CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER DEAN SEDFREY CANDELARIA CROMBONDS 2011-2012

1
CASE LAW MEMORY AID

BILL OF RIGHTS
I. Section 1

a. Life, Liberty or Property
1. Mijares v. Ranada Alien Tort Act
2. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. PBM Co. hierarchy of
rights

b. Due Process
3. Tupas v. CA late petition

i. Procedural Due Process
4. Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca jurisdiction over
person
5. State Prosecutors v. Muro 11 complaints; judicial
notice
6. People v. Teehankee media coverage
7. Ang Tibay v. CIR administrative proceedings
8. Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia extradition
proceedings
9. ADMU v. Capulong academic discipline
10. Lao Gi v. CA deportation
11. Maceda v. ERB fixing of rates
12. Globe Telecom v. NTC substantial
evidence from prior ruling
13. Corona v. UHPAP profession
14. People v. Nazario manager; void for
vagueness
15. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
combination, series; vagueness or
overbreadth
16. Central Bank v. CA bank foreclosures;
TSB
17. ABAKADA v. Ermita E-VAT law
18. British American Tobacco v. Camacho expensive tax
category




ii. Substantive Due Process (Police Power)
19. US v. Toribio carabao slaughterhouse
20. Churchill v. Rafferty billboards as nuisance
21. Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City of Manila curb immorality; license fees
22. People v. Fajardo view of the plaza
23. Ynot v. Intermediate Apellate Court transport of carabao and carabeef
24. Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan movie theatres
25. New Agrix v. Philippine Veterans Bank dissolved mortgages
26. ACCFA v. CUGCO fringe benefits; CBA
27. Agustin v. Edu early warning devices
28. Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC illegal dismissal; writ
of execution
29. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. local
ordinance against PAGCOR
30. Bennis v. Michigan confiscated car
31. Cruzan v. Missouri Health Dept. informed
consent; euthanasia
32. JMM Promotion and Management v. CA
OFW deployment ban
33. Dans v. People Imelda Marcos right to counsel
34. Ople v. Torres national ID system
35. Montesclaros v. COMELEC SK elections
36. Tan v. People trucks with lumber
37. Cruz v. Flavier IPRA; Regalian doctrine
38. Smith Kline v. CA pharmaceutical patent
39. People v. De la Piedra illegal recruitment
40. Pilipinas Kao v. CA unpublished manual of operations
41. PHILSA v. DOLE Secretary unpublished illegal exaction memo
42. Chavez v. Romulo right to bear arms
43. GSIS v. Montesclaros survivorship pension claim
44. Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan corruption; no preliminary
investigation
45. Chavez v. COMELEC candidate endorsements
46. Beltran v. Secretary of Health commercial blood banks
47. Ong v. Sandiganbayan ill-gotten wealth ; spouse
48. Lucena v. JAC Liner local government; exclusive franchise
49. City of Manila v. Laguio sauna, massageparlors, night clubs
Judicial: CJ-OJ
1. Court with judicial power
2. Jurisdiction over person or
property
3. Opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment through lawful
hearing
Judicial Notice: CAJ
1. Common knowledge
2. Authoritatively settled
3. Known within limits of
jurisdiction
Administrative: HEDSBIK
1. Hearing
2. Consider evidence
3. Decision must be supported
4. Substantial evidence
5. Decision based on evidence
6. Independent consideration
7. Know issues and reason for
decision
School: IA-IAC
1. Inform student of charge
2. Right to answer the charges
3. Informed of evidence
4. Adduce evidence
5. Body must consider evidence

Deportation: SP-RP
1. Specify charge against alien
2. Preliminary investigation
3. Rules of Criminal Procedure
4. Private prosecutors not
allowed

Police Power: SM
1. Lawful subject
2. Lawful means

Local Ordinance: CUPP-GU
1. Must not contravene law
2. Must not be unfair
3. Must not be partial
4. Must not prohibit trade
5. Must be general and
consistent with public policy
6. Must not be unreasonable

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER DEAN SEDFREY CANDELARIA CROMBONDS 2011-2012

2
50. Bayan v. Ermita no permit no rally
51. KMU v. NEDA uniform government ID system
52. Mirasol v. DPWH motorcycle prohibition
53. Parreno v. COA pension ban for US citizen
54. Esponcillia v. Bagong Tanyag Homeowners Assoc. member beneficiaries
55. BF Homeowners v. Paranaque Mayor reclassified into commercial zones
56. St. Lukes Employees v. NLRC regulation of profession
57. Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD tax credits and tax deductions
58. Perez v. LPG Refillers Association penalties on per cylinder basis
59. MMDA v. Viron no police power
60. Secretary of DND v. Manalo writ of amparo
61. SJS v. DDB mandatory drug testing
62. SJS v. Atienza oil depots
63. SEC v. Interport show cause order
64. BANAT v. COMELEC fixed salary for poll
watchers
65. People v. Siton vagrancy
66. White Light Corp. v. City of Manila wash-up
rates; third party standing
67. CREBA v. Romulo creditable withholding
tax, minimum corporate income tax
68. Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council tagging; as-applied
doctrine
69. Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo writ of habeas data
70. Meralco v. Lim threatening letters; habeas data

c. Equal Protection Clause
1. People v. Cayat non-Christian possession of
liquor
2. Ichong v. Hernandez non-citizens in retail trade
3. Villegas v. Hiu Choing Tsai Pao Ho non-Filipino
residents employment permit
4. Dumlao v. COMELEC retired elective official
5. Goesart v. Cleary female bartenders
6. Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City only sugar
company
7. BASCO v. PAGCOR legalized gambling
8. Republic v. Sandiganbayan De Venecias deed of assignment
9. Binay v. Domingo burial assistance for the poor
10. National Police Commission v. De Guzman retirement at age 56
11. Tolentino v. Finance Sec. expanded value added tax law
12. Himagan v. People accused PNP immediate suspension
13. Almonte v. Vasquez Ombudsman can choose complaint
14. Lim v. Pacquing revoked jai-alai franchises
15. Maritime Planning v. POEA land-based and sea-based workers
16. Regala v. Sandiganbayan attorney-client privilege
17. Sison v. Ancheta higher tax rates on profession
18. Marcos v. CA person with pending criminal charge
19. Nolasco v. COMELEC power of COMELEC
20. Phil. Judges v. Prado judiciary franking privilege
21. Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan mayors discretion in business permits
22. GMC v. Torres non-resident alien employment permit
23. Segovia v. Sandiganbayan Ombusman may impose suspension
24. Chavez v. PCGG immunity of witness in ill-gotten wealth case
25. Telebap v. COMELEC free airtime for COMELEC
26. Tiu v. CA special privileges for Subic Naval Base
27. Lacson v. Exec. Sec. jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
28. Soriano v. CA probation and financial capability
29. Aguinaldo v. COMELEC incumbent official considered resigned
30. Loong v. COMELEC special election for governor
31. International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing salary distinction
for foreign-hires
32. De Guzman v. COMELEC assign election officers to other station
33. BAYAN v. Zamora VFA
34. People v. Mercado death penalty
35. People v. Jalosjos elective official not exempted
36. Lopez v. CA Ombudsman act
37. PHILRECA v. DILG Sec. LGC withdraws certain tax exemptions
38. Farinas v. Exec. Sec. appointive officials considered resigned
39. Dimaporo v. HRET congressional candidate and proclaimed congressional
candidate
40. GSIS v. Montesclaros married pensioners
41. In Re: Request of Court Administrators additional compensation for judges,
justices, etc.
42. Central Bank Employees v. BSP classification based on salary
43. Mirasol v. DPWH motorcycle prohibition
44. In Re: Request of ACA additional compensation for CTA judges and MTC
judges
45. Dimayuga v. Ombudsman Ombudsman may conduct preliminary
investigation
3
rd
-Party Standing: ICH
1. Injury-in-fact on litigant
2. Close relation to the party
3. Hindrance to the third party

Valid Classification: SGLA
1. Substantial distinction
2. Germane to the purpose of
law
3. Not limited to existing
conditions only
4. Must apply equally to all
members of the same
class.
Standing: ITR
1. Actual or threatened injury
2. Traceable to challenged action
3. Injury is likely to be redressed
by favourable action

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER DEAN SEDFREY CANDELARIA CROMBONDS 2011-2012

3
46. Yrasuegi v. PAL obese cabin attendants
47. SJS v. Atienza oil depots
48. Gobenciong v. CA Ombudsman may impose preventive suspension
49. MIAA v. Olongapo Maintenance negotiated contract against public bidding
50. Nicolas v. Romulo VFA military member
51. Serrano v. Galant Maritime Services OFW same as local worker
52. People v. Siton vagrants
53. League of Cities v. COMELEC cities enumerated in cityhood laws
54. Quinto v. COMELEC appointive official considered resigned
55. CREBA v. Romulo CWT, MCIT
56. NPC v. Pinatubo manufacturers and processors of aluminium steel
57. Biraogo v. PTC truth commission

II. Section 2: Search and Seizure

a. What is a search
1. Valmonte v. De Villa checkpoint
2. SJS v. DDB mandatory drug testing

b. Requisites of a valid warrant
3. People v. Veloso John Doe warrant; best
description personae
4. Alvarez v. CFI search made at night
5. Stonehill v. Diokno exclusionary rule; general
warrants
6. Central Bank v. Morfe not isolated
transactions but general pattern
7. Bache & Co. v. Ruiz depositions made by
deputy clerk
8. Placer v. Villanueva judge must be satisfied with fiscals report
9. Burgos v. AFP Chief of Staff closure of publishing house for subversion;
general
10. Corro v. Lising Philippine Times inciting to sedition; general
11. Salazar v. Achacoso POEA administrator cannot issue search warrant
12. Soliven v. Makasiar judge not required to personally examine
13. Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa warrant of exclusion;
deportation
14. Lim Sr. V. Judge Felix judge used certification as sole basis
15. Silva v. Presiding Judge return of personal property not covered by
warrant
16. Allado v. Diokno murder and kidnapping; corpus delicti not proven
17. Webb v. De Leon rape with homicide; evidence need not be conclusive
18. Roberts v. CA Pepsi; reinvestigation to determine probable cause
19. 20
th
Century Fox v. CA master tapes not needed
20. People v. Francisco searched the wrong address
21. Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp copyright infringement; partially defective
warrant
22. Al-Ghoul v. CA searched places not in warrant; partially defective
23. Uy v. BIR superceding warrant
24. Vallejo v. CA more than one offense; falsification and graft
25. Material Distributors v. Natividad production of documents material in
separate case
26. Oklahoma Press Publishing v. Walling corporations do not enjoy all rights
of individuals
27. Camara v. Municipal Court housing inspector

c. Warrantless searches
28. MHP Garments v. CA boy scout apparel;
enough time to apply
29. People v. CFI of Rizal anti-smuggling;
customs; moving vehicle
30. Roan v. Gonzales custodia legis

i. Incidental to lawful arrest
31. Nolasco v. Pano limited to the
person of accused
ii. Moving vehicle
32. Carrol v. US warrant not practicable; can easily be moved out of
locality
33. People v. Lo Ho Wing drug syndicate from Hong Kong
34. People v. Malmstedt bus to Sagada; hashish
35. Mustang Lumber v. CA truck with lumber
36. Asuncion v. CA shabu in vehicle
iii. Plain view
37. Harris v. US officer who has the right to be in position
38. Coolidge v. US discovery must be advertent
iv. Customs
39. Papa v. Mago Bureau of Customs may commission police
v. Waiver
40. Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs manicurist allowed search
Valid Warrant: PPEP
1. Probable cause
2. Personally determined by a
judge
3. Examination upon oath or
affirmation of complainant
and witnesses
4. Particularly describing the
place to be searched or
persons to be seized

Warrantless Searches:
IMP-C-WES
1. Incidental to an arrest
2. Moving vehicles
3. Plain view
4. Customs
5. Waiver
6. Exigent circumstances
7. Stop-and-frisk

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER DEAN SEDFREY CANDELARIA CROMBONDS 2011-2012

4
vi. Exigent circumstance
41. People v. De Gracia attempts to overthrow Aquino
administration
vii. Stop-and-frisk
42. Aniag Jr. v. COMELEC return gun to Batasan
43. Malact v. CA Muslim men with fast moving eyes
44. People v. Canton airport search

d. Arrests with Warrant
45. Amarga v. Abbas both search and arrest warrants require probable cause
46. Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago pedophilia; CID

e. Warrantless arrests
47. People v. Aminnudin disembarking from a
ship
48. People v. Burgos arrested while plowing
field; seditious materials
49. Umil v. Ramos continuing crime
50. Go. CA arrested 6 days after
51. People v. Mengote looking side to side
52. Manalili v. CA red-eyes, swaying side to side


III. Section 3: Privacy of Correspondence

a. Exclusionary Rule
1. Salcedo-Ortanez v. Ca wiretaps
2. Zulueta v. CA destroyed cabinets in clinic
3. People v. Marti search by private entity
4. KMU v. NEDA uniform government ID system

b. Waiver under Sec. 2 & 3
5. People v. Damaso waiver is personal
6. Spouses Veroy v. Layague limited to search of person not materials


IV. Section 4: Freedom of Speech, of Expression and of the Press
a. Prior Restraint
1. Near v. Minnesota malicious articles
published against officials
2. Freedman v. Maryland theatre; judicial determination
3. NY Times v. USA top secret information
4. Iglesia ni Kristo v. CA attacks on other religion
5. David v. Arroyo state of emergency
6. Chavez v. Gonzales warnings on release of
Hello-Garci tapes
7. Newsounds v. Dy radio station closed due to
content-based restraint

b. Subsequent Punishment
8. People v. Perez seditious speech; dangerous tendency rule
9. Dennis v. US law punishing advocacy for overthrow of the government
10. Gonzales v. COMELEC prohibit too early nomination of candidates
11. EBC v. Dans guidelines for courts and quasi-administrative tribunals
12. Ayer v. Capulong Enrile is a public figure; no clear and present danger of
violation of right to privacy
13. Roxas v. de Zuzuarregui contemptuous remarks against SC

c. Speech and Electoral Process
14. Sanidad v. COMELEC no candidates in
plebiscite
15. National Press Club v. COMELEC prohibit
sale/donation of print spacefor campaign;
except to COMELEC for equal allocation
16. Adiong v. COMELEC prohibited posting
election propaganda on private property
17. Osmena v. COMELEC re-examined NPC v.
COMELEC; OBrien test
18. ABS-CBN v. COMELEC exit polls
19. SWS v. COMELEC prohibition on publishing surveys before election

d. Commercial Speech
20. Rubin v. Coors Brewing liquor labels will
promote strength wars
21. Cincinnati v, Discovery Network news racks;
safety and aesthetic goals
22. City of Ladue v. Gilleo signage in front of
house.


Warrantless Arrests: PPP
1. In his presence, person
committed, actually
committed, will commit an
offense
2. Offense has been committed
and he has personal
knowledge
3. Prisoner who has escaped

2 Kinds of Prior Restraint:
1. Content-neutral
2. Content-based

Tests to Determine Validity
of Restraint: BCD
1. Dangerous tendency doctrine
2. Balancing of interests test
3. Clear and present danger rule

Content-Neutral Regulations
(OBrien Test): P-SUE
1. Within constitutional power of
the government
2. Furthers substantial
government interest which is
3. Unrelated to suppression of
free expression
4. Restriction no greater than
essential
Tests to Determine Validity
of Commercial Speech
Suppression: LSAN
1.Lawful activity is not
misleading
2. Substantial govt. interest
3. Advances govt. interest
4. Necessary to serve interest

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER DEAN SEDFREY CANDELARIA CROMBONDS 2011-2012

5
e. Libel
23. Policarpio v. Manila Times published wrong things about proceedings;
protected if true, faith and in good faith
24. Lopez v. CA hoax of the year
25. New York Times v. Sullivan actual malice; public official
26. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc. nudist magazines
27. Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. alleged that lawyer framed accused; private
person
28. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell liquor ad; first time parody of minister
29. In re: Jurado alleged corruption in the judiciary

f. Obscenity
30. Miller v. California mailing books and
brochures of adult material
31. Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak Kapit sa
Patalim movie

g. Assembly and Petition
32. Bayan v. Ermita no permit no rally;
Calibrated Preemptive Response

V. Section 5: Religion

a. Non-establishment of Religion
1. Aglipay v. Ruiz postage stamps; incidental benefit
2. School District v. Schempp 10 Bible verses, morning prayers
3. Board of Education v. Allen lend textbooks to all schools; not for religious use
4. Lemon v. Kurtzman supplement salaries; aided
religious objectives
5. Tilton v. Richardson construction grants
6. County of Allegheny v. American Liberties Union
crche, menorah; government endorsement
7. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District deaf
student; religious institutions not exempt from
social welfare and services programs
8. Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette & Ku Klux
Klan cross in public forum
9. Islamic Dawah Council v. Sec. halal certification
10. Taruc v. De La Cruz excommunication

b. Free Exercise of Religion
11. Victoriano v. Elizalde closed shop agreement; INC
prohibition to join unions
12. Cantwell v. Connecticut listen to music, buy book;
prior prestrant
13. US v. Ballard Saint Germain; cannot question truth/falsity of belief
14. American Bible Society v. City of Manila bible dissemination; license fee
15. Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent flag ceremony
16. Wisconsin v. Yoder Amish; not forced to attend highschool
17. Pamil v. Teleron prohibited priest candidate for mayor of Albuquerque
18. McDaniel v. Paty Baptist minister allowed in constitutional convention
19. Goldman v. Weinberger yarmulke; military discipline
20. German v. Barangan St. Jude Chapel; rally; good faith
21. Centeno v. Villaon protection from fraudulent solicitations
22. Lee v. Weisman rabbi; school graduation
23. Church of Lukumi v. City of Hialeah animal
sacrifices; ordinance not neutral
24. Lambs Chapel v. School District film series on
family values
25. INC v. CA criticisms; clear and present danger
26. Estrada v. Escritor live-in court employee;
benevolent neutrality doctrine
27. In re: Request of Muslim Employees excused during Ramadan

VI. Section 6: Liberty of Abode
1. Villavicencio v. Lukban deported 170 prostitutes to Davao
2. Marcos v. Manglapus right to return to country
3. Marcos v. Sandiganbayan Imelda Marcos medical treatment

VII. Section 7: Right to Information and Access to Public Documents
1. Legaspi v. CSC eligibility of sanitarians
2. Sabio v. Gordon PCGG members not exempt from legislative inquiry
3. Bantay v. COMELEC list of partylist nominees
4. Neri v. Senate NBN-ZTE; executive privilege
5. Suplico v. NEDA inquiry became moot; government desisted from NBN-ZTE
6. AKBAYAN v. Aquino JPEPA; diplomatic negotiations
7. Province of North Cotabato v. GRP MOA-AD peace negotiations not exempt


Test to Determine
Obscenity:
Whether to the average person,
applying contemporary
community standards, the
dominant theme of the material
taken as a whole appeals to
prurient interest.

Lemon v. Kurtzman Test:
(SEN)
1. Secular legislative purpose
2. Neither advances nor inhibits
religion
3. No excessive entanglement
with religion

W/N Religious Expression
Violates Non-Establishment:
1. Purely private
2. Occurs in traditional or
designated public forums,
publicly announces and open
to all on equal terms

Non-neutral Laws must be:
1. Justified by compelling
government interest
2. Narrowly tailored (neither
overbroad nor to specific)

2 Aspects of Free Exercise:
1. Freedom to Believe - absolute
2. Freedom to Act may be
regulated

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER DEAN SEDFREY CANDELARIA CROMBONDS 2011-2012

6
VIII. Section 8: Right to Travel
1. Manila Public School Teachers v. Laguio public school teachers have no right to
strike
2. PADCOM v. Ortigas Center automatic membership of buyer

IX. Section 9: Eminent Domain
1. Iron and Steel Authority v. CA republic to
substitute ISA
2. Republic v. Vda. Castelvi leased by Air Force;
computed from date of taking not lease
3. US v. Causby chicken farm near airport;
navigable airspace
4. People v. Fajardo view of the plaza
5. Republic v. PLDT public utility
6. Penn Central v. New York City Grand Central;
landmark preservation
7. Sumulong v. Guerreo opportunity to be
heard
8. Philippine Columbian v. Hon. Panis housing project
9. Mactan v. Tudtud abandoned Cebu Lahug Airport project
10. City of Manila v. Estrada market;
compensation subject to review
11. Madumba v. GSIS bank bonds accepted at
face value
12. Mactan v. Urgello Lahug airport;
reconveyance; return compensation
13. De Knecht v. Bautista EDSA extension; social impact factor
14. Republic v. De Knecht EDSA extension; moot; cause disappeared
15a. Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. PARC decision stock distribution plan; date of taking
15b. Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. PARC resolution operative fact doctrine; SDP revoked

X. Section 10: Non-Impairment of Contracts
1. Home Building v. Blaisell extended mortgage redemption; emergency
2. Rutter v. Esteban obligation delayed for 8 years; not reasonable
3. Abella v. NLRC larorers not party to the contract; no impairment
4. Presley v. Bel Air hot pan de sal; commercial zone
5.Ortigas v. Feati Bank residential to commericial; police power
6. Republic v. Caguioa tax exemption of cigar and liquor in SEZ
7. Land Bank v. Republic inalienable forest; void contract

XI. Section 11: Free Access to Courts and Quasi-Judicicial Bodies

XII. Section 12: Rights of a Person Under
Investigation
1. Miranda v. Arizona Miranda Rights
2. People v. Sunga city legal officer; conflict of
interest
3. Magtoto v. Manguera prospective
application
4. Gamboa v. Cruz vagrancy; police line-up not part
of custodial investigation
5. People v. Escordial rape and robbery; no need for
counsel in line-up
6. People v. Teehankee totality of circumstances
test; out-of-court identification valid
7. Galman v. Pamaran violation of Sec. 12 rights;
inadmissible

XIII. Section 13: Right to Bail
1. Yap v. CA convicted of estafa; P5.5M bail is
excessive
2. Government of HK v. Olalia right to bail in
extradition proceedings
3. De La Camara v. Enage guidelines for determining
bail
4. Comendador v. Gen. De Villa coup attempt; bail
not granted to military personnel

XIV. Section 14: Rights of the Accused in a Criminal
Prosecution
1. Olaguer v. Military Commission military courts; no
jurisdiction
2. US v. Luling prima facie evidence of guilt;
Congress power to define
3. Dumlao v. COMELEC disqualification on the
ground of a charge
4. People v. Holgado pleaded guilty without counsel;
decision inconsistent with charge
Taking: E-MAP-O
1. Enter private property
2. Not for a momentary period
3. Under warrant of legal
authority
4. Devoted to public use
5. As to oust the owner

Judicial Review:
1. Adequacy of compensation
2. Necesity of taking
3. Public use character of taking

Expropriation by Municipal
Government: P-JOL
1. Public use
2. Just compensation
3. Valid offer
4. Legislative act (ordinance)

Miranda Rights:
1. right to remain silent
2. anything said can be used against him
3. right to have counsel present before and
during the questioning
4. right to have a "free" attorney if indigent
5. even he consents to answering without
counsel, interrogation must cease upon
request for counsel
6. inadmissible if rights are violated

Totality of Circumstance
Test: ODA-LTS
1. witness opportunity to view
the criminal
2. witness degree of attention
3. accuracy of any prior
decription
4. level of certainty of witness
5. time between crime and
identification
6. suggestiveness of procedure

Guidelines for determining
Bail: ANO-CHEAF-FB
1. Ability to give bail
2. Nature of offense
3. Penalty for offense
4. Character and reputation
5. Health
6. Evidence
7. Probability of appearing
8. Forfeiture of other bonds
9. Fugitive of justice
10.Bond for appearance

Rights of the Accused: DIHI-
SWA
1. Due process
2. Presumed Innocent
3. Heard by himself and counsel
4. Informed of nature and cause
5. Speedy, impartial, public trial
6. Meet witness face to face
7. Secure attendance of
witnesses and production of
evidence
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER DEAN SEDFREY CANDELARIA CROMBONDS 2011-2012

7
5. People v. Regala information must allege all elements of qualifying
circumstance
6. Enrile v. Salazar simple rebellion; charge
still exists but not complexed
7. Conde v. Rivera remedy is mandamus to
dismiss the case; speedy trial
8. People v. Gines reasonable delay; medical
reasons
9. Mateo Jr. Hon. Villaluz disqualified judge
10. Tampar v. Usman yamin oath is sharia court
11. Carredo v. People exception to waiver of appearance; identification by
witnesses

XV. Section 15: Habeas Corpus

XVI. Section 16: Speedy Disposition
of Cases

XVII. Section 17: Self-incrimination
1. US v. Navaro Art. 483/481; declaration of whereabouts is incriminating
2. US v. Tan Teng substances emitted; gonorrhoea
3. US v. Ong Sui Hong morphine from mouth
4. Villaflor v. Summers pregnancy test; ocular inspection is permissible provided
proper safeguards are observed and no force/violence are employed
5. Beltran v. Samson handwriting; creating evidence against oneself
6. Bermudez v. Castillo denied writing letters; perjury
7. Chavez v. CA compelled accused to take witness stand; right of prosecution
8. Cabal v. Kapunan forfeiture proceeding; graft and corruption
9. Pascual Jr. Board of Examiners revocation of license; malpractice in medicine
10. Standard Chartered v. Senate legislative inquiry; pending criminal case

XVIII. Section 18: Political Beliefs, Aspirations, Involuntary Servitude


XIX. Section 19: Excessive Punishment, Death Penalty
1. People v. Estoista imposed death for murder and illegal possession of firearms;
recommended executive clemency
2. People v. Echegaray qualified rape; death penalty not cruel/degrading/inhuman

XX. Section 20: Debt and Non-Payment of Pol Tax

XXI. Section 21: Double Jeopardy
1. People v. Ylagan serious physical injuries; waiver cannot be predicated on
silence
2. Bulaong v. People rebellion and subversion; legal jeopardy must be terminated
3. Melo v. People supervening fact; frustrated to consummated
4. People v. Buling incompetence of physician
5. People v. Tiozon illegal possession of firearms qualified by murder and murder;
not the same offense
6. People v. Relova electric wires; same act two offenses punished under national
law and ordinance
7. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan impeachment
Application of Double Jeopardy

1. Legal Jeopardy
a. upon valid
indictment/complaint
b. before court with jurisdiction
c. after arraignment
d. after plea
2. Termination
a. acquittal
b. final conviction
c. dismissal without express
consent of the accused
d. dismissal on the merits
3. Identity of offense
a. one offense is identical to
another
b. one is an attempt or
frustration of the other
c. one necessarily includes or
is included in the other

XXII. Section 22: Bill of Attainder, Ex-post Facto Laws
1. People v. Ferrer subversion; requisites of bill of
attainder
2. Virata v. Sandiganbayan PCGG charter;
substitute legislative rather than judicial
determination of guilt
3. Lacson v. Executive Secretary Koratong Baleleng case; expanded
Sandiganbayans jurisdiction; not penal statute but procedural

CITIZENSHIP
1. Valles v. COMELEC failed to give facts to warrant reversal of prior case
2. Ong Chia v. Republic did not comply with naturalization requirements
3. Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners deportation; no proof to invalidate
filiation to Filipino father
4. Tecson v. COMELEC FPJ; illegitimate son of a Filipino father; recognized
paternity
5. Co. v. Electoral Tribunal election of citizenship through positive acts
Grounds for Disqualification
of a Judge: PR-PO
1. Pecuniary interest
2. Relationship
3. Previous participation
4. Other just or valid reason

Requisites for Suspension of
Privilege of Habeas Corpus:
1. Existence of actual invasion or
rebellion
2. Public safety requires
suspension

Bill of Attainder:
1. Statute specifies persons or
groups
2. Applied retrospectively

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER DEAN SEDFREY CANDELARIA CROMBONDS 2011-2012

8
6. Yu v. Defensor-Santiago Portugese passport; express renunciation may be
deemed from acts
7. Frivaldo v. COMELEC repatriation retroacts to day of request
8. Labo Jr. v. COMELEC 3 modes of acquiring citizenship
9. Mercado v. Manzano took oath of allegiance upon filing of COC; alien
registration not renunciation
10. Tabasa v. CA who may repatriate
11. Bengson v. HRET natural-born citizenship reacquired after repatriation
12. AASJS v. Datumanong dual citizenship is not dual allegiance

SUFFRAGE
1. Romualdez v. RTC - requisites of changing
domicile
2. Macalintal v. COMELEC absentee voters exempt
from residency requirement
3. Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC absentee voters/dual
citizens need not comply with residency

SOCIAL JUSTICE
1. ISA v. Quisumbing equal pay for equal work
2. Association of Small Land Owners v. Sec. Of Agrarian Reform retention limits;
just compensation subject to review by court; compensation need not be in
money; revolutionary
3. Luz Farms v. DAR poultry and livestock
4. People v. Leachon due process in Ejectment
5. Carino v. CHR power to investigate; not
adjudicate
6. EPZA v. CHR cannot issue injunction
7. Simon Jr. v. CHR cannot cite for contempt

EDUCATION
1. DECS v. San Diego failed NMAT 3 times; regulate
admission
2. Miriam College v. CA erotic articles; academic
freedom
3. Garcia v. Faculty Admin denied admission to
Loyola School of Theology
4. University of San Carlos v. CA failed Architecture subjects; did not graduate cum
laude; academic freedom



Academic Freedom:
1. What may be taught
2. How it may be taught
3. Who may teach
4. Who may be admitted to be
taught
Due Process in Ejectment:
1. Opportunity to be heard
2. Notice
3. No lives lost
Animus Non
Revertendi/Animus
Manendi: PRA
1. Presence in the new locality
2. Intention to remain there
3. Abandon old domicile