ARTICLE III

BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise
of civil or political rights.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents
and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as
to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall
be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law.

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public
and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes
not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture
or similar practices, and their families.
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the

witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the

attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence
of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety
requires it.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment
for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading
or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall
be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment
against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a
poll tax.
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction
or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for
the same act.
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted.Constitutional Law II

Oral Examination

05 December 2012
1. a. What is police power? (Atienza)
It is the inherent power of the State of promoting the public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of liberty and property. (cruz, p 40)
b. What are the tests for a valid exercise of police power?
(1) Lawful Subject The interest of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require the exercise of the police power. This means
that the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare.
Enjoyment of private rights may be subordinated to the interest of the greater
number
(2) Lawful Means The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
Lawful objective must be pursued with a lawful method
c. Who may exercise police power?
Police power is lodged primarily in the national legislature. By virtue of a valid
delegation of legislative power, it may also be exercised by the President and
administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies on municipal levels,
including brangay (Cruz p. 46)
d. What are the characteristics/scope of police power?
Police power is considered to be the most pervasive, least limitable and most
demanding of all the three powers. Operates from womb to tomb. It may be
exercised as long as the activity or property sought to be regulated has some
relevance to the public welfare. The reach is virtually limitless. The justification
lies on the subordination of individual benefit to the interests of the greater
majority. It may not be bargained away through the medium of contract or even a
treaty. It is dynamic and must move with the moving society it is supposed to
regulate. Once exercised, it can be exercised again and again so long as
deemed necessary. (cruz pp 40-45)
e. May the powers of taxation and eminent domain be used as an implement
of police power? Give an illustration.
Yes. In Powell vs. Pennsylvania, the legislature ascertained that the margarine
industry is operating to the prejudice of the consuming public for it is not being
made in a sanitary manner and is being mistaken for butter. Instead of prohibiting
it outright, Congress imposed an exorbitant tax therefore making the industry
unprofitable. In Asscociation of Small Land Owners vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, it was held that like the power of taxation, the power of eminent domain
could be used to implement police power. The expropriation of the lands has the
expressed objective of the promotion of the welfare of the farmers which came
clearly under the police power of the State. (Cruz pp44-45)

2. a. Define the power of eminent domain.

It is the inherent power of the State to forcibly acquire the needed property in order to
devote it to the intended public use upon payment of just compensation.
b. What are the requisites for a valid exercise of the power of eminent
domain?
(1) Public use Traditionally understood, means any use directly available to the
general public as a matter of right and not merely for forbearance or
accommodation. Subject to direct enjoyment by any and all members of the
public. There will also be public use even if the expropriated property is not
actually acquired by government but is merely devoted to public services
administered by privately-owned public utilities. The reason is that such services
are demandable as a matter of right by anyone prepared to pay for them
(Telephone services). It has also been expanded to include those not directly
available to the public, but redound to their indirect advantage or benefit.
(2) Just Compensation Described as full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from private owner by the expropriator. To ascertain just compensation, the
court should first determine the actual or basic value of the property to be taken
and then add the direct consequential damages and deduct the direct
consequential benefits arising from expropriation. If consequential benefits
exceed consequential damages, these items should be disregarded altogether.
The basic value of the property should be paid in every case.
c. What is the concept of taking as an element of the power of eminent
domain?
Taking includes not only the physical dispossession of the owner. It also includes
trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment of the value of
the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was
intended.
Requisites for taking according to Republic vs. Castellvi:
(1) The expropriator must enter a private property
(2) The entry must be more than a momentary period
(3) The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
(4) The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected
(5) The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust
the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
d. May private property already being used for public purpose be
expropriated? (Doria)
Private Property already devoted to public use is still subject to expropriation,
provided this is done directly by the national legislature or under a specific grant
of authority to the delegate. A mere general authority to inquire into the necessity

of the expropriation and, finding none, refuse to allow it. (City of Manila v Chinese
Community)
e. Who determines just compensation and what constitutes just
compensation?
WHO decides just compensation?
Judge only together with the report of the three commissioners (Export
Processing Zone Authority v Dulay) / (Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court)
The reports of the 3 commissioners are merely advisory. The judge can
completely ignore it and render his own judgment. Although the reports of the
commissioners are given heavy weight by the court, this can easily be
disregarded when they apply illegal principles. (Meralco v Pineda)
WHAT Constitutes just compensation?
Actual value of the property
Consequential damages or benefits arising from expropriation (Rule 67
NRC)
Just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing
expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation (Province of
Tayabas v Perez)
Property, to which must be added the consequential damages, minus the
consequential benefits, but in no case will the consequential benefits exceed
the consequential damages
Full and fair equivalent of the property taken
Just compensation does not just mean the right amount of payment. It also
means payment within a reasonable amount of time. Late payment of just
compensation is tantamount to no compensation, because the owner is
deprived of the use of land for whatever benefit it might give him (Cosculluela
v Court of Appeals)
f.

May the courts inquire into the necessity of expropriating private property?
Yes, the court may inquire when it is pursuant to a general power to exercise the
right of eminent domain (City of Manila v Chinese Community)
When the power is exercised by the Legislature, the question of the necessity is
generally a political question. When exercised by the delegate, the issue of the
genuine necessity is a justiciable question; a matter properly addressed to the
courts in the course of the expropriation proceedings (City of Manila v Chinese
Community)

g. Distinguish compensable taking from non-compensable taking.

 Taking which leads to the destruction of the property because such property is
used for noxious purposes = non-compensable (exercise of Police Power)
Taking to regulate or to devote a property for public use = compensable taking
(exercise of Eminent Domain)
3. a. What is the power of taxation?
Power to enforce proportional contribution from persons and property levied by
the state by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and all
public needs. (Cooley, Taxation, 4th ed. Sec. 1)
b. What are the limitations to the exercise of the power of taxation?

Limitation (from the books of I. Cruz and A. Nachura combined)

Due Process: should not be confiscatory
Equal Protection Clause: should be uniform and equitable
Double Taxation: additional taxes laid on the same subject by the same
taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same purpose
allowing this will be a violation of the equal protection clause (Punzalan v
Municipal Board of Manila)
Public Purpose (Pascual v Secretary of Public Works)
Tax Exemption (Lladoc v Court of Appeals)

Inherent Limitation
Public purpose (Pascual v Secretary of Public Works)
Non-delegability of power;
Territoriality or situs of taxation (Punzalan v Municipal Board of Manila)
Exemption of government from taxation (Art VI, Sec 28)
International comity

Constitutional Limitation
Due process of law
Equal protection of law (Punzalan v Municipal Board of Manila)
Uniformity, equitability, and progressivity of taxation-(Art VI, Sec 28)
Non-impairment of contracts;
Rule on non-imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax;-(Art III, Sec 20)
Origin of appropriation, revenue, and tariff bills; and (Art VI, Sec 24)
Non-infringement of religious freedom.

c. May the power of taxation be used as a tool in the exercise of the power of
eminent domain? Give an illustration.

Yes. Example:
Tax provision to curb the proliferation and unregulated circulation of
videograms which have greatly prejudiced the operations of movie houses
and theaters. (Tio v Videogram Regulatory Board)
20% discount to Senior Citizens (CIR v Luzon Drug Corporation)

d. What is the scope of Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution?

Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant

thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. Even activities which are
incidental to the religious and charitable affairs are exempted from paying taxes.
(Abra Valley College v Aquino)

e. Distinguish a license fee from a tax. (Francisco)

License fee is a police measure while tax is a revenue measure.
The amount of license fee is limited to the cost of permit and reasonable
police regulation while tax may be unlimited provided it is not confiscatory.
License fee is paid for the privilege of doing something and may be revoke
when public interest requires while tax is imposed on persons or property for
revenue.
A. Distinguish a license fee from a tax
Taxes are levied to raise revenue and - (inherent)
o rate or amount to be collected unlimited provided not confiscatory
o imposed on persons or property
o if unpaid, business or activity does not become illegal.
licenses are for regulatory purposes (Acebedo v Court of Appeals)
o amount limited to cost of permit and police regulation
o paid for privilege of doing something but privilege is revocable
o if unpaid, business becomes illegal
4. a. What is due process of law?
Guarantee against any arbitrariness on the part of the government.
That which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial. (Darthmouth College v Woodwart)
Embodiment of the idea of fair playA law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.
b. Who are protected by the due process clause?
Natural Persons
o Citizen
o Alien (villegas v hiu chong)
Artificial Persons
o Corporation and partnership but limited to their properties
- (Smith, Bell & Co, v Natividad)
c. Enumerate the aspects of due process of law and explain each briefly.

Substantive due process (U.S. v Toribio)

o It is a prohibition of arbitrary laws; because if all that the due process
required were proper procedure, then life, liberty or property could be
destroyed arbitrarily provided proper formalities are observed.
Procedural due process
o It relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government agencies
must follow in the enforcement and application of laws. It is a guarantee
of procedural fairness. Its essence was expressed by Daniel Webster as
a law which hears before it condemns.- (Lopez v Director of Lands)
o
o
o
o

an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and

determine matters before it;
jurisdiction properly acquired over person of defending and over property
which is subject matter of proceeding;
opportunity to be heard;
judgment rendered upon lawful hearing and based on evidence adduced.
- (Banco Espanol Filipino v Palanca)

5. a. What are the requisites of substantive due process?

Intrinsic validity of the law interfering with the rights of the person
Public interest requires the intervention of the state (U.S. v Toribio)
a. What is the void for vagueness doctrine?
accused is denied the right to be informed of the charge against him, and to
due process as well, where the statute itself is couched in such indefinite
language that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine
therefrom what acts or omissions are punished and, hence shall be
avoided).- (Estrada v Sandiganbayan)
6. a. What are the minimum requirements for procedural due process?
Notice
Hearing (vinta maritime v nlrc)
b. Is it necessary to conduct a formal adversarial trial/hearing in order to
comply with procedural due process of law?
General Rule
o A decision rendered without hearing is null and void ab initio. (David v
Aquilizan)
Exception
o Due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has
chosen, for whatever reason, not to be heard. If he opts to be silent

where he has a right to speak, he cannot later be heard to complain that

he was unduly silenced. (Stronghold Industries v Court of Appeals)
o No. it is enough that the accused/party-in-interest are given the change to
give their side. (Marvel Bldg Corporation v Ople)
o No. If their were sufficiently notified and deliberately summoned and the
party-in-interest deliberately avoided acknowledgement the service of the
summon (Ablaza v CIR)
o No denial of due process when the director of MOLE, decided the case
based on their position papers (Anglo-Fil Trading Corp v Lazaro)
o The parties cannot demand it as a matter of right
to be heard does not only mean verbal arguments in court
c. Is preliminary investigation and/or appeal part of due process of law?
(Gatchalian)
Taken from Nachura:
1. Appeal and due process
a. Appeal is not a natural right nor is it part of due process
b. It may be allowed or denied by the legislature in its discretion
c. But where the constitution gives a person the right to appeal, denial
of the right to appeal constitutes a violation of dues process
i. Where there is a statutory grant of the right to appeal, denial of
that remedy also constitutes a denial of due process
d. Alba v Nitorreda from nachura page 102
i. May be exercised only in a manner and in accordance with the
provisions of law
ii. Due process may be satisfied notwithstanding in the denial of the
right to appeal, because the essence of due process is simply the
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in support of
ones case
iii. Failure to provide the complainant the right to appeal in certain
cases is not a denial of due process
iv. Right to appeal is a privilege and may be exercised only in
the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law
Taken from Cruz:
The requirements of due process are deemed satisfied as long as the litigant
is given his day in court at the trial of his case, and he cannot deman as a
matter of right another day in the appellate court
The legislature itself cannot deprive him the right to appeal in those
cases coming from under the minimum appellate jurisdiction of the SC
as specified in Article 8 Section5(2) of the Constitution
2. Preliminary investigation and due process
a. It is not a constitutional right but merely a right conferred by statute
b. Absence will not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render
the same defective

c. The right may be waived expressly or by failure to invoke it

i. Can be forfeited by inaction and cannot be invoked for the first
time on appeal
d. But where there is a statutory grant of the right to preliminary
investigation, denial of the same is an infringement of the due
process class
i. In such cases, the right to preliminary investigation is substantive,
not merely formal or technical.
ii. To deny it would deprive the person of the full measure of his right
to due process
Cases from Nachura pp 103-104
e. Tan Uyvs Ombudsman
i. A preliminary investigation is held before an accused is place on
trial to secure the innocence against hasty, malicious, and
oppressive prosecution and to protect him from trouble, expenses
and anxiety of a public trial.
ii. While the right is statutory rather than constitutional it is a
component of due process in administering criminal justice
iii. Look at Sec 1 Rule 112
f.

Yusop v Sandiganbayann
i. Lack of prelim inves is not a ground for a motion to quash
ii. The case must be suspended with respect of the petitioner even if
the case is already undergoing trial

g. People v Velasquez
i. The right is waived when the accused fails to invoke it before the
time of entering a pleas at arraignment
h. Baviera v Pagliwanan
i. Preliminary investigation is essentially an inquiry to
determine whether
1. A crime has been committed
2. Whether there is probable cause that the accused is
guilty thereof
ii. The public prosecutor determines during the preliminary
investigation whether probable cause exists; thus the decision
whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint depends on the
sound discretion of the prosecutor
1. Courts will NOT interfere with the conduct preliminary
investigation
2. Aguirre vs Secretary
a. The possible exception to this rule of non
interference is where there is an unmistakable
showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public
prosecutor
d. What are the instances where the minimum requirements of notice and
hearing are not required?

Taken from Cruz page 119

There are cases in which the essential requisites of notice and hearing may be
omitted without violation of due process.
a. Examples
Cancellation of the passport of a person sought for the commission of a
crime, the preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative
charges, the distraint of properties for tax delinquency, the padlocking of
restaurants found to be insanitary or theaters showing obscene movies
and the abatement of nuisance
b. Nuisances
i. Nuisance per se
1. Is objectionable under any and all circumstances because it
presents an immediate danger to the welfare of the community
2. May be abated summarily, that is, without the necessity of judicial
authorization
3. Example:
1. Mad dog running loose, which can be killed on sight,
regardless of its value, because of the threat iit poses to the
safety and lives of the people
ii. Nuisances per accidens
1. Objectionable only under some but not all circumstances, there
being situations when it is perfectly legitimate and acceptable.
2. Right thing in the wrong place
1. Ex: Patis factory in a residential area
3. May only be abated upon judicial authorization
1. Because it is difficult to ascertain or identify this kind of
nuisance
4. Exception: where the legislature has authorized its summary
abatement, provided the nuisance per accidens is of trifling value
only
c. Presumptions
i. There should be a rational or natural connection between the fact
proved and the fact ultimately presumed from such act
ii. As long as the presumption is based on human experience it will be
deemed not violative of due process
1. Example
a. A child born within 180 days of the marriage is
presumed legitimate if the husband, before such
marriage, knew of the pregnancy of the wife
7. a. What is the meaning of equal protection of the law?

2nd clause of Sec 1, Art 3: nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.

Definition:
i. All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike,
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed
1. Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated
differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly
discriminate against others
ii. Substantive equality is not enough. It is also required that the law be
enforced and applied equally

b. Do foreigners/aliens enjoy the same protection? Explain your answer.

Accdg to Cruz:page 126

i. YES
ii. Aliens are comprehended in the guaranty
iii. BUT- by constitutional reservation, certain rights are enjoyable ONLY
by citizens
1. Such as right to vote, hold public office, exploit natural
resources, operate public utilities
iv. Even ordinary statutes can validly distinguish between citizens and
aliens or, for that matter, even between or among citizens only

c. What are the requisites of a valid classification?

Valid Classification Persons or things ostensibly similarly situations may,
nonetheless, be treated differently if there is a basis for valid classification
Should not be arbitrary
Requisites are:
a. Substantial distinctions which make for real differences
i. Must be substantial
b. Germane/Relevant to the purpose of the law
i. The distinctions which are the bases for the classification should
have a reasonable relation to the purpose of the law
c. Not limited to existing conditions only Duration
i. Must be enforced not only for the present but as lon as the
problem sought to be corrected continues to exist
d. Must apply equally to all members of the same classApplicability to all
ii. The constitution does not require absolute equality; it is enough
that all persons under like circumstances or conditions are given
the same privileges and required to follow the same obligation
iii. Classification based on valid and reasonable standars does not
violate the equal protection clause

8. a. What are the rights guaranteed under Section 2, Art. III of the Constitution?
The right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.
b. What was the ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57?
This case pertains to searches and seizures:

This constitutional right refers to the immunity of one's person, whether

citizen or alien, from interference by government.

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures

applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its
agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and
unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

If the search is made at the behest or initiation of the proprietor of a private

establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and
without the intervention of police authorities, the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be invoked for only the act of
private individuals, not law enforcers, is involved.

In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to
bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
government.

c. When are seizures and searches unreasonable?

There must be a sufficient probable cause for it to be reasonable. One must
also keep it mind the requisites of a valid warrant of arrest and search warrant.
However, there are instances when such absence will still be considered valid
(warrantless search and arrest).
Ratio of assigned cases:

Silva vs. Presiding Judge

o The purpose of the constitutional provision against unlawful searches
and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and
property and unlawful invasion of private security in person and
property and unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the home by officers
of the law acting under legislative sanction, and to give remedy
against such usurpations when attempted
o Thus the court held that in issuing a search warrant, the judge must
strictly comply with the constitutional and statutory requirement
that he must determine the existence of probable cause by personally
examining the applicant and his witness in the form of searching

questions and answers. His failure to comply with this requirement

constitutes grave abuse of discretion

Valmonte vs De Villa
i. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and
seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question,
determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved

People vs Sucro
o There are several instances when a warrantless search and seizure
can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest
provided the same is effected on the basis on probable cause.
o The searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is
not an absolute rule

People vs Malmstedt
o To require probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and
seizure is not determined by an fixed formula but is resolved accdg to
the facts of each case

Silahis International hotel vs Soluta

o While it is doctrinal that the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures is a personal right which may be waived expressly or
impliedly, a waiver by implication cannot be presumed
o The waiver must be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made

Sec 3(2) Art 3 Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
Fruit of the poisoned tree
Objections to the legality of the search warrant and to the admissibility of
the evidence obtained thereby are deemed waived when not raised
during trial
It does not necessarily follow that the property illegally seized will be
returned immediately; it could remain in custodial egis
The property illegally seized may be used in evidence in the case filed
against the officer responsible for the illegal seizure

Tambasen vs People
o Money which was not indicated in the warrant, thus illegally seized
was ordered returned

d. Who issues a warrant of arrest and a search warrant? (Guy)

Only a judge may issue a warrant of arrest or search warrant upon personal
determination of the existence of a probable cause. Administrative agencies however
may also issue warrants but only for the purposes of executing a final decision or
finding of a competent court of a violation of a law. They may not issue warrants for
the purpose of investigation or prosecution.

e. May an administrative agency issue a warrant?

Yes, limited only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of violation of law (i.e.
an order of deportation or of contempt).
Admin agencies may not issue WOA to investigate a person.
f.

What are the requisites for the issuance of a valid warrant of arrest and
search warrant?

1. Warrant of arrest - Probable Cause, to be Determined Personally by the Judge

2. Search Warrant - Probable Cause, to be Determined Personally by the Judge,
After
Examination, under Oath or Affirmation, of the Complainant and the
Witnesses he may produce, and Particularity of Description.
9. a. What is meant by probable cause as a requirement in the issuance of a
warrant of arrest and/or search warrant?
Probable cause means such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
(Burgos v Chief of Staff)
b. Should the complainant and witnesses be examined personally in order to
determine existence of probable cause?
No. It is sufficient that the judge personally determine the existence of probable
cause. It is not necessary that he should personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses.
It is sufficient that he personally evaluates such evidence in determining probable
cause. In Webb v. De Leon we stressed that the judge merely determines the
probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused and, in doing so, he need not
conduct a de novo hearing. He simply personally reviews the prosecutor's initial
determination finding probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence.
c. Distinguish the determination of probable cause by a prosecutor during
preliminary investigation and by a judge in relation to the issuance of a
warrant.
Determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation which is done
by the prosecutor is for the purpose of filing an information. While the
determination by a judge of a probable cause is for the purpose of issuing the
warrant, it is a personal determination by the judge himself and because it is not
a ministerial function, he is not bound by the findings of the prosecutor.
10. a. What are general warrants? Why are they proscribed under the law?
General warrants are warrants bereft of particular description of things to be seized
that would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause. Bereft of such

particulars, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search
warrant and it was a grave error for respondent judge to have done so.[Burgos v.
Chief of Staff, 133 S 800]
People vs. Tee: What the Constitution seeks to avoid are general warrants of broad
and general characterization or sweeping descriptions which will authorize police
officers to undertake a finishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds
of evidence or articles relating to an offense.
b. In a warrant of arrest, is it necessary that the name of the person to be
arrested be indicated? Why or why not?

NO

Ideally, the person sought to be seized should be identified by name. If the

warrant without name or with the name in blank such that it can be enforced
against any person, it is unquestionably void. Thus, a warrant issued against
John Doe or Richard Roe, whose other or true name is to your complainant
unknown was held insufficient and illegal.[Commonwealth v. Crotty, 10 Allen
(Mass.) 403.

However John Doe Warrant a warrant for the apprehension of a person

whose true name is unknown. Satisfies the constitutional requirement of
particularity if there is some descriptio personae which will enable the officer to
identify the accused (Nachura, Reviewer in Political Law, p. 59). Accordingly, it
was held in People v. Veloso[48 P 169], that the warrant was valid although
issued against John Doe only where it was shown thet he was described as
occupying and in control of a building at a specified address.

John Doe/Jane Doe warrant: will satisfy the constitutional requirement of

particularity of description if there is some descriptio persona which will enable
the officer to identify the accused.

descritptio persona: for as long as it will lead arresting officer to conclusion of questions
of fact & not questions of law
c. In a search warrant, is it necessary to indicate the specific address of the
place to be searched? Why or why not? (Hautea)
YES, The place should be described. In Paper Industries Corporation of the Phil. v.
Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 the search warrant issued to search the compound of the
petitioner for unlicensed firearms was held invalid for failing to describe the place with
particularity, considering that the compound is made up of 200 buildings, 15 plants, 84
staff houses, 1 airstrip, 3 piers, 23 warehouses, 6 depots, and 800 miscellaneous
structures spread out over 155 hectares.
Note:
- The place to be searched, as described in the warrant cannot be amplified or
modified by the peace officers own personal knowledge. (Intention of the requirement:

search be confined to the place described in the warrant People v. Court of Appeals, GR
126379)
- The constitution requires search warrants to particularly describe not only the place
to be searched but also the person to be searched.
11. a. May a person be arrested even in the absence of a warrant?
YES, Rule 113, Section 5 Rules of Court --- A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person
1) When in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or attempting to
commit an offense
2) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it.
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another
b. In cases of a warrantless arrest, is it always necessary that the arresting
officer have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime?
YES. The (2) Stringent Requirements are;
1. Offense had just been committed (immediacy)
2. Person making the arrest has probable cause to believe based on his personal
knowledge of facts or of other circumstances, that the person to be arrested had
committed it.
12. a. What are the instances of a warrantless search?
1. When the right is voluntarily waived
2. When there is a valid reason to Stop & Frisk
3. When the search (and seizure) is an incident to a lawful arrest
4. Search of moving vehicles
5. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and
building regulations
6. Where prohibited articles are in plain view
7. Search and seizure under exigent and emergency circumstances
8. Military powers of the President, the conduct of areal zoning or saturation drives
Guazon v. de Villa, 181
SCRA 623
Source: Refer to Nachura Reviewer
b.

Is mere silence considered as a waiver of the right against unreasonable

search?

NO, consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred but must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence. In People v. Tudtud, GR 144037 [2003], the fact that a person
failed to object to a search does not amount to permission thereto.
Note: Requisites of a valid waiver
1. That the right actually exists
2. That the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right
3. That the said person had an actual intention to relinquish said right
c.

In case of a search as an incident to a lawful arrest, should the search be

preceded by an arrest?

YES. As a rule, the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed.
Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the
arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.
People v. Nuevas, GR 170233 [2007]
d.

What is the permissible area of search in case of a search as an incident

of a lawful arrest?

The warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest may extend beyond
the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control. People v. Hindoy, GR 132662 [2002]
e.

What is the plain view doctrine?

Requisites:
1. Prior valid intrusion in to a place
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where
they are
3. Illegality of the evidence must be immediately apparent
4. Noticed without further search
Source: People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 413 [1992]
f.

Are checkpoints constitutional? (Lesava)

Yes. Checkpoints are one of the instances wherein search and seizure may be
made without judicial warrant for its purpose is to uphold the interest of public
security. Furthermore, as indicated in Valmonte vs. De Villa,185 S 666, Between
the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare
and an individuals right against a warrantless search which is however
reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.
The requisites of its validity:
1. Abnormal Times
2. Limited to Visual Search
3. Vehicle not searched
4. Passengers not subjected to body search

Instances where a search in a checkpoint is deemed permissible:

1.
the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is
parked on the public fair grounds;
2.
officer simply looks into a vehicle
3.
flashes a light therein without opening the cars doors
4.
where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search
5.
where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual
inspection
6.
where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area. (Caballes vs Court
of Appeals)
g.

What is the stop and frisk doctrine?

This is another exception to the general rule against a warrantless search. It
refers to the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate
him, and pat for weapon(s). In the case of Manalili vs Court of Appeals wherein it
cited Terry vs Ohio, it upheld the validity of the stop and frisk wherein a police
officer observes an unusual conduct, which leads him reasonably to believe that
a criminal activity might be afoot.
Requisite: in People vs Sy Chua, the SC provided requisites for a valid stopand-frisk
1. police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries
2. approach and restrain a person who manifests unusual and suspicious
conduct, in order to check the latters outer clothing for possibly concealed
weapons.
3. Apprehending officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with
police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
that the person to be held has weapons or contraband concealed about
him.

13. a. What are the rights guaranteed under Section 3, Art. III?
The right to privacy of communication and correspondence.
b. When is intrusion into privacy of communication and correspondence
allowed?
1. By lawful order of the court
2. When public safety or order requires otherwise
14. a. What are the rights guaranteed under Section 4 and Section 8, Art. III?
Under Sec. 4: right to freedom of
1. speech;
2. expression;
3. press;
or right to
4. peaceably assemble and petition to the government for redress of grievances;

Under Sec. 8: right to self-organization

Right of the people (including those employed in the private and public sectors)
to form:
1. unions;
2. associations; or
3. societies for purposes not contrary to law
b. What are the aspects of freedom of expression? Are these absolute?
b.1 Freedom from censorship or prior restraint
b.2 freedom from subsequent punishment
They are NOT absolute. The right is always subject to some regulation by the
State in order that it may not be injurious to the equal rights of others or those of
the community or society. This power may be exercised under the police power
of the state o promote or protect the public welfare, which may, in turn, be
delegated to political subdivisions which may enact ordinances for the purpose.
c. What is the clear and present danger test, the balancing of interest test, the
OBrien test and the void for overbreadth doctrine?
Clear and present danger test- when words are used in such circumstance and
of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about
substantive evil that State has right to prevent (Schenck V. U.S., 249 US 97);
Clear- seems to point to a causal connection with the danger of the substantive
evil arising from the utterance questioned.
Present- refers to the time element. It is used to be identified with imminent and
immediate danger. The danger must not only be probable but very likely
inevitable. It is a question of proximity and degree.
Balancing of interest rule when particular conduct is regulated in interest of
public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial
abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of the 2
conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the particular
circumstances presented (American Communications Association v. Douds, 339
US 282)
This test requires a court to take conscious and detailed consideration of the
interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation.
OBrien Test
- [A] government regulation is sufficiently justified [1] if it is within the
constitutional power of the Government; [2] if it furthers an important or
substantial governmental interest; [3] if the governmental interest is unrelated
to the suppression of free expression; and [4] if the incidental restriction on
alleged First Amendment freedoms [of speech, expression and press] is no
greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. [SWS v Comelec,
citing US v. OBrien, 391 U.S. 367, 377, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672, 680 (1968)
(bracketed numbers added)]

- the standard devised in O'Brien only applies if the State's regulation is not
related to communicative conduct. [Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent]
- It is an appropriate test for restrictions on speech which, like 11(b), are
content-neutral. Unlike content-based restrictions, they are not imposed
because of the content of the speech. For this reason, content-neutral
restrictions are tests demanding standards. For example, a rule such as that
involved in Sanidad v. COMELEC , 37 prohibiting columnists, commentators,
and announcers from campaigning either for or against an issue in a
plebiscite must have a compelling reason to support it, or it will not pass
muster under strict scrutiny. These restrictions, it will be seen, are censorial
and therefore they bear a heavy presumption of constitutional invalidity. In
addition, they will be tested for possible overbreadth and vagueness.
[Osmena v. Comelec]
d. Distinguish content-based and content neutral regulations?
Content-based
Based on the content of the speech or publication.[INC vs. CA]
They are given thestrictest scrutiny in light of their inherent and invasive
impact.
Content-neutral
Based on the time and manner on when and how the speech or publication
was made, when made on other time or means, can be allowed.[case of
Adiong, Osmena v. Comelec]
Substantial governmental interest is required for their validity, and they are
not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny rather only an intermediate
approach somewhere between the rationality that is required of a law and the
compelling interest standard applied to content based restrictions.
15. a. May the right to assemble be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a
permit or authorization from government authorities? Is BP880 requiring a
permit prior to conduct of assemblies constitutional? Is the issuance of the
permit a discretionary power? (Lim)

The right to assemble is not subject to previous restraint or censorship. This

is generally not subject to prohibition but only subject to regulation. Generally,
the right to assemble may not be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a
permit or authorization from the government authorities except if the
government validly exercises Prior Restraint in the form of Content Neutral
Regulations.
BP880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that
simply regulates the time, place, and manner of assemblies. (Content
Neutral)
Denial of permit may be justified only upon clear and convincing evidence
that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to the public
safety, public order, public convenience, public health or public moral.
In the case of Bayan, et.al. v. Ermita, it was also ruled that the permit can
only be denied on the ground of clear and present danger to the public safety,
public order, public convenience, public health or public moral.

b. Do government employees have the right to engage in concerted

activities?
The Constitution recognizes the right of the government employees to
organize.
o Article 3, Section 8:
the right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
o Art. XIII, Sec. 3:

the State "shall guarantee the rights of all workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law".
o Article IX-B, Section 2
(1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters.
o Article IX-B Section 5

The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government

employees.
o EXCEPTION: While the government employees right to engage in
concerted activities is recognized, their activities are limited by the
provisions of law.

In addition to the generic rule against unlawful activities in

concerted actions, government employees may not strike
16. a. What are the rights guaranteed under Section 5, Art. III?
The Non-establishment clause and the right to Freedom of religious profession
and worship
The right to BELIEVE is ABSOLUTE
The right to ACT according to ones beliefs is NOT and may be subject to
REGULATION (Police Power)
b. What is the non-establishment clause? Are there any exceptions thereto?
NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The State may not set up a church, nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid
all religion, or prefer one religion over another, nor force nor influence a
person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to
profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
EXCEPTIONS:
Sec 28(3), Art VI: exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious purposes

Sec 29(2), Art VI: appropriation allowed where the minister or ecclesiastic is
employed in the armed forces, in a penal institution, or in a governmentowned orphanage or leprosarium.
Sec 4(2), Art XIV: citizenship requirement of ownership of educational
institutions, except those established by religious groups and mission boards
Sec 3(3), Art XIV: optional religions instruction in public elementary and high
schools: at the option expressed in writing by the parents, guardians,
religious instruction taught within regular class hours by instructors
designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the
children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.
c. What do you understand by the strict neutrality approach? How about the
benevolent neutrality approach? What approach is observed in our
jurisdiction?
The strict neutrality approach is not hostile to religion, but it is strict in holding
that religion may not be used as a basis for classification for purposes of
governmental action, whether the action confers rights or privileges or
imposes duties or obligations. Only secular criteria may be the basis of
government action. It does not permit, much less require, accommodation of
secular programs to religious belief. The state must be neutral in its relations
with groups of religious believers and non-believers.
Benevolent neutrality recognizes that religion plays an important role in the
public life. Accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the
governments favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to
exercise their religion without hindrance. The purpose of accommodations is
to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a persons or institutions
religion. In the ideal world, the legislature would recognize the religions and
their practices and would consider them, when practical, in enacting laws of
general application. But when the legislature fails to do so, religions that are
threatened and burdened may turn to the courts for protection.
Benevolent neutrality-accommodation is the framework by which free
exercise cases must be decided.
d. Is the clear and present danger test applicable in religious freedom cases?
YES. The clear and present danger test is the a justification for a prior
restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom; existence of a
grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a
serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other
legitimate public interest, that the State has a right to prevent. Absent of
threat to public safety, it cannot be applied. (Ebralinag)
Not surprisingly, all the cases which employed the clear and present danger
or grave and immediate danger test involved, in one form or another,

religious speech as this test is often used in cases on freedom of expression.

(Estrada v Escritor)
NB: The application of the clear and present danger test was originally made
to counter abuse of the right to Freedom of Expression to perpetrate crimes
against the State. The application of such test as regards religion appears to
be an afterthought. (Class discussion)
e. What is the compelling interest test? When is it applicable?
Compelling state interest test involves a three-step process.
1. W/N the statute or government action created a burden on the
free exercise of religion?
The sincerity of the claimants belief is ascertained to avoid
the mere claim of religious beliefs to escape a mandatory
regulation.
2. W/N there is a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify
infringement of religious liberty?
The government has to establish that its purposes are
legitimate for the state and that they are compelling.
Government must do more than assert the objectives at
risk if exemption is given; it must precisely show how and
to what extent those objectives will be undermined if
exemptions are granted.
3. W/N the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least
intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not infringed
any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the
state?
The means in which it is achieving its legitimate state
objective is the least intrusive means, i.e., it has chosen a
way to achieve its legitimate state end that imposes as little
as possible on religious liberties
In cases involving purely conduct based on religious belief, the
compelling state interest test, is proper. (Estrada v Escritor)
f.

What are the two aspects of the free exercise clause?

Right to believe. (ABSOLUTE). A person has full freedom to believe as he
pleases as long as belief is confined within the realm of thought. He may not be
called to account because he cannot prove what he believes.
Right to act according to ones beliefs. (SUBJECT TO REGULATION) Where the
belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare, the right can
only be enjoyed with a proper regard for the rights of others. The constitutional
provision gave religious liberty, not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom from
conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of
religious dogma. (Cruz, p 188-189)

g. Does the free exercise clause prohibit the imposition of a sales tax on the
sale of religious materials? (Manalaysay)
NO, Tax exceptions given to religious institutions only applies to property taxes.[ see par.
3, Sec. 28, Art VI of the 1987 Constitution]
NO. Free Exercise of Religion Clause does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable
sales and use tax on the saleof religious materials by a religious organization.
For example, VAT is imposed on the sale, barter, lease, or exchange of goods or
properties or the sale or exchange of services and the lease of properties purely for
revenue purposes. The resulting burden on the exercise of religious freedom is so
incidental as to make it difficult to differentiate it from any other economic imposition that
might make the right to disseminate religious doctrines costly (Tolentino v Sec of
Finance, 235 SCRA 630)
Sales tax is of general application and does not contain any provision prescribing
religious censorship nor restraining the free exercise and enjoyment of any religious
profession. (American Bible Society v City of Manila, 101 Phil 386)
h. Would a law that requires the participation by students in the flag
ceremony violate the free exercise clause?
YES. In Ebralinag, Petitioners were members of Jehovah's Witness who were expelled
because of refusal to salute. They refused because they want to protect themselves
from idols. They believe the flag is an idol of the State. SC upheld the right of petitioners
to refuse to salute on account of their religious scruples.
Religious freedom is a fundamental right entitled to highest priority for it involves
relationship of man to its Creator. Absent grave and present danger of a serious evil to
public interest and safety, expulsion of petitioners is unjustified.
The responsibility of inculcating the values of patriotism, nationalism, good citizenship,
and moral uprightness is a responsibility shared by the State with parents and other
societal institutions such as religious sects and denominations. The manner in which
such values are demonstrated in a plural society occurs in ways so variable that
government cannot make claims to the exclusivity of its methods of inculcating patriotism
so all encompassing in scope as to leave no room for appropriate parental or religious
influences. Provided that those influences do not pose a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil to society and its institutions, expressions of diverse beliefs, no matter
how upsetting they may seem to the majority, are the price we pay for the freedoms we
enjoy. [Ebralinag vs Division Superintendent, 219 S 256]
i.

What is a purely ecclesiastical affair? Do courts have jurisdiction over the

same?

An ecclesiastical affair is "one that concerns doctrine, creed or form or worship of the
church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws
and regulations for the government of the membership, and the power of excluding from
such associations those deemed unworthy of membership"
Based on this definition, an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the

church and its members and relate to matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship and
governance of the congregation.
Examples of this so-called ecclesiastical affairs to which the State cannot meddle are
proceedings for excommunication, ordinations of religious ministers, administration of
sacraments and other activities which attached religious significance
In Austria v. NLRC, petitioner minister was dismissed for misappropriation of
denominational funds, willful breach of trust, serious misconduct, and gross neglect of
duties. What is involved is the relationship of church as an employer ans minister as
employee. It is purely secular and has no relation to practice of faith.
17. a. What are the rights guaranteed under Section 6, Art. III?
(1) Liberty of abode and of (2) changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
and the (3) right to travel.
b. What are the limitations on the liberty of abode?
The liberty of abode shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
c. What are the limitations on the right to travel?
The right to travel shall not be impaired except in the interest of national security,
public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.
d. May the courts limit the right to travel?
YES. A lawful order of the court is also a valid restriction on the right to travel.
In Silverion v. Court of Appeals, the Court said that Art. III, Sec. 6, should be
interpreted to mean that while the liberty to travel may be impaired even without court
order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative officers or
administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations It
is now required, to avoid abuse, particularly by petty administrators with less than the
proper regard for the Constitution, that the ascertainment of the grounds for the
exception should be made by the executive officers only as may be provided by
law, specifying strict guidelines and appropriate standards, aside from national security,
public safety or public health.
The persons right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very
necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. Whether the accused should be
permitted to leave the country for humanitarian reasons is a matter addressed to the
courts discretion (Imelda Romualdez-Marcos v. Sandiganbayan).
e. May a court prevent a person admitted to bail from leaving the country?
YES. A lawful order of the court is also a valid restriction on the right to travel.
In Manotoc v. CA, the Court held that the trial court may validly refuse to grant the
accused permission to travel abroad, even if the accused is out on bail.

And as held in Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, by posting bail, the accused holds herself
amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the court.
Thus, she may be legally prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the
case.
18. a. What are the rights guaranteed by Section 7, Art. III? (Mora)
Section 7 The right of the people to information on the matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Rights Guaranteed:
Right to information on matters of public concern as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development
Corollary right to access the official records and documents
Scope of the Right:
It was held that the right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading
to the consummation of the transaction. Otherwise, the people can never exercise
the right if no contract is consummated, or if one is consummated, it may be too late
for the public to expose its defects. However, the right only affords access to records,
documents and papers, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy them at his
expense. The exercise is also subject to reasonable regulations to protect the
integrity of public records and to minimize disruption of government operations.
(Chavez vs. PEA and Amari)
Except:
The right does not extend to matters recognized as privileged information rooted in
separation of powers, nor to information on military and diplomatic secrets,
information affecting national security and information on investigations of crimes by
law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused.
b. What are the limitations to these rights?
Restrictions on the access to information
1. National security matters and intelligence information
2. Trade secrets and banking transactions
3. Criminal matters
4. Other confidential information
c. May the citizens compel public officers to give testimony by invoking the
right to information?
YES through mandamus. Given that the information sought for is of public interest
or public in nature and doesnt fall under the restricted information such as those
of national security matters and intelligence information (see Legaspi vs. CSC)

19. a. What is the right guaranteed under Section 10, Art. III?
Section 10 No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
b. What constitutes an impairment?
Impairment
anything that diminishes the efficacy of a contract.
There is substantial impairment when the law changes the terms of a legal
contract between the parties, either in the time or mode of performance or,
imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its
satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms. (Nachura)
c. What are limitations to the non-impairment clause?
Police power public welfare is superior to private rights
Power of taxation
Eminent domain
20. a. What is the right guaranteed under Section 11, Art. III?
Sec 11 - Free access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
Guaranteed rights:
Right to free access to courts and quasi judicial bodies
While free access to the courts is guaranteed under Sec 11, it does not give
anyone the unbridled license to file any case against another, whatever his
motive may be.
The Constitutional guarantee of access to courts or agencies refers only to
courts with appropriate jurisdiction as defined by law or the Constitution. A
person is barred from filing a complaint before a court which is not vested
with the appropriate jurisdiction over the issues raised by him.

Right to adequate legal assistance

It may not be sufficient to just grant the rights of a pauper (i.e., exemption
from payment of court fees) to poor litigants. The State has also the
constitutional duty to provide free and adequate legal assistance to citizens
when by reason of indigence or lack of financial means they are unable to
engage the services of a lawyer to defend them or to enforce their rights in
civil, criminal or administrative case.

In connection with Par 5 Sec 5 Art VIII which states that the Supreme Court has the
power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not

diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of Procedure of special courts

and quasi judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
Rule 3 Section 21 of the Rules of Court provides:
Indigent party - A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as
an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the
party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter
and basic necessities for himself and his family.
21. a. What are the rights guaranteed under Section 12, Art. III?
SECTION 12 ARTICLE III
1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or other means that vitiate
free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture
or similar practices, and their families.
RIGHTS GUARANTEED:
Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel
Right to be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says
can and will be used against him
Right to remain silent
Right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice
Right to be provided with counsel, if the person cannot afford the services of one
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or other means that vitiate free
will shall be used against him.
Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado,
or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible
evidence
b. When are these rights available? (Ramos)
The right under sec. 12 Art. III are available when the investigation is no longer a general
inquiry unto an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, as when

the suspect has been taken into police custody and the police carry out a process of
interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements.
c. What is a custodial investigation?
According to Justice Cruz, Custodial investigation is any questioning initiated by
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
d. May these rights be waived? If yes, how can they be waived?
General rule: NO.
Exception:
Custodial investigation can be waived by a written consent, signed by the accused in the
presence of counsel.
If there is no counsel, it can be waived by a written consent, signed by the accused in
the presence of:
- His parents
- Elder brothers/sisters
- Spouse
- Municipal mayor
- Municipal judge
- District school supervisor
Priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him
e. What is the legal consequence of a violation of Section 12, Art. III?
The evidence will be inadmissible. This rule is applicable to coerced statements and
uncounselled statements and is relevant and material only where an extrajudicial
confession or admission of the accused becomes the basis of conviction
22. a. What are the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in People vs.
Mahinay that should be observed by an arresting, detaining, inviting or
investigating officer?
The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be
informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for
the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other
warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and
understood by said person;
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any
statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and
have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of
his own choice;
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of
a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be

engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon
petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed
that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the
presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to
communicate or confer by the most expedient means telephone, radio,
letter or messenger with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any
member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister
chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or
be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international nongovernment organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to
ensure that this is accomplished;
7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights
provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he
understood the same;
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be
informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel,
otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his
waiver and chooses to speak;
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any
manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be
questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may
not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation
must ceased if it has already begun;
10.
The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his
right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar
him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he
may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements;
11.
He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case
may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or
exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
23. a. What is bail?
Bail is a security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him
or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be required
[Rule 114, Sec.1, Rules of Court].
b. When is bail a matter or right? When is it a matter of discretion? And when
is it neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor a matter of
discretion on the art of the court?

Bail is a matter of right

if a person is charged with an offense NOT punishable by reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or death.
- Under sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, all persons in custody shall be
admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as prescribed by law or this rule:
Before or after conviction by the MTC
Before conviction of the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment
Bail is a matter of discretion
- Under section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, upon conviction by the regional
trial court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment. The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on
provisional liberty under the same bail bond during the period to appeal subject
to the consent of the bondsman.
Bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor a matter of
discretion on the art of the court
No person, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution, shall be admitted
to bail if charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment or death AND EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG
c. Is a hearing always mandatory even if bail is a matter of right or if the
prosecution poses no objection to the grant of bail?
Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required
to be given to the prosecutor, or at least he must be asked for his recommendation,
because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into account a number
of factors such as the applicants character and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds, etc.
[Cortes v. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997].
d. What is the meaning of strong evidence of guilt? (Supapo)
That on the basis of proofs presented by the prosecution, inducing belief that the
accused committed an offense, the court was convinced that pieces of evidence were
substantial in the determination of the gravity of guilt of the accused.
(Note: Please verify. I cant find any reference that would exactly answer this question.)
24. a. What is the writ of habeas corpus?
A writ issued by the court directed to a person detaining another, commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and
cause of his caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and to receive whatever the
court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf.
b. When is the writ available?
1. It lies only where the restraint of a persons liberty has been judicially adjudged to
be illegal or unlawful.

2. When the prisoner is detained more than the number of years that he should
serve in prison
3. It may also be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding:
a. There has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the
restraint of he person
b. The court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence
c. An excessive penalty has been imposed, since such sentence is void as
to the excess
4. It may also extend to cases by which rightful custody of any person is withheld
from the person entitled thereto.
c. Is it proper to file a petition for habeas corpus for the release of a person
who has been arrested by virtue of a warrant that was unlawfully issued by
a court?
No. The proper remedy is to file a petition for bail and file a motion to Quash. Habeas
corpus lies only where the restraint of a persons liberty has been judicially adjudged
to be illegal or unlawful. If there is a validly issued warrant of arrest, Section 13 will
govern. Whereas, if there is an illegal confinement or detention, Section 15 shall
govern.
(Note: Please verify.)
25. a. What are the rights of the accused guaranteed under Sections 14, 17, 19
and 21 of Art. III?
Section 14
1. right to have a due process of law
2. the accused is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved (Presumption
of innocence)
3. right to be heard by himself and counsel
4. right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
5. right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial
6. right to meet the witnesses face to face (right to confrontation)
7. right to have a compulsory process to secure the attendance of the witnesses
and the production of evidence in his behalf
8. Trial in absentia: after arraignment, the trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused provided that the accused has been duly notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Section 17
Not to be compelled to be a witness against himself (Right against self-incrimination)
Section 19
1. right against excessive fines
2. right against cruel, degrading, inhuman punishment
3. right against employment of physical, psychological and degrading punishment
4. prisoners should not be detained in a substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under inhuman conditions
Section 21

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
(Right against double jeopardy)
b. What is the equipoise rule?
The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is applicable only where the
evidence adduced by the parties are evenly balanced, in which case the
constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the
accused.
c. Is the presumption of guilt that is derived from unexplained flight
constitutional?
Yes. Unexplained flight may lead to an inference of guilt. The constitutional
presumption may be overcome by contrary presumptions based on the experience of
human conduct.
d. Why must an accused be assisted by counsel during trial? May this right to
counsel be waived?
The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard
by counsel. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the
science of the law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he
may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to
establish his innocence and this can happen more easily to persons who are
ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that his right to be assisted by counsel is
deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so
implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the court to
apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him
whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should
assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable
time to procure an attorney of his own.
May this right to counsel be waived?
No. The right to counsel during trial can never be waived.
e. What is the essence of the right to a speedy, impartial and public trial?
(Tabag - REFERENCES: All answers in black lifted from the upper batch Consti2
Oral reviewer sent (c/o Febb). All answers in red lifted from the Beda Reviewer
and class lecture with Atty DC.)
It is one that is free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, the purpose of
which is to free the accused from anxiety and expenses of a court litigation.
***See Section 14: Rights of the Accused
Purpose: To serve as safeguard against attempt to employ our courts as instruments
of persecution. The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to
contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on
possible abuse of judicial power.

The concept of a speedy trial is necessarily relative. A determination as to whether

the right has been violated involves the weighing of several factors such as the
length of delay, the reason for the delay, the conduct of the prosecution and the
accused, and the efforts exerted by the defendant to assert his right, as caused to
the accused (People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003).
In relation to Section 16: Right to Speedy Determination of Cases

The constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the

accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases,
including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including
judicial and quasi-judicial hearings (Lopez, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No.
140529, September 6, 2001).

Speedy free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays

Impartial accused entitled to cold neutrality of impartial judge (must ALSO
APPEAR to be impartial)
Public - to prevent possible abuses which may be committed against the accused
Atty DC: Purpose of public trial is to assure FAIRNESS and to guarantee judges will
be on
their BEST BEHAVIOR
f.

May trial ensue even in the absence of the accused?

Yes. Trial in absentia. The basic purpose of which is to speed up the disposition of
criminal cases considering that if the accused would not always be present, that
would derail the trial of the cases. Trial in absentia is mandatory upon the court
whenever the accused has been arraigned, notified of dates of hearing, and his
absence is unjustified.
***See Section 14: Rights of the Accused
The right to be present during the trial may be waived provided that after arraignment
he may be compelled to appear for the purpose of identification by the witnesses of
the prosecution, unless he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his arraignment
that he is the person named as the defendant in the case on trial.
Atty DC: REQUISTIES of TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
1. Accused is duly notified (notice is issued by the Court eg. Date, time, venue)
2. Failure to appear is UNJUSTIFIABLE
g. What are the stages in a trial that the accused should be present?

During arraignment and plea

During the trial for identification, unless accused has already stipulated on his
identity during pre-trial

During promulgation of sentence, unless for a light offense wherein the accused
may appear by counsel or a representative.

h. What is the essence of the right to meet witnesses face to face as well as
the right to compulsory processes?
The essences of the right to meet witnesses face to face are:
To cross examine the witnesses to test their credibility
To enable the court to observe the demeanor of the witnesses
Purpose of compulsory process is:
To assure a full and unimpeded opportunity for him to meet what is the end could
be a baseless suit or accusation.
***See Section 14: Rights of the Accused
Two-fold purpose of the right to meet witness face to face

To afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by

cross-examination; and
To allow the judge to observe the deportment of the witness (U.S. V. Javier, No.
12990, January 21, 1918

Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible as evidence for
being hearsay (U.S. V. Javier, G.R. No. L-8781, March 30, 1914)
However, right may be WAIVED!
Right To Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of Witnesses and
Production of Evidence:

The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and

subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of compelling the attendance of the
witnesses and the production of evidence that he may need for his defense.
Failure to obey the process is punishable as contempt of court; if necessary,
the witness may even be arrested so he can give the needed evidence (Cruz,
Constitutional Law, 2003 ed; p. 348)

Atty DC: In short, unwilling witness: SUBPOENA!

Requirements (People vs. Sandal, No. 32394, September 5, 1930):
1. The witness is really material
2. That he is guilty of no neglect in previously obtaining attendance of said
witnesses;
3. That the witness willl be available at the time desired; and
4, That no similar evidence could be obtained
i.

Is the death penalty a cruel punishment?

In the case of People vs Echagaray the Supreme Court rejected the contention that
the death penalty is cruel. It is an exercise of the States power to secure society
against threatened and actual evil.
Atty DC: It is not necessarily violative of Section 19
RA 9346, however, has PROHIBITED the imposition of death penalty.
*** See Section 19: Prohibited Punishment
Mere severity does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. To violate constitutional
guarantee, penalty must be flagrant and plainly oppressive, disapproportionate to the nature
of the offense as to shock the senses of the community (People vs Estoista, G.R. No. L5793, August 27, 1953)
To be CRUEL AND UNUSUAL OR EXCESSIVE, the penalty must be flagrantly
disproportionate to the offense no matter under what circumstances the offense may be
committed.

26. a. May the accused by compelled to take the witness stand?

No. The right of the accused against self-incrimination is absolute. This is due to the
fact that all question to be asked of him are incriminating. Since the purpose of the
prosecution and asking question is to incriminate the accused. (Chavez v Court of
Appeals)
***See Section 17: Self-Incrimination
Applies to verbal testimony only! As well as production of documents and papers and
chattels in court. Handwwriting validation/verification is covered by this right. An
accused may be compelled to be photographed or measured, his garments may be
removed, and his body may be examined.
WAIVABLE (directly or by failure to invoke the right)!
Right applies not only to criminal proceedings but also governmental proceedings,
civil actions and administrative and legislative investigations. THIS IS A RIGHT OF
THE ACCUSED and WITNESS.
WISDOM behind this right: To prohibit the repetition and recurrence of the certainly
inhuman procedure of compelling a person
Relates to Section 14: Presumption of innocence, no inferences/assumptions can be
made if accused avails of this right
b. May a witness be compelled to take the witness stand?
Yes. The right against self-incrimination of the witness is limited. He cannot invoke the
right against self-incrimination since he wont know if the questions are incriminating
until it would be asked on the witness stand. THUS, it is only when the question asked
is incriminatory, can he invoke the right against self-incrimination. (US v Tang Teng)

The witness may be cross examined and asked incriminating questions on any matter
he testified to on direct examination.
c. When is a question incriminating?
It is incriminating if the question is relevant and if the answer may tend to embarrass
the accused/witness or subject him to civil/criminal liability.
The question would have a tendency to incriminate, or it if tends to elicit one.
(Chavez v Court of Appeals)
d. What is the scope of the right against self-incrimination? May an accused
be compelled to submit documentary evidence? (Velasco)
Scope:
Right against self-incrimination applies only to natural persons.
General Rule:
Right against self-incrimination applies only testimonial compulsion and
production of documents, papers and chattels in court.
Exception:
An accused may be compelled to submit documentary evidence when books of
account are to be examined in the exercise of police power and the power of
taxation. An accused may be compelled to be photographed or measured, his
garments may be removed, and his body may be examined.
e. Distinguish transactional immunity from use and fruit immunity.
Transactional Immunity testimony of any person whose possession of
documents or other evidence necessary or convenient to determine the truth in
any investigation conducted is immune from criminal prosecution for an offense
to which such compelled testimony relates. (Sec. 18 (8), Art. XIII)
Use and Fruit Immunity prohibits the use of the witness compelled testimony
and its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the
witness. (Galman v. Pamaran, No. L-71208-09, Aug. 30, 1985)
f.

Is the right against self-incrimination available during administrative

investigation?
Right against self-incrimination can be asserted in any judicial or administrative
proceeding or in any official government enquiry.
To list:
- Criminal proceedings
- All governmental proceedings
- Administrative, if because the nature of the penalty that may be imposed, the
hearing partakes of a criminal proceeding
- Legislative investigations

27. a. When does the first jeopardy attach?

The first jeopardy is attached when an accused is acquitted, or convicted, or the
case against him is dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent,
by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a complaint or information or when a
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the
accused had pleaded to the charge.
To list (Requirements):
1. Valid complaint or information
2. Filed before a competent court
3. To which defendant has pleaded
4. Defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent
b. When is it considered terminated?
First jeopardy is terminated by:
1. Acquittal
2. Final conviction
3. Dismissal without express consent of the accused
4. Dismissal on the merits
c. Is an acquittal the same as a dismissal? (Villafuerte)
Dismissal
1.) the act of voluntarily terminating a criminal prosecution or a lawsuit or one of
its causes of action by one of the parties
2.) a judges ruling that a lawsuit or criminal charge is terminated. (i.e.
insufficiency of evidence)
3.) an appeal court's act of dismissing an appeal, letting the lower court decision
stand.
4.) the act of a plaintiff dismissing a lawsuit upon settling the case.
Acquittal
Is what an accused criminal defendant receives if he/she is found not guilty. It is
a verdict (a judgment in a criminal case) of not guilty.
d. May the state appeal from an acquittal? If not, then what other remedy is
available in order to question errors of jurisdiction?
The state cannot anymore appeal from an acquittal because of Double Jeopardy.
Acquittal (or conviction) of accused shall NOT bar another prosecution for an
offense which necessarily includes the offense originally charged when:

(1)
Doctrine of supervening facts: If the graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former
charge;
(2) If the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered
only after the filing of the former complaint or information
(3) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the
prosecutor or the offended party
e. What are the instances wherein the dismissal is with the consent of the
accused but the defense of double jeopardy is still available?
Gen rule: case must be dismissed without express consent of accused (accused
did not participate at all to the dismissal)
Exceptions:
Accused files dismissal of case for violation of the right on speedy
disposition of trial

f.

Accused files for dismissal of case when there is insufficiency of evidence

and court grants demurrer of evidence

What is the doctrine of supervening event?

Doctrine of Supervening event allows the prosecution for another offense if
subsequent development changes the character of the first indictment under
which the person (accused) may have already been charged or convicted.
If the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same
act or omission constituting the former charge.

28. a. What is the right guaranteed under Section 18(2), Art. III?
The right guaranteed under Section 18 (2), Art. III is right against involuntary
servitude.
b. Are there any exceptions to the said right?
Exceptions:
As punishment for a crime whereof one has been duly convicted (Sec. 18 (2)
Art. III); example community service
Service in defense of the State (Sec 4, Art. II)
Naval enlistment (Robertson v. Baldwin, No. 334, January 25, 1897)
Posse Comitatus obligation of the individual to assist in the protection of the
peace and good order of his community
Return to work order in industries affected with public interest
Obligation of children to obey their parents as long as they are under their
parental authority

29. a. What is an expost facto law?

An ex post facto law is one that would make a previous act criminal although it was
not so at the time it was committed.
30. b. What is a bill of attainder?
A bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial.