy of the alleged obscene publication; ii. Apply for a search warrant; iii. Convince the court that it is obscene; and iv. If the court issues a search warrant, that is the only time that he could go to the sidewalks and confiscate the said magazine. • Freedom of assembly and to petition the government redress of grievances

for

• INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MAYOR ATIENZA, G,R. No. 175241, February 24, 2010 The act of the mayor in denying the application for a rally permit by the IBP at the foot of Mendiola Bridge on June 22, 2006 from 230 pm to 530 pm and instead allow them to hold said rally at the Plaza Miranda is unconstitutional. It violates the right to freedom of expression and public assembly. This is so because under Section 6 [e] of BP 880 or the Public Assembly Act of 1985 which provides that if the Mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit, HE SHALL IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE APPLICANT WHO MUST BE HEARD ON THE MATTER. The opportunity to be heard precedes the action on the permit, since the applicant may directly go to court after an unfavorable action on the permit.

21

22

1-a. Gesite vs. CA, 444 SCRA 28 [Concerted mass actions by government officials, teachers in this case, like walkouts, mass leaves, and other work stoppage or absence from work are prohibited because it is tantamount to strike which is prohibited to government employees. 1-b. Bayan vs. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (Calibrated Preemptive Response/Maximum Tolerance Rule) 1-c. Randy David vs. Ermita, 489 SCRA 160 2. Evangelista vs. Earnshaw, 57 Phil 255 3. Primicias vs. Fuguso, 80 Phil. 71 4. De la Cruz vs. Ela, 99 Phil. 346 [Transferring the place of rally from the eastern part of the town plaza facing the Roman Catholic Church to the other end of the plaza for the Jehovah’s Witnesses to rally is valid since there is clear and present danger like what happened in the previous occasions when there were fights between the Catholics and the members of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a result of verbal attacks by the latter to the former] 7. Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553; see guidelines but note the same was amended by the Public Assembly Act and IBP vs. Atienza • Freedom from prior restraint Read: 1. Newsounds Broadcasting Network vs. Hon. Ceasar Dy, April 2, 2009 [Closure of the Bombo AM and FM stations allegedly because their building is on an agricultural land and therefore, the Mayor did not issue a Business Permit is tantamount to prior restrain. City of Cauayan shall pay the radio stations P10M in damages and P1M in attorney’s fees. 1-a. Bro. Eliseo Soriano vs. MTRCB, April 29, 2009 (Read also the dissenting opinion of Justice Antonio Carpio) [Suspension for 3 months of the program Ang Dating Daan and 3 months suspension of the host Bro. Eli Soriano is not prior restraint but subsequent punishment. “August 10, 2004 at 10 p.m. Lehitimong anak ng demonyo, sinungaling. 22

23

Gago ka talaga Michael (referring to the host of the INC’s program ang Tamang Daan) , masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba? Yung putang babae and gumagana lang duon ay ang ibaba. Kay Michael, ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba? Masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.” • The balancing-of-interest test • AYER PRODUCTION VS. JUDGE CAPULONG, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL., 160 SCRA 861 [The Dangerous Life: the 1986 EDSA People’s Power Revolution] • Lagunzad vs. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 CHAPTER VI THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION CLAUSE • Estrada vs. Escritur, 408 SCRA 1 and 492 SCRA 1 Requisites: a. Must be a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society; b. The conjugal arrangement was in conformity with their religious beliefs; c. The conjugal arrangement was with the conformity of the congregation; d. Execute Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness. NOTE: The member must not be the guilty party in the broken marriage and this arrangement is not allowed in countries where divorce is allowed. •

PEOPLE VS. LAGMAN & ZOSA, 38 O.G. 1676, refusal to join the armed forces on religious grounds is not tenable because of the mandatory requirement of Section 4, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution.

• INK vs. Gironella, 106 SCRA 1 [Gimmick] 23

24

• American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 398 • Pamil vs. Teleron, November 20, 1978 • Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope, 59 SCRA 54 [Religious belief not to join unions is superior over the collective bargaining agreement] • German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 • Gerona vs. Sec. of Education, 106 Phil. 11 [1959] • EBRALINAG VS. SUPT. OF CEBU, March 1, 1993 • ANG LADLAD [LGBT---LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL and TRANSGENDER] PARTY VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010 The Resolution of the COMELEC disallowing Ang Ladlad as a party-list for the May 10, 2010 elections on moral grounds is unconstitutional. Mixed sexual orientation is not a valid ground… Use by the COMELEC of the Bible and the Koran to disqualify Ang Ladlad is a grave violation of the non-establishment clause since there should be GOVERNMENT NEUTRALITY IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS. Further, the enumeration of “marginalized groups” as labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers and professionals IS NOT EXCLUSIVE as held in Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC) CHAPTER VII THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL

1. REV. FR. ROBERT REYES VS. CA, SEC. RAUL GONZALES, ET AL., G.R. No. 182161, December 3, 2009…Writ of amparo may not be used to justify lifting of the hold departure order since the writ applies only to forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. 1-a. FERDINAND MARCOS, ET AL. VS. HON. RAUL MANGLAPUS, ET AL., G.R. NO. 88211, September 15, 1989 and the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration dated 24

25

October 27, 1989 [Arts. 12 and 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] • Manotoc vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149 An accused facing a BAILABLE criminal case in court [RTC or SB] may travel abroad if he can: a. prove urgency of the travel; b. duration of the travel; and consent of the surety. 5. Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 CHAPTER VIII THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION NOTE: PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. GRP (MOA-AD Case) AKBAYAN VS. THOMAS AQUINO, July 16, 2008 (The JEPEPA Case) HAZEL ANTOLIN VS. ATTY. ABELARDO DOMONDON, ET AL., G.R. No. 165036, July 5, 2010 (Asking to be shown a copy of the test questions, key answers and her test booklet in the 1997 CPA Board Examinations as part of the right to information…SC directed the RTC of Manila to hear the case even if it appears to be moot and academic already having passed the 1998 CPA Board Examinations) 1. Sabio vs. Gordon, 504 SCRA 74 1-a. Valmonte vs. Belmonte, GR No. 74930, February 13, 1989 in relation to the Right to Privacy 1-b. Legaspi vs. CSC, 150 SCRA 530 1-e. Aquino-Sarmiento vs. Manuel Morato, November 13, 1991 1-f. Drilon vs. Ermita, April 20, 2006 2. Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 44 3. Bantay Republika vs. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 1 25

26

4. Baldoza vs. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14 5.Lantaco vs. Lllamas, 108 SCRA 502 6. Subido vs. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383 CHAPTER IX THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FORM AND JOIN ASSOCIATIONS 1. In re: ATTY. EDILLON, 84 SCRA 554 CHAPTER X – THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN • How about a barangay? 1. Barangay Matictic vs. Elbinias, 148 SCRA 83 • Procedure for the exercise of said power and when may a writ of possession be issued in favor of the government • BIGLANG-AWA VS. JUDGE BACALLA, 354 SCRA 562 • CITY OF ILOILO VS. JUDGE LEGASPI, 444 SCRA 269 •

REPUBLIC VS. JUDGE GINGOYON, 478 SCRA 474 [RA NO. 8974 APPLIES TO NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS, NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, AND BUILD OPERATE TRANSFER PROJECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT]

•

REPUBLIC VS. HOLY TRINITY, April 14, 2008 [EXPANSION OF THE NLEX COVERED BY THE GINGOYON DOCTRINE. THE INTERESTS SHALL INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE LANDOWNER]

26

27

•

However, if the expropriated land will not be used for that in which it was intended, the landowner may ask for its reversion. MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VS. LOZADA, JR., ET AL., G.R. No. 176625, February 25, 2010 Taking of private property through expropriation is always subject to the condition that the property be devoted to the specific purpose for which it was taken. Corollarily, if the particular purpose or intent was abandoned, then the former owners if they desire, may seek the reversion of their property by [1] returning the amount of just compensation received [2] plus legal interest [3] plus necessary expenses incurred in maintaining the lot as well as the [4] pecuniary value of their services in managing it to the extent that the landowner will be benefited thereby. When the Lahug Airport in Cebu City was no longer in operation, said lands intended for its expansion can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was intended. BERKENKOTTER VS. CA, December 14, 1992 Manotok vs. CA, May 21,1987 NAPOOCOR VS. BERNAL, G.R. No. 180979, December 15, 2010 The Commissioner’s Report to the Couret on the just compensation when not based on documents like zonal valuation of the BIR but only the alleged value of adjacent properties without supporting sworn statements is not valid for being hearsay. The court should not rely on it. CITY OF ILOILO VS. JUDGE SESANA, G.R. NO. 168967, February 12, 2010 No payment for 25 years, that is a gross violation of the right of the landowner. Liable for interest.

27

28

Note: There are 2 phases of expropriation. Decision allowing or denying expropriation; and 2nd, determination of just compensation. • Requisite of "taking" in eminent domain cases Read: 1. Rep. vs. Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336 Requisites: 1. The expropriator must enter the property; 2. The entrance must not be just for a momentary period; 3. the entry must be under a warrant or color of title; 4. the property must be devoted for public use; and 5. the owner must be ousted from the beneficial use of his land. 1. City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil.349 2. De Knecht vs. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660 3. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CRISTINA DE KNECHT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 87335, February 12, 1989 CHAPTER XI THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE 1. Read: 1. Kabiling, et al., vs. NHA, December 18,l987 2. Clements vs. Nolting, 42 Phil. 702 3. Co vs. PNB, 114 SCRA 842 4. Lozano vs. Martinez,146 SCRA 323 5. Rutter vs. Esteban,93 Phil. 68 6. Ilusorio vs. CAR, 17 SCRA 25 7. Ortigas vs. Feati Bank, 94 SCRA 533 8. Ganzon vs. Insierto, 123 SCRA 713 CHAPTER XII 28

29

RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION •

PEOPLE VS. MAHINAY, February 1, 1999 [11 rights of the suspect under custodial investigation which expanded the Miranda Warning]

LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010 (ROLANDO ABDILLA CASE) Even if the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence if there are other evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, still, the accused may be convicted. 1-a. Requisites of a valid extrajudicial confession: • PEOPLE VS. TUNIACO, G.R. No. 185710, January 10, 2010 1. The confession must be voluntary; 2. The confession must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; 3. The confession must be express; and 4. The confession must be in writing and signed by the suspect…and the counsel. •

PEOPLE VS. FELIXMINIA, March 20, 2002 [Even if the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible but there is enough circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused may still be convicted]

•

P. VS. GALIT, 135 SCRA 465 [SINCE THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION (obtained through force and violence) WHICH IS INADMISSIBLE is the only evidence against the accused, even though it speaks of gospel truth, then he should be acquitted]

•

PEOPLE VS. SAMOLDE, 336 SCRA 32 and PEOPLE VS. CABILES, 284 SCRA 199; PEOPLE VS. TAN, 286 SCRA 207 [A suspect’s confession, whether verbal or in writing, when taken without the 29

30

assistance of counsel, without a valid waiver of such assistance, regardless of the absence of coercion, or the fact that it was voluntarily given, IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, EVEN IF THE APPELLANT’;S CONFESSION WERE GOSPEL TRUTH. Since the lawyer who assisted them at the Police Station is a PAO Lawyer who was already inside the Police Station when the accused was brought in, and ATTY. BESINGA IS NOT BEHOLDEN TO THE POLICE, the confession is admissible. • PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO LAUGA, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010 Confession made to the BANTAY BAYAN without being informed of his rights nor with the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence. The Expanded Miranda Doctrine is not applicable. Bantay Bayan “is a group of male residents in the barangay organized for the purpose of keeping peace in the community which is an accredited auxiliary of the PNP. Since it is sanctioned by the local government, any inquiry it makes has the color of a staterelated function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided under Art. III Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned. • PEOPLE VS. VILLARINO, G.R. No. 185012, March 15, 2010 Voluntary and spontaneous confession of a suspect who was arrested in connection with a crime, to a member of the PNP guarding him with offer of financial reward to the officer if he would throw the “sando” or shirt which is evidence against him into the sea is admissible as evidence even if there is no counsel nor not being informed of his rights. 1-b. When there is no need to inform the accused/suspect of his rights.

30

31

•

PEOPLE VS. TAMPUS, MARCH 28, 1980 [New Bilibib confession after killing a member of the other gang therein]

•

P VS. TAYLARAN, 108 SCRA 373 [“I killed my motherin-law since she is a ‘barang’” is admissible because he uttered it to the police when he voluntarily surrendered] 1. PEOPLE VS. JUDGE RUBEN C. AYSON, RTC 6, BAGUIO CITY, 175 SCRA 216 (Investigator is a private person like in the Philippine Airlines, so it does not apply to administrative investigations) 2. KIMPO VS. CA, 232 SCRA 53 [Confession or investigation by a private individual] 3. PEOPLE VS. ORDONO, 334 SCRA 673 [Radio announcer] 4. PEOPLE VS. ZUELA, 323 SCRA 589; PEOPLE VS. ANDAM [Before the Mayor, with TV coverage] 5. PEOPLE VS. ENDINO, 353 SCRA 307 [Videotaped interview with newsmen] 6. PEOPLE VS. JOSE TING LAN UY, JR., 475 SCRA 248 [The sworn statement or extrajudicial admission used in convicting him was given to a personnel of the National Power Corporation who investigated him is admissible]

2. Guidelines for police investigation: when it is deemed to have started Read: Escobedo vs. Illinois, 378 US 478 Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 P. vs. Duero, 104 SCRA 379

31

32

PEOPLE VS. BARIQUIT, 341 SCRA 600 [Custodial investigation begins when a person is taken into custody for the commission of a crime. THE PLACE OF INTERROGATION IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BUT THE TONE AND MANNER OF QUESTIONING BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES. So even while the policemen and the suspect are just walking in the highway towards the police station, there is already custodial investigation in this case as a result of the questions asked of the suspect] 1-a. People vs. Marcos Jimenez, Dec. 10, 1991 1-c. People vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 • When shall the constitutional rights of the accused as mentioned above demandable? During police line-up? 1. P vs. Usman Hassan, 157 SCRA 261 2. Gamboa vs. Judge Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 1 3. DE LA TORRE VS. CA, 294 SCRA 196 4. PEOPLE VS. HATTON 4. Waiver of the right to counsel/exceptions/requisites Read: 1. THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, 57 SCRA 481 PEOPLE VS. PATUNGAN, 354 SCRA 413 [The suspect was under coercive and uncounselled investigation by the police without a lawyer for 2 and a half days. Then he was brought to the IBP for the signing of his extrajudicial confession. The mere presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance of the constitutional requirement of assistance of counsel. The assistance must be effective, vigilant and independent. A lawyer who could barely hear the investigation going on while working on another case hardly satisfies the minimum requirement of an effective assistance of counsel.

32

33

PEOPLE VS. OBRERO, 332 SCRA 190 [Assistance of Atty. De Los Reyes, the Station Commander of the WPD to the accused while being investigated by the subordinates of Atty. De los Reyes is not in accordance with the Constitution. The position of said lawyer is adverse to the suspect] PEOPLE VS. JEREZ, 285 SCRA 393 [However, a lawyer provided by the investigators to the suspect during custodial investigation is deemed engaged by the accused WHERE HE NEVER RAISED ANY OBJECTION AGAINST THE FORMER’S APPOINTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THE ACCUSED THEREAFTER SUBSCRIBES TO THE VERACITY OF HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE FISCAL. PEOPLE VS. REYES, G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009 [PAOCTF of Col. Cesar Mancao] [Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond Yao were strangled to death after they were kidnapped though the parents agreed to the P5M ransom. When arrested, the suspects were provided by the PAOCTF Investigators ATTY. UMINGA and ATTY. ROUS to assist them. Both lawyers are lawyers of PAOCTF. They informed them of their rights and assisted them during the entire time of the investigation. The SC said the confessions are admissible. This is so because a confession is admissible when: a. where the accused failed to present credible evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on their persons; b. where they failed to complain to the officers who administered the oaths; c. where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment; d. where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies; and e. where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim. (People vs. PIA, 229 Phil. 577 [1986] The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him; but rather, it 33

34

was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion on the accused to admit something else. THE COUNSEL SHOULD NEVER PREVENT AN ACCUSED FROM FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY TELLING THE TRUTH. (PEOPLE VS. BASE, 385 Phil. 803 [2000] PEOPLE VS. MARCOS JIMENEZ, G.R. No. 82604, December 10, 1991 [The lawyer who assists the suspect under custodial investigation should be the latter’s choice and not merely foisted on him by the police. ALSO, THE LAWYER SHALL BE PRESENT TO ASSIST HIM FROM THE FIRST QUESTION ASKED OF HIM] PEOPLE VS. JUANERIO, 267 SCRA 608 [Assisted by a lawyer applying at the NBI, not valid confession] Could the Fiscal also represent the accused during custodial investigation to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution that the accused is assisted by counsel? P. vs. Matos-Viduaya, September 11, 1990 CHAPTER XIII THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL Section 13 Is bail available in extradition cases? 1. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS. JUDGE LANTION, 322 SCRA 160 2. US GOVERNMENT VS. JUDGE PURGANAN & MARK JIMENEZ, 389 SCRA 623 [No right to bail in an extradition case since it is not criminal and nature] 3. RODRIGUEZ VS. PRESIDING JUDGE, 483 SCRA 290 4. GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG VS. JUDGE OLALIA, JR., 521 SCRA 470 [A prospective extraditee may be allowed on bail if he can prove by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that he is not a flight risk and that he is ready and willing to comply with the 34

35

processes of the extradition court. A clear and convincing evidence is an evidence greater than mere preponderance of evidence but below proof beyond reasonable doubt] Is bail by “recognizance” allowed after conviction by final judgment? ATTY. ADALIM-WHITE VS. JUDGE BAGTAS, 475 SCRA 175 2. Ignacio vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38[Purely cash bond, not allowed] 3. Marcos vs. Cruz, 67 and 70 Phil. 4. Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 [Factors to consider in granting bail] 5. P vs. IAC, January 10,1987, 147 SCRA 219 6. Manotoc vs. CA, May 30,1986 7. Garcia vs. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 8. P vs. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 [Bail application should be decided only after the prosecution has presented all its intended witnesses in a bail hearing] 9. PEOPLE VS. BUCALON, G. R. No. 176933, October 2, 2009 After the prosecution rested its case in a Murder case, respondent, with leave of court, filed a Demurrer to Evidence . The Demurrer was denied by Judge Buyser by Order of March 14, 2002, because: The evidence thus presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but only for the crime of homicide and not for murder, as charged. This is because the qualifying circumstance of treachery alleged in the information cannot be appreciated in this case. The defense thereupon presented evidence in the course of which respondent filed a Motion to Fix Amount of Bail Bond contending that in view of Judge Buyser’s ruling that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove only Homicide, and as such, he could be released on bail. Held: 35

36

The Demurrer to Evidence is tantamount to an application for bail. He could be granted bail. CHAPTER XIV DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

1. P vs. Terrobias, 103 SCRA 321 [One week trial and conviction does not violate the right to due process] •

PEOPLE VS. MALBOG, October 12, 2000 , 342 SCRA 620 [The complainant testified that the accused ejaculated between her thighs; that she did not try to escape when the accused was out for 45 minutes; did not try to shout for help; waited for the accused to return; Medico Legal findings that no external injuries in the body of the complainant and there was no spermatozoa on her vagina, coupled with the fact that there was no injuries on her private organ but healed lacerations which happened more than one week before the alleged rape negates the protestation of the complainant that she was raped. If ever there was sexual intercourse, the evidence is utterly wanting to show that the same was against her will. “Mas vale que queden castigar diez presuntos, que se castigue uno inocente.”

•

ERIBERTO MASANGKAY VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 164443, June 18, 2010 Every criminal conviction must draw its strength from the prosecution’s evidence. The evidence must be such that the constitutional presumption of innocence is overthrown and guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutorial burden is not met when the circumstances can yield to different inferences. Such equivocation betrays a lack of moral certainty to support a judgment of conviction.

36

37

•

MALILLIN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008 (Search of shabu inside the room was conducted with warrant. Several policemen with witnesses participated. When the witnesses have left the room since no shabu was found, one policeman who was left suddenly said he found a shabu. Presumption of innocence applicable to support acquittal)

•

PEOPLE VS. DELOS SANTOS, 355 SCRA 415 (ENDURANCE RUN FROM Camp Danglay in Fortich, Bukidnon, to CAMP ALAGAR CDO THE PNP TRAINEES WERE BUMPED BY THE ACCUSED--12 DIED, 11 SERIOUSLY INJURED AND 10 MINOR INJURIES---Murder? If susceptible to two interpretations, it should only be reckless imprudence resulting to homicide)

•

PEOPLE VS. SATURNO, 355 SCRA 578 (IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, THE WIFE OF ONE OF THE 4 VICTIMS TOLD THE INVESTIGATORS SHE did could not identify the assailant. Later on she said it is the accused. Presumption of innocence dictates that he should be acquitted)

•

P vs. Poblador, 76 SCRA 634 [ The accused, a 24 – year old bachelor, could not have embarrassed himself by having sexual intercourse with an old woman of 45 years of age, with 5 children, the youngest is 5 months old, much less do it in the presence of her husband

•

Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392 [Presumption of innocence makes a law prohibiting all those who are charged of crimes of rebellion and other political crimes from running for public office UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

• PEOPLE VS. JAIME JOSE, ET AL., 37 SCRA 450 3. Presumption of innocence in the order of trial Read:

37

38

1. Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322 [Reverse Order of trial not allowed] 2. Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan, July 10, l986 [Reverse order of trial is valid if the accused consents thereto] 3.Sec. 3(3), Rule 119 , 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure , as amended. 3-a. Presumption of innocence in “drugs” cases/Obligations of arresting officers/Chain of Evidence Rule under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 Read: PEOPLE VS. PAJARIN, G.R. NO. 190460, January 12, 2011 If the alleged shabu was not marked by the arresting officers after the buy-bust operation at the place where the arrest was made but marked by the investigator when it was turned over in the police station, there is violation of Section 21 and accused shall be acquitted. • •

PEOPLE VS. LORENZO, GR NO. 184760. April 23, 2010 (Section 21) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SAPIA ANDONGAN, G.R. No. 184595, June 29, 2010

Justice Carpio-Morales Accused was allegedly arrested in a buy-bus operation in Manila particularly in Abad Santos Avenue along Bambang Street, a street with many people at that time, at around 7:50 p.m. of June 25, 2004. She allegedly sold shabu worth P500.00 for one (1) sachet containing 0.146 grams . No other sachet of shabu was confiscated on her person though she allegedly a drug dealer. HELD: The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 was not shown to have been substantially complied with. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties could not prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 38

39

For, among other things, it is incredible for an allegedly known drug-peddler to be standing at a corner of a street at 7:50 in the evening instead of plying her trade secretly, and with only a 0.146-gram sachet worth P500.00 of prohibited drugs in her possession the value of which happens to be what a poseur-buyer wants to buy. • PEOPLE VS. RONALDO DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010 • BONDAD VS. PEOPLE, December 10, 2008 (No pictures) •

JULIUS CACAO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2020. Conflict of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on who delivered the seized evidence to the evidence custodian

•

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.TOKOHISA KIMURA and AKIRA KIZAKI, G.R. No. 130805, April 27, 2004, the Supreme Court held that said failure to mark the seized illegal drugs at the place of apprehension is fatal. It was held that: “In People vs. Laxa, the policemen composing the buybust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the alleged apprehension of the accused-appellant. One policeman admitted that he marked the seized items only after seeing them for the first time in the police headquarters.

•

ERIBERTO MASANGKAY VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 164443, June 18, 2010 Every criminal conviction must draw its strength from the prosecution’s evidence. The evidence must be such that the constitutional presumption of innocence is overthrown and guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutorial burden is not met when the circumstances can yield to different inferences. Such equivocation betrays a lack of moral certainty to support a judgment of conviction. • PEOPLE VS. OBMIRANIS, December 16, 2008 • MALLILLIN VS. PEOPLE, April 30, 2008 • PEOPLE VS. MONALYN CERVANTES, March 17, 2009 39

40

• PEOPLE VS. MARIAN CORECHE, August 14, 2009 • PEOPLE VS. PARTOZA, May 8, 2009 3-b. Effect of inconsistent testimonies of arresting/searching officers LEJANO VS. PEOPLE, DECEMBER 14, 2010 (The Hubert Webb Case) Inconsistent testimony of the prime witness results in acquittal. It is also inconsistent to common human experience. AGUSTIN VS. PEOPLE, April 30, 2008 (One witness said, 5 of them entered the room and searched. He said SPO4 Jara searched the room but when the latter testified, he said, he was outside guarding the premises) PEOPLE VS. ANGUS, August 3, 2010 The mere fact that there is evidence showing that the accused and his wife were quarreling the night before her body was found is not enough circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt for parricide. Presumption of innocence justifies his acquittal. 3-c. The equipoise rule PEOPLE VS. DE LOS SANTOS, 355 SCRA 415 PEOPLE VS. SATURNO, 355 SCRA 578 • PEOPLE VS. JOHN HILARIO, G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008 Even if the decision of conviction is already final and executory, the case may be re-opened IF THERE IS GROSS NEGLIGENCE COMMITTED BY COUNSEL THEREBY VIOLATING THE RIGHT OF THE SAID ACCUSED TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Two counts of murder with conviction, he directed his PAO Lawyer to file appeal but he failed. His Petition for Relief is granted) Requisites: 40

41

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Matter involves life, liberty or property; existence of special or compelling circumstances; merit of the case; not entirely the fault of the party; not dilatory or frivolous; other party not prejudiced.

1. HILARIO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 167756, April 8, 2008 1-a P vs. Holgado,85 Phil. 752 1-b. Delgado vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357 1-c. CONSULTA VS. PEOPLE, FEBRUARY 12, 2009 1. P vs. Cuison, 193 Phil. 296 2. PEOPLE VS. YAMBOT, 343 SCRA 20 3. PEOPLE VS. NADERA, 324 SCRA 490 (Oleby and Maricris Nadera testified with no cross-examination from the accused’s lawyer. Worse, accused did not testify) 4. PEOPLE VS. BERMAS, April 21, 1999 6. The right to be present during trial 1. Aquino vs. Military Commission, 63 SCRA 546 2. P vs. Judge, 125 SCRA 269 • The right to a speedy trial MONICO JACOB VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 162206, November 17, 2010 The delay in the trial for almost 1 and ½ years while the Ombudsman is resolving the Motion for Re-investigation may not be a valid ground to dismiss the criminal cases based on speedy trial. Further, the verbal Order of dismissal by Justice Nario as the Presiding Justice of the 4th Division is not valid since no written copy of the order signed by the other justices. No violation of the right against double jeopardy for the reinstatement of the case since there was no valid dismissal in the first place. JAIME BERNAT VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, May 20, 2004. [Submitted for decision as of August 23, 1994 but it was only about 41

42

8 years later that there was a Notice of Promulgation of the Decision. THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE DELAYS ARE OF SAID NATURE IS RELATIVE AND CANNOT BE BASED ON MERE MATHEMATICAL RECKONING OF TIME. PARTICULAR REGARD TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED] The delay must be VEXATIOUS, CAPRICIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE and this is so if the following are satisfied: a. Length of the delay; b. Reasons for the delay; c. Assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and d. Prejudiced caused by the delay. 1-e. DANTE TAN VS. PEOPLE, April 21, 2009 [It does not apply if the accused consented to the archiving of the case which lasted for several years] 2. Conde vs. Rivera, 59 Phil. 650 3. P vs. Araula, 111 SCRA 598 (Fiscal with telegram that he is sick. Dismissal not valid under speedy trial) 4. 12. Tatad vs. SB, 159 SCRA 70 5. DUTERTE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 289 SCRA 721 (February 18, 1992 submitted for Resolution by OMB and the Information was filed only on February 22, 1996. Violation) 6. ANGCHANGCO VS. OMBUDSMAN, 269 SCRA 301 (October 22, 1999 up to May 26, 2004, no case filed whether admin or criminal. Violation of speedy disposition of cases) 1.

• CAPT. WILFREDO ROQUERO VS. THE CHANCELLOR OF UP MANILA, G.R. No. 181851, March 9, 2010 No formal offer of evidence by the complainant against him for 5 years is a clear violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases. The administrative case shall be dismissed. • The right to an impartial trial 42

43

1.GACAYAN VS. PAMINTUAN, 314 SCRA, September 17, 1999 1-a. PEOPLE VS. OPIDA, June 13, 1986 [The Supreme Court held that the right of the accused to due process of law and impartial trial were violated when it was the judge who conducted the cross-examination of the accused and his witness instead of the Prosecutor coupled with his sarcastic and insulting remarks and ended with the question, “Do you want me to dictate the decision now”? The judge likewise required the accused to remove his shirt and described for the record all the tattoos found on his body. Clearly, the judge had allied himself with the prosecution] 1-b. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BENANCIO MORTERA, G.R. No. 188104, April 23, 2010 [There is no violation of the right to due process and impartial trial as a result of the comment of the Judge that “if you are not telling the truth to your own lawyer, how would I know that you are telling the truth now” as a result of his change of defense from a negative defense to self-defense in a murder case. The comment of the judge shall be considered based on the entirety of his questions and the circumstances surrounding said utterance. The accused described the clarificatory questions of the judge as “prosecutor-like conduct” and therefore, lacked the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. 2. Olaguer vs. Chief of Staff, May 22, 1987 3. Ignacio vs. Villaluz,May 5, 1979 4. P vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120 5. Dimacuha vs. Concepcion, 117 SCRA 630 • Right to a public trial 1. Garcia vs. Domingo, July 25,1973 2. P vs. Tampus, March 28,1980 • The right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation • PEOPLE VS. JERRY NAZARENO, G.R. No. 167756, April 8, 2008 43

44

The information reads “that sometime from January, 1990 up to December 6, 1998, in Barangay Codon, Municipality of San Andres, province of Catanduanes….by force, intimidation…had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent” No violation of the right to be informed since the date and time is not an integral part or element of the crime of rape. Further, the accused waived said right when he never questioned the information before he entered his plea. He should have asked for a Bill of Particulars or Moved to quash the Information. He did not. Clearly, he slumbered on his rights and awakened too late. 1-a. P vs. Crisologo, 150 SCRA 653 1-c. P vs. Resavaga, 159 SCRA 426 3. Ko Bu Lin vs. CA, 118 SCRA 573 • The right to meet witnesses face to face or the confrontation

right of

DELACRUZ VS. PAPA, December 8, 2010 The witness failed to return for cross-examination because he was sickly and never did so up to the time of his death. His testimony shall be expunged from the record. Read: 1. P vs. Valero, 112 SCRA 661 [Poisoned bread. Case vs. deaf-mute] 2. P vs. Bundalian, 117 SCRA 718 [Libel complainant already dead] 3. P vs. Seneris, 99 SCRA 92 4. Ortigas, JR. vs. Lufthansa, 64 SCRA 610 • Trial in absentia • Borja vs. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 420 • P vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163; 13. Right to secure witnesses and production of

evidence. 44

45

1. Cavili vs. Hon. Florendo, 154 SCRA 610 2. Fajardo vs. Garcia, 98 SCRA 514 CHAPTER XVI THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. PDEA, November 3, 2008 random drug testing to students in HS & College valid because it is not intended for criminal prosecution but to help the youth through early detection of drug use. RANDOMNESS AND SUSPICIONLESS. ATTY. MANUEL LASERNA, J. VS. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD, G.R. No. 158633, November 3, 2008 [Mandatory drug testing for persons charged of an offense punishable by 6 yrs. And 1 day up IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION 1. Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663 2. Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294, read including the concurring and dissenting opinions 3. Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 4. Beltran vs. Samson, 50 Phil. 570 5. Bagadiong vs. Gonzales, 94 SCRA 906 6. US vs. Tang Teng, 23 Phil. 145 7. Cabal vs. Kapunan, Jr. December 29, 1962 CHAPTER XVII THE RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE 1. Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131 2. Caunca vs. Salazar, supra CHAPTER XVIII RIGHT AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

45

46

LEO ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE [Death through lethal injection is the most humane way of implementing the Death Penalty. It is not cruel and unusual] Death Penalty was abolished: PEOPLE VS. GAVARRA, 155 SCRA 327; PEOPLE VS. MASANGKAY, 155 SCRA 113; P VS. ATENCIO, 156 SCRA 242; PEOPLE VS. INTINO, SEPT. 26, 1988; PEOPLE VS. MUNOZ, 170 SCRA 107 Death penalty not abolished for two reasons: • Sec. 19 [1] Art. III. Congress may re-impose for heinous crimes • Section 5 (2) [d] Art. VIII b. Is death as a penalty a cruel or unusual

punishment?

P vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 [It is cruel and unusual if the penalty is disproportionate to the crime committed and shocking to the conscience of the community] 2. People vs. Villanueva, 128 SCRA 488; 3. VENIEGAS VS. PEOPLE, 115 SCRA 79; 4. PEOPLE VS. CAMANO, 115 SCRA 688 1.

CHAPTER XX THE RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

IVLER VS. JUDGE PEDRO, Presiding Judge, METC 71 OF PASIG CITY, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010 After the petitioner pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries and was sentenced to censure, he could not be tried anymore of the 2nd case of reckless imprudence 46

47

resulting to homicide and damage to property which arose from the same act. Double jeopardy has set in. LEJANO VS. PEOPLE, January 18, 2011 and PEOPLE VS. HUBERT WEBB ET AL. After the acquittal of the accused by the SC on December 14, 2010, double jeopardy has set in and no motion for reconsideration may be entertained. MONICO JACOB VS. SB, November 17, 2010 Since the dismissal based on speedy trial was not upheld, then the invocation of double jeopardy is unavailing. When the act is punished by both a law and an ORDINANCE: PEOPLE VS. JUDGE RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292 DAYAP BS. SENDIONG, JANUARY 29, 2009 [Acquittal through demurrer to evidence is final and could not be appealed. Double jeopardy has set in but civil aspect may still proceed if there is no express finding that accused has not committed the crime] PEOPLE VS. DOMINGO, G.R. No. 184343, March 2, 2009 [If an accused of Murder was convicted of Homicide only in the RTC but appeals the same to the higher court, he could not complain of double jeopardy if the appellate court sentences him of Murder since that is the evidence found during the review of the case on Appeal] CUDIA VS. CA, 284 SCRA 173 [Petitioner was arrested of illegal possession of firearm in Mabalacat, Pampanga but it was the City Prosecutor of Angeles City who signed the information] PEOPLE VS. BALISACAN, 17 SCRA 1119 [Entered a plea of guilty to a charge of homicide but prayed for presentation of his evidence for incomplete self-defense. He was acquitted instead. No double jeopardy since there was a valid plea] 1.

PEOPLE VS. GALANO, 75 SCRA 193 [Charged of estafa in Batangas. During trial, it was shown that the elements of the 47

48

crime actually took place in Manila. No double jeopardy if a new information will be filed in Manila] 8. P vs. Judge Hernando, 108 SCRA 121 9. Esmena vs. Judge Pogoy, 102 SCRA 861 10. Mazo vs. Mun. Court, 113 SCRA 217 [Demurrer to Evidence] 11. Andres vs. Cacdac, 113 SCRA 217 14. P vs. Fuentebella, 100 SCRA 672 15. DIONALDO VS. DACUYCUY, 108 SCRA 736 16. PEOPLE VS. BALADJAY, 17. ESMENA VS. JUDGE POGOY 18. ANDRES VS. CACDAC 19. PEOPLE VS CITY COURT OF SILAY, 154 SCRA 175 • May the government appeal a judgment of acquittal or the increase of the penalty imposed by the trial court?

for

PEOPLE VS. JUDGE VELASCO, 340 SCRA 207 The government may not appeal or file a Petition for Certiorari questioning the judgment of acquittal. Double jeopardy has set in. 6. The "Supervening Fact Doctrine." Read: 1. 76 SCRA 469 2. P vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260 3. P vs. Villasis, 46 O.G. 268 4. Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766 5. P vs. Buling, 107 Phil. 712 5-a. P vs. Adil, 76 SCRA 462 5-b. P. vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601 6. P vs. City Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637 7. Read also Sec. 7, Rule 117, 2000 Rules on Procedure

Criminal

CHAPTER XXI RIGHT AGAINST EX-POST FACTO LAW, BILL OF ATTAINER, ETC. 48

49

Ex post facto law applies only to penal laws. LACSON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, January 20, 1999 a. which makes an act criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when committed, and punishes such action; b. which aggravates the crime or makes it greater when it was committed; c. when it changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the penalty when the crime was committed; d. which alters the legal rules of evidence and now receives less or different testimony to convict the accused; e. a law that alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage, in relation to an offense; f. which assumes or regulates civil rights and remedies but in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; and g. deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or proclamation of amnesty.

49