Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Daverick Pacumio
UST Faculty of Civil Law
Nuisance per se Nuisance per accidens Ortigas v. FEATI
Can be summarily abated Cannot be summarily - Impairment of obligations of contracts: if a law changes, alters, modifies
abated stipulations without parties’ consent
Noxious At the wrong place, at the - There was no impairment in this case because police power prevails
wrong time (e.g. patis over then non-impairment clause of the Constitution
factory in a school area) - Laws have the effect of altering contracts, but such laws are sustained if
- In this case, there was a conclusive presumption that persons made in the exercise of police power
transferring carabaos are going to kill the said carabaos BF Homes v. City Mayor
U.S. v. Toribio - To meet the growing needs of the subdivision, the reclassification of an
- Permits are being required to slaughter carabaos area was proper
- Toribio’s contention: it was taking BANAT v. COMELEC
- This is not taking but mere regulation as to the use of the carabaos - Role of poll watchers are imbued with public interest so prior contracts
Executive Secretary v. CA made with them by political parties and candidates regarding their
- What happened here that made private recruitment agencies say that compensation are invalidated to give way to police power.
there was a loss of livelihood? DECS v. San Diego Tablarin v. Gutierrez
- The affiliates of the recruitment agencies ceased their operations Whether the 3-flunk rule is Whether the NMAT is
because R.A. 8042 had the effect of equating legitimate constitutional valid and constitutional
recruitment agencies to illegal recruitment agencies The State may regulate entry into medical schools as the
- Processing of applications for overseas employment was in a medical profession is imbued with public interest. If one
standstill aspires to be a lawyer but works better as a plumber, he
- The right to employment/right to conduct business is a property right. should be so advised.
However, a property right or property may not be used to injure other Hermano Oil Manufacturing v. TRB
people’s rights. Even rights to business may be regulated. - Hermano Oil was asking for right of way
Plenary Power - The SC held that it did not constitute taking at all, but merely a
- Means that Congress may choose the scope of police power restriction on its use of its property for the welfare of the motorists who
MMDA v. Viron traverse along NLEX.
- MMDA was designated to implement the E.O. in the entire Metro OSG v. Ayala Land
Manila - Invalid exercise of police power. There is no obligation on the part of
- Less-intrusive means could have been employed instead of an absolute private property owners to grant free parking spaces under the National
closure of bus terminals Building Code as obligations arising from law are not presumed.
- A prior E.O. pertained to DOTC as the proper implementing agency Quezon City v. Ericta
Tawang v. LTWD - Directive to owners of memorial parks to allocate 6% of their property
- Constitutional supremacy: any contract, law, executive order entered for the burial of paupers is confiscatory and constitutes taking of
into by the executive and legislative bodies are null and void because property without just compensation
the Constitution is deemed written in contracts. Regulation of Public Morals
- Police power should not be used to violate the Constitution Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City of Manila
- Imposition of license fees on motels = power to tax as an implement of - MMDA wanted to destroy a wall and open Neptune Street to the public.
police power - MMDA has no police power. It is a mere administrative council
- Requirement for customers and guests to fill out public forms = valid
regulation to safeguard public morals EMINENT DOMAIN - Power of the State to take private property for public
City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. use upon payment of just compensation.
- Ordinance prohibiting the operation of motels - Does Art. III, Sec. 9 establish the power of eminent domain?
- The ordinance which restricted the use of property to such extent that it - It does not, it merely states the limitations on such power.
cannot be used for any lawful purpose constituted taking according to - Proceeds from jus regalia or the regalian doctrine which simply states
the Court, without just compensation. that all lands are owned by the State
General Welfare Clause - Provisions implying eminent domain:
- Way by which Congress delegates police power - Art. III, Sec. 9;
- Sec. 16 of the Local Government Code - Art. XII, Sec. 18 (Public Utilities);
- Local Government Units exercise this delegated power through - Art. XVII, Sec. 22 (Agrarian Reform)
ordinances - Expropriation: proceedings to exercise eminent domain
Cruz v. Pandacan Hikers - 2 stages in expropriation:
- There was no ordinance authorizing the Brgy. Chairman to destroy the - Court determines whether the entity has authority to expropriate
basketball ring and if there is public use. This stage is appealable;
- Brgy. Chairman thinks they are authorized to abate/destroy the ring - Determination of just compensation. This stage is also appealable
pursuant to the General Welfare Clause RP v. Heirs of Saturnino Borbon
- The General Welfare Clause is vested in the Sangguniang - Should the NPC be allowed to withdraw the appeal?
Pangbaranggay (local legislative body) - Even if there is already a complaint, and even if there is already
Requisites of a valid ordinance: an order of expropriation, like in this case, the complaint could
1. Must not contravene laws; still be withdrawn if there is no more public use
2. Must be for public purpose; NAPOCOR v. Posada
3. Must not be unfair; - NPC withdrew from the case alleging that the public purpose for which
4. Must not prohibit; they sought expropriation ceased to exist.
5. Must not be partial; - Exception to the rule that expropriation proceedings must be dismissed
6. Must not be unreasonable when it is determined that it is not for a public purpose:
Social Justice Society v. Atienza - Trial court order had already been final and executory;
- Ordinance converting Pandacan Oil Depot areas from industrial to - Government already took possession of the property;
commercial was valid because the areas might have been subjected to - Expropriation case caused prejudice to the landowner
terrorist attacks - Expropriation case is not automatically dismissed when the property
Legaspi v. City of Cebu ceases to be for public use. The State must first file a motion to withdraw
- There was a specific provision in the Local Government Code vesting before the trial court having jurisdiction over the proceedings which is
the Sanggunian with authority to enact ordinances regulating subject to the sound discretion of the said court.
thoroughfares and use of roads
MMDA v. Bel-Air
Heirs of Moreno v. MCIAA - Genuine necessity was a political question in this case as P.D. 1072, the
- The relationship between the State and the landowner is converted to basis of the expropriation was made by President Marcos in the exercise
trustee and beneficiary upon the discontinuance of his legislative powers then
- When the public use for which the property was used ceases, the Court Bardillon v. Brgy. Masili
shall determine the proper way of settling the rights, which in this case, - Talks about jurisdiction
was by considering the relationship of the government and petitioners - Expropriation proceedings does not deal with the recovery of a sum of
as an implied trust. money. Expropriation proceedings deal with the exercise of the
- The effects of discontinuing the case must be determined on a case to government and its right to expropriate to take property for public use.
case basis, thus the phrase in Rule 67 “upon terms that are just” The subject of expropriation proceedings is the exercise of the
Heirs of Saturnino Borbon Heirs of Moreno government’s power of eminent domain and is thus incapable of
Withdrawal entitles owner Withdrawal converts the pecuniary estimation. Thus, it is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
to damages relationship between the EMINENT DOMAIN POLICE POWER
State and landowner as Property taken is not Property destroyed or
trustee and beneficiary noxious regulated is noxious
RP v. CA Eminent Domain and Land Reform
- Laches: effect of delay; other party was given the impression that the Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
other party lost interest - In land reform cases, what separates the exercise of police power and
- Factually, landowners were actively pursuing their claims so they eminent domain?
should not be faulted - To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe
- An action to recover just compensation does not prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police
- Kung nag-prescribe edi sana dinelay nalang ng gobyerno palagi. NO power of the State for the regulation of private property in
EQUALITY. accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such
RP v. Samson-Tatad regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of
- Collateral attack – an out-of-topic attack whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area
- In case of uncertainty, the trial court is authorized to rule on the involved, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent
ownership but solely to determine one’s entitlement to just domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative.
compensation Requisites for Compensable Taking:
Forfom v. PNR 1. Entry into private property;
- Estoppel by laches: a party made a representation to another who 2. Entry must be for more than a momentary period;
believes that the other party had taken that position and stands by it 3. Entry must be made under color of legal authority;
which binds both parties. 4. The entry must be for public use;
- By continuous negotiation, landowner recognized the validity of 5. The owner is deprived of any beneficial enjoyment of his property.
expropriation NAPOCOR v. Heirs of Macabangkit-Sangkay
Manapat v. CA - Compensable taking includes destruction, diminution, restriction, or
- Propriety of exercising eminent domain could not be determined on interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common necessary use
purely quantitative basis and enjoyment of the property or lessening of its value. The same holds
true in this case as the owners here not able to dispose or introduce any
improvements on the said property because of the constructions made 4. Valid offer – which must precede everything
by NAPOCOR. Exception: Deposit of 15% of the BIR Zonal Valuation
National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville Masikip v. City of Pasig
- The determination of just compensation must be from 1983, when the - Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the
taking of Oroville’s property was undertaken by Transco. The SC held following areas of concern: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) genuine
that the rulings in Macabangkit-Sangkay and Saludares, where the Court necessity for the taking; and (c) public use or purpose of the taking. In
determined just compensation from the date the property owners this case, the Supreme Court held that there was no genuine necessity
initiated the inverse condemnation proceedings for just compensation, for the taking. A review of the records revealed to the Court that the
were mere exceptions to the general rule that just compensation must be intended beneficiaries of the expropriation of plaintiff’s property was
reckoned from the date of actual taking. the Melendres Compound Homeowners Association which was a
Taking private, non-profit organization. Clearly, it was not intended for public
- RP v. Castellvi use.
- Need not be a transfer of title or physical entry to the property (Heirs of Jesus Is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. v. Municipality of Pasig
Macabangkit-Sangkay) - The SC held that the witnesses adduced by respondent Municipality
- Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, proved that there was a necessity in expropriating the lands owned by
material impairment of the value of the property, or prevention of the JILCSFI, which was the fact that no other vehicles, especially firetrucks,
ordinary uses for which the property was intended (Cruz, 2015) could pass through from E.R. Santos street towards Sto. Tomas Bukid
where majority of the houses were made of light materials. Nonetheless,
Genuine Necessity the Supreme Court noted that respondent Municipality failed to prove
- Essentially political when decided by the national legislature and are the necessity of constructing the road in JILCSFI’s property, and not
usually not subject to judicial review (Cruz, 2015) somewhere else.
- Genuine necessity is a political question: that which is submitted to the - Genuine Necessity must be proved by preponderance of evidence; Pasig
people in their sovereign capacity in which full discretionary authority failed to substantiate genuine necessity
is given to the legislative and executive authority Public Use
City of Manila v. Chinese Community Brgy. Sindalan v. CA
- The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation - Public use has no precise meaning; it depends on diverse situations. The
to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power SC noted that there is no precise definition of public use. There had been
of the legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity a deviation in the traditional definition of public use as actual use by the
is exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed public. For all intents and purposes, public use was defined as whatever
by the general authority, is a question which the courts have the right to is beneficially employed for the community.
inquire into - Public use does not depend on the numerical count.
- Delegated exercise of eminent domain is no longer a political question - Standard for public use: whether or not use is exercisable in common as
Requisites for a Local Government Unit’s exercise of eminent domain (Sec. 19 opposed to a select group
of the Local Government Code) Subjects of Expropriation:
1. Ordinance - Anything that can come under the dominion of man. This includes real,
2. Just compensation personal, tangible, and intangible properties. In RP v. PLDT, services
3. Public Use
were considered embraced in the concept of property subject to taking - No. Just Compensation is a judicial function
under the power of eminent domain. (Cruz, 2015) May Rule 45 of the Rules of Court be used as a remedy to assail the finding of
Just Compensation just compensation by a lower court?
- Full and fair market value of property taken - No. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court deals with questions of law. Just
- Fair market value is the price the buyer and seller agreed to in the Compensation is a question of fact.
ordinary course of legal/ordinary transactions. Is res judicata applicable in Eminent Domain proceedings?
- Under Rule 67, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court, just compensation is - No. In Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty, the SC held that the
determined at the time of taking or at the time of institution of the principle of res judicata, which finds application in generally all cases
expropriation proceedings, whichever comes first. and proceedings, cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to
- Payment of interest is no longer absolute if the property owner sleeps expropriate private property.
on his rights May state immunity be invoked in determining just compensation?
Ilo-Ilo v. Besana - No. In Amigable v. Cuenca, the SC held that the doctrine of governmental
- The SC held that non-payment of just compensation does not entitle immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an
private respondent to recover his possession. Concededly, Javellana injustice on a citizen.
slept on his rights for 16 years, and was to be faulted for not checking Destruction from Eminent Domain
with the PNB back then whether a deposit was made or not. Despite Necessity
that, respondent may still recover the just compensation that was due Property destroyed is Property expropriated is
him for over 30 years, and that the petitioner is liable to pay respondent noxious wholesome
damages in view of the taking of the property without just No just compensation Just compensation
compensation. Anyone could exercise;
Sy v. Quezon City arises from the right of
- The government is liable to pay exemplary damages in case of unlawful self-preservation
or unauthorized taking.
Inverse Condemnation Proceedings R.A. 10752 – Right of Way Act
- Where private owners initiate the condemnation proceedings Sec. 14 – Provisions of this Act apply prospectively except those already settled.
- Is this the prevailing rule? Sec. 6 – expropriation is initiated by the appropriate implementing agency,
- No. It is more of a rule in equity. It is only an exception, such as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General or the Office of the
in the Heirs of Macabangkit-Sangkay when actual taking of the Government Corporate Counsel
property could not be determined. (a) Upon filing of the expropriation complaint, the implementing agency must
- The prevailing rule is still Rule 67, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court immediately deposit to the court in favor of the owner the sum of:
There was taking in 2010, but the filing of the inverse condemnation 1. 100% of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal
proceedings was only on 2019. How much is the interest? 6% or 12%? valuation of the BIR issued not more than three (3) years prior to the
- Central Bank Circular No. 905 – 22 December 1978 up to June 30, 2013 filing of the expropriation complaint
(prevailing interest rate is 12%) 2. The replacement costs to be determined by:
- Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799 series of 2013 – 01 July 2013 i. The implementing agency (IA);
onwards (prevailing interest rate is 6%) ii. Government Financial Institution (GFI) with adequate
May Congress provide for amount of just compensation? experience in property appraisal;
iii. Independent property appraisers (IPA) recognized by the BSP (c) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no land
3. The current market value of the crops and trees located within the classification, the city or municipality assessor is hereby mandated within
property as determined by the GFI or IPA the period of sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation
case, to conduct a zonal valuation for said area, based on the land
Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall classification done by the city or municipal assessor.
immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession
of the property and start the implementation of the project. (d) In case the completion of a government infrastructure is of utmost urgency
and importance and there is no land classification or no existing zonal
If, within seven (7) working days after the deposit to the court of the amount valuation of the area concerned, or the zonal valuation has been in force
equivalent to the sum mentioned above, the court has not issued to the for more than three (3) years already, the IA shall use the BIR zonal value
implementing agency a writ of possession for the affected property, the and land classification of similar lands within the adjacent vicinity as the
counsel of the implementing agency shall immediately seek from the court basis for the valuation.
the issuance of the writ of possession. The court shall issue the writ of (e) In any of the cases in items (a) to (d), upon receipt by the IA of the writ of
possession ex parte; no hearing shall be required. possession, the IA may take possession of the property and start the
implementation of the project.
The court shall release the said amount to the owner upon presentation of (f) In the event that the owner of the property contests the IA's proffered
sufficient proofs of ownership. value, the court shall determine the just compensation to be paid the owner
within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case.
(b) In case the owner of the property cannot be found, is unknown, or is When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the IA shall
deceased in cases where the estate has not been settled, after exerting due pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just
diligence, or there are conflicting claims over the ownership of the property compensation as determined by the court.
and improvements and/or structures thereon, the IA shall deposit the
amount in items a(1) to a(3) above for the benefit of the person to be How to Get Away with Expropriation
adjudged in the same proceeding as entitled thereto.
Government Side
Upon compliance with the above guidelines, the court shall immediately
issue to the IA an order to take possession of the property. Step 1: If you’re the counsel for the IA, upon filing of the expropriation
complaint, deposit the following to the court:
If within seven (7) working days after the deposit with the court of the
amount equivalent to the sum under items (a)(1) to (a)(3) above, the court (a) 100% of the current zonal valuation of the BIR provided it be issued not
has not issued to the IA a writ of possession for the affected property, the more than 3 years prior to the filing of the complaint.
counsel of the IA shall immediately seek from the court the issuance of the (b) Replacement costs (determined by IA, GFI, or IPA)
writ of possession. (c) Current market value of the crops and trees determined by GFI, IPA
The court shall release the said amount to the person adjudged in the same Property owner cannot be found or is unknown or deceased and his estate has
expropriation proceeding as entitled thereto. not yet been settled? Conflicting claims of ownership over the property?
Same procedure. Still deposit (a) to (c) to the court. What if the property owner is not satisfied with the proffered value?
Step 2: Wait for seven (7) days. If within 7 days after the deposit of items (a) to The court shall then determine within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of
(c) above there is still no issuance of a writ of possession from the court, file a the expropriation case the proper amount of just compensation. When the
motion ex parte. The other party does not have to comment, and there’s no decision of the court becomes final and executory, the IA shall pay the owner
hearing required. the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as
determined by the court.
Step 3: After you receive the writ of possession from the court, you may take
possession of the property and commence your project. TAXATION
What if the property owner contests the value proffered by the IA? Taxes: the enforced proportional contribution from people/property within
the State effected by the State in the exercise of its sovereignty to defray its
The court shall determine the just compensation to be paid within sixty (60) operational expenses.
days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the
court becomes final and executory, the IA shall pay the owner the difference - Enforced: mandatory
between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined by - Proportional: based on a person’s ability to pay
the court. - Exercise of sovereignty: by authority of law and is a sovereign function
- To defray its operational expenses: to retain the government
What if there is no land classification?
Basis of taxation: The Lifeblood Doctrine. Taxes are what we pay for in
The city/municipal assessor must conduct a zonal valuation within 60 days. exchange of a civilized society for the government’s existence. (CIR v. Algue)
Okay, but I don’t have that much time on my hands. The project is of utmost NAPOCOR v. Cabanatuan
importance and urgency and (a) there’s no land classification; and (b) the zonal - There was a previous grant of exemption but was withdrawn by the
valuation has been in force for more than three (3) years already. What can I Local Government Code
do? - Cabanatuan was justified in imposing a franchise fee.
- Taxation even assumes greater importance with the ratification of the
Use the BIR zonal value and land classification of similar lands within the present constitution, in that the power to levy taxes was no longer
adjacent vicinity as the basis for the valuation. lodged exclusively with Congress, but was granted to LGUs as well.
This paradigm shift resulted from the realization that genuine
Property owner side development could only be achieved by fostering local autonomy and
providing decentralization of governance.
Step 1: if you’re the counsel for the property owner, once the IA has made the Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR
deposit, request the property owner to prepare the proof of his/her ownership, - Estoppel does not apply to the collection of taxes
and then file a motion with the court for the release of the deposit made upon - SC used the lifeblood doctrine by saying that estoppel does not apply to
the presentation of the aforementioned proof of ownership. the State as taxes are the lifeblood of the State and could not be impaired
by estoppel
- Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, without which, it could - Any claim for exemption must be construed strictisimi juris against the
neither exist nor endure. The government cannot be estopped from taxpayer.
collecting taxes by the mistake, negligence, or omission of its agents. Sea-land Service v. CA
- Petitioner contends that CIR was estopped from questioning the - tax exemptions are not presumed and that they must be strictly
jurisdiction by actively participating in the proceedings therein. construed against those who claim them. In this case, the RP-US Military
CREBA v. Romulo Bases Agreement clearly provide that US Nationals are exempt from any
- Minimum Corporate income Tax is not an additional imposition; it is in income derived under any contract made in the US or with the
lieu of the ordinary income tax if the normal income tax is suspiciously Government of the US in connection with the construction, maintenance,
low defense, and operation of the bases. The shipping of household goods and
Is the taxing power delegated by Congress to LGUs? effects of US military personnel clearly do not fall within the
- No, it is a Constitutional grant. Art. X, Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides construction, maintenance, defense, and operation of military bases.
that each LGU shall have the power to create its own sources of revenue Thus, the claim for refund must be denied.
and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and Exceptions to the strict interpretation on tax exemptions
limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy 1. Clear legislative intent
of local autonomy. 2. Law provides for liberal interpretation
CIR v. Enron 3. Special taxes relating to special cases and affecting special classes of
- May the lifeblood doctrine be used in dispensing with the notice/letter? persons
- No. Taxation must be collected lawfully and not arbitrarily. 4. Public property
Reyes v. Almanzor 5. Religious and charitable institutions
- Income Approach v. Comparable Sales Approach 6. In favor of government, political subdivisions, or instrumentalities
- 2 requirements for the Comparable Sales Approach to be used: Is the power to tax the power to destroy?
- Sale must represent an arms-length transaction between the seller - It depends.
and the buyer - If it is used for regulation, as when it is used as an implement of police
- Comparable with another property power, then it is the power to destroy.
Theories behind the exercise of power to tax - But if it is used for the purpose of generating revenues, then it cannot be
1. Necessity Theory – taxes are necessary to preserve state integrity allowed to confiscate or destroy.
2. Benefits-Protection Theory – persons, property are liable for taxes to Purpose of Taxation
receive protection and benefits from the State 1. Revenue
3. Symbiotic Relationship Theory – despite a person’s natural reluctance 2. Police Power (regulation)
to part with his property, he must do so for the continued operation of 3. Protection of local industries against foreign invasion
the government 4. Promotion of growth of local industries
- Without taxes, the government will lose the motivating power to 5. Reduction of social inequality
continue its operation
- The government must respond to taxes collected with life-enhancing Stages of Taxation
services 1. Levy/imposition – enactment of a tax law
Tax Exemptions 2. Assessment/collection
- Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. (Cruz, 2015) 3. Payment/satisfaction
Principles of a Sound Tax System ED: may be exercised by
1. Fiscal Adequacy – to meet the needs of the government some private entities
2. Theoretical Justice – a sound tax system is based on the taxpayer’s ability Methods by which the Benefits
to pay State interferes with property/individual
3. Administrative Feasibility – tax laws and regulations must be capable of private rights enjoys as a result of the
effectively being enforced with the least inconvenience to the taxpayer. exercise of the powers
Uniformity in Taxation PP: no concrete benefit;
- Persons belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. just an altruistic feeling of
- Progressive system of taxation = directory, and not a source of being able to contribute to
justiciable right; not a self-executing provision the general welfare;
- Regressivity is not a negative standard for courts to enforce ED: Just Compensation
Tax: benefits-received
Double Taxation principle
- Why does jurisprudence prohibit double taxation? Presuppose an equivalent Benefits society derives
- It violates the equal protection clause. Other persons among the compensation for the from the exercise of the
same class are taxed twice while the others are not. private rights interfered powers
- Direct Double Taxation with PP (pinaka-KJ): General
- Indirect Double Taxation – different jurisdictions/different purpose Welfare
- International Double Taxation ED (pinaka-fair): Property
to be used for public use
How can International Double Taxation be prevented by International Tax (pinaka-dupang):
Treaties? Public service
1. Credit Method – subtract the amount taxed in one jurisdiction to the Exercised primarily by the Nature of property subject
taxable amount in the other jurisdiction Legislature ot restraint
2. Exemption Method – payment in another jurisdiction exempts a person PP: Noxious
from paying in the other ED and Tax: Wholesome
1Section 1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name
of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding
him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
- There’s still a valid search because there is no valid reason for the witness to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof
(the wife) to refuse duly verified under oath.
People v. Del Castillo People v. Go
- Lawful occupants must be the ones to accompany the authorities - Inventory must be made under oath, otherwise, contempt may lie
- Presence of Brgy. Tanod is not necessary - Presumption of regularity will not lie in favor of the authorities who served
- Lawful occupants were asked by the police to stay on a particular location the warrant
and not witness the search = invalid search
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall
Section 9. Time of making search. — The warrant must direct that it be served in ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to
the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was
in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section
that it be served at any time of the day or night. 112 of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that the property
Ø Time of making a search: seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof
General rule: Daytime has been complied with.
Exception: When there is a particular instruction to conduct the search
at night (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant shall be valid for ten the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return,
(10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void. the result, and other actions of the judge.
Ø How long is a search warrant valid?
10 days from its date A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.
Ø Inventory of seized items, return, and proceedings must be duly verified
Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. — The officer seizing property under and under oath
the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of Ø Return: report on the implementation of search warrant
the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the Ø No return: court summons person upon whom such warrant was issued
absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of and person must explain why there was no return
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the Ø Violation of Sec. 12 or the above makes an officer liable for contempt of
place in which he found the seized property. court
Ø Receipt of property seized must be given to:
1. Lawful occupant/any family member in his absence; or People v. Huang Zen Hua
2. 2 witnesses of legal age in the same locality - There must be notice and demand from the officer concerned before
breaking in
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and - Lawful entry is an indispensable predicate of a reasonable search
proceedings thereon. — (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized - “Knock and announce” principle
2Whether the receipt has been given to (a) lawful occupant/any family member in his absence;
or (b) 2 witnesses of legal age residing in the same locality
- Non-compliance with this principle renders the search invalid, - The plain view doctrine is also inapplicable to the present case as it applies
ergo, evidence seized is inadmissible in evidence only to cases where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the
offender, but nevertheless stumbles upon incriminating evidence.
Is the rule requiring police officers to secure a search warrant absolute? Ø May search precede the arrest?
- No. General Rule: Arrest precedes search
- Exceptions: Warrantless searches (IMC-PWESV) Exception:
1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest; People v. Racho
2. Search of moving vehicles; - A search substantially contemporaneous with the arrest; when there is
3. Customs searches; probable cause at the outset to effect the arrest
4. Plain view doctrine; - Accused-appellant herein was not committing any offense in the presence
5. Waiver; of the police officers, neither did the police officers have personal knowledge
6. Emergency & exigency circumstances; that the accused-appellant had just committed a crime except for the
7. Stop-and-frisk; and information relayed by the confidential agent.
8. Visual searches at checkpoints
Probable cause: Rule 113, Sec. 5 (b)
1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest (Rule 126, Sec. 13) - When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be person to be arrested has committed it
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or Veridiano v. People
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. - The basis of the arrest in this case was a tip
- SC said that a hearsay tip by itself does not justify a warrantless arrest
Requisites of search incident to a lawful arrest: - A tip is not probable cause under Rule 113, Sec. 5 (b)
a. Item to be searched is within the arrestee’s area of immediate control
b. Search is contemporaneous with the arrest 2. Search of moving vehicles
Ø Why is this an exception to the need for searches to have warrants?
Ø Unlawful arrest = no valid warrantless search; illegal arrest = Caballes v. People
subsequent search is illegal - Kinds of searches to be done to vehicles:
Ø Is this the same as the plain view doctrine? a. In moving vehicles, what can be done are routine inspections; but
o No. In plain view, search precedes arrest; plain view = physical intrusion goes to far (G.R.)
inadvertent; search incident to a lawful arrest = intentional b. Extensive searches are allowed when there is probable cause as to the fact
People v. Calantiao that (a) the motorist is an offender; and (b) that the things to be searched
- Under the plain view doctrine, the discovery of an object is inadvertent; evidence a crime (XPN)
unlike in searches incidental to a lawful arrest, the discovery/search was Example: the distinctive smell of marijuana
deliberate
- While there could be plain view in searching a person arrested, it is under Ø How about persistent reports of a rampant smuggling of firearms,
Rule 126, Sec. 13 – it has a different legal basis. In Calantiao, the search was contrabands?
made incidental to a lawful arrest o Still does not justify warrantless search
Ø What kind of reports, then, justify warrantless searches? prudent man would be warranted in the belief that his safety and that of
o Confidential or classified information regarding the fact that others is at risk.
evidence could be found in the vehicle - Terry Search: there must be a genuine reason
Search incident to a lawful arrest Extensive search of a moving People v. Cogaed
vehicle - Citing Esquillo v. People, the SC ruled that a single suspicious circumstance
Reliable tip is not enough for Reliable tip is sufficient is not enough; there must be more than 1 to make up a reasonable belief
probable cause to effect a warrantless - In Esquillo, Justice Bersamin dissented by saying that police officers must not
arrest rely on a single suspicion. There should be the presence of more than one
seemingly innocent activity, taken together, warranted reasonable belief of
3. Plain view doctrine criminal activity.
Requisites: (VIA) - 2-fold interests served by stop-and-frisk:
a. Valid intrusion/prior justification to be in the place; a. Crime prevention & detection; and
b. Discovery of evidence is inadvertent; without need of further search; b. Officer safety & self-preservation
c. It is immediately apparent that the evidence is a contraband/used in the Requisites for stop-and-frisk searches:
commission of a crime a. Genuine reason – not just a mere hunch/suspicion – more than 1
circumstance leading up to a conclusion that there is a criminal activity
Ø Buy-bust operations where the house of the accused was searched afoot; a series of circumstances
Ø However, a search warrant being executed whereby the officers b. Circumstances must be known to the police officers based on experience
inadvertently came across a contraband is still covered by the plain view and training
doctrine Veridiano v. People
Ø Prior justification = search warrant - Reasonable persons act nervous in a checkpoint. Therefore, simply being
nervous is not enough for there to be a genuine reason
4. Stop-and-frisk - Moreover, the police officers had no personal knowledge of any fact proving
Terry v. Ohio that Veridiano had just committed an offense, other than the hearsay tip.
- Officer McFadden, 62, had a reputation of apprehending pickpockets Comerciante v. People
- The US Supreme Court held that there are two governmental interests - The act of standing & passing something to another person is not a crime
involved in this case. first, the stop and frisk search conducted by McFadden - Comerciante’s acts of standing around with a companion and handing over
is an effective crime prevention technique. In this case, McFadden properly something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts, or acts that are
observed that a crime may be well underway because of the actuations of enough to create a reasonable inference that criminal activity is afoot which
Chilton and Terry. Second, it is within government interest for a law would form basis of PO3 Calag to perform a stop and frisk search.
enforcement officer, like McFadden, to protect himself and ensure that the
person he/she is dealing with is not carrying a concealed weapon which - Waiver
could potentially be fatally used against him. Requisites of a valid waiver:
- The degree of evidence or state of facts sufficient to justify a limited search a. Existence of a right;
for weapons, as in this case, does not have to be equivalent to that required b. Person involved has actual/constructive knowledge of such right;
for the existence of probable cause. The standard is whether a reasonably c. Intent to relinquish such right;
d. Waiver extends only to arrest
- Cutiepie Flores, et al. were not conducting search pursuant to the
Villanueva v. People enforcement of customs laws
- Waiver of right to question legality of illegal arrest is not a waiver of the - Nevertheless, the search was valid. The search was consented. The
right to question the legality of search presentation was voluntarily made by Dela Cruz for x-ray inspection
- Example: there is a checkpoint. Police asked you to open the compartment. - Entering an airport is deemed a waiver of the right to question the legality
You said, “Yes, by all means.” You waived your right to question the legality of searches
of the search conducted against you and the shabu seized in your car is
admissible against you - Exigent & Emergency Circumstances
- The proper time to assail the legality of arrest is the arraignment People v. De Gracia
- Raids & searches and seizures during the existence of a coup d’etat were
Veridiano v. People made under exigent and emergency circumstances
- Lack of resistance/silence is not equivalent to consent to be searched - Police/agents had no opportunity to apply for search warrants
- Consent must be proven by clear and convincing evidence
People v. Cogaed Ø You were apprehended for drunk driving. There’s a hunch on the part
- Burden of proof to establish waiver = prosecution of police authority that you were involved in a rape case that happened
5 hours ago. Police wanted to seize your phone to verify. May they do
- Customs Searches so without a warrant?
Papa v. Mago Riley v. California
- Rationale why customs searches is an exception: automobile is a highly - Search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest of digital contents
powered vehicle of a cellphone is invalid because digital information stored on a
- Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons with police authority to search, cellphone could not be used to harm an arresting officer making
seize, and enter any land/enclosure which is not a dwelling (Sec. 2203) the arrest. The inspection must be limited to the physical features
Salvador v. People of the phone
- Drug trafficking and smuggling by Philippine Airlines (PAL) personnel
- Search was conducted pursuant to police authority under customs law R.A. 10586 – Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act (aka dapat marunong ka
- Reiterated Papa v. Mago mag-dala ng kalasingan act. Jk.)
- Also a search of a moving vehicle
- If it is a dwelling, it is immobilized. Therefore, there is an opportunity to Ø Probable cause to subject person for drug screening/sobriety test: the
secure a warrant. for moving vehicles, there is no such time way one drives
Dela Cruz v. People Ø Apparent indications & manifestations of driving under the influence
- Routine security check had the color of a state-related function thus, People (DUI): overspeeding, swerving, lane straddling, weaving, sudden stops
v. Marti does not apply Ø Failed sobriety tests: breath analyzer to check blood alcohol
- Requirements for search to be under customs search: (PEN) concentration levels
a) Persons conducting search were exercising police authority under Ø Probable cause for drug use: drug screening
customs law
b) Search conducted is for the enforcement of customs law Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court – Warrantless Arrests
c) Place searched is not a dwelling a. In flagrante delicto arrests
b. Hot pursuit - As opposed to Miguel v. People, the lack of criminal charges for showing of
c. Escapees private parts merely bolstered the incredibility of the arrest based on the
Note: in (a) and (b), the person arrested should be brought to the nearest police circumstances present
station or jail - Validity of warrantless arrest is crucial to the validity of a search incident
thereto
In flagrante delicto arrests People v. Doria
1. Overt act indicating that he has just committed, actually committing, - Entrapment has a negative meaning under US Jurisprudence – according to
attempting to commit a crime them, it connotes trickery
2. In view of a police officer/arresting officers - In our jurisdiction, however, there must be a distinction between
entrapment and instigation
People v. Badilla Entrapment Instigation
- Police did not have enough time to secure a search warrant because there Criminal offense comes from Criminal offense comes from
was a report of a man indiscriminately firing a gun the offender’s mind the police officer/instigator
- Badilla’s act of pulling something from his pocket is an overt act for the - Buy-bust is in the nature of an in flagrante delicto arrest which is the usual
police mode of arresting under R.A. 9165
- The time element involved in the case precluded the police officers from Umil v. People
obtaining a warrant. Badilla’s act of pulling something from his pocket - A rebel may be arrested without a warrant anytime as rebellion is a
constituted an overt act which aroused the suspicion of the police officer continuing offense
who arrested him and believed that then and there was going to be able to - In flagrante delicto arrest may be done as long as a police officer perceives that
draw a gun from his pocket considering the report relayed to him and his a crime is being committed
team.
Miguel v. People Hot Pursuit
- Brgy. Tanod & Chairman = law enforcement officers in the context of Art. Pestilos v. Generoso
III of the Const. - 3rd type of determination of probable cause
- Bantay Bayan perforns a state-related function - Police officer determines probable cause for purposes of effecting an arrest
- SC: not a valid warrantless arrest on account of public display of private under Rule 113 Sec. 5 (b)
parts. If it were so, the proper charge should have been filed. Also, not a case - A hearsay tip does not justify a warrantless arrest under hot pursuit. There
of hot pursuit; police officers had no personal knowledge. There was no must be personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances
valid arrest that preceded the search, therefore, marijuana obtained is not - NOTE: Confidential information may be sufficient for a warrantless search
admissible. of a moving vehicle
Homar v. People - SC: in determining probable cause, police officer may rely on the
- No valid in flagrante delicto arrest as the place where Homar crossed was not circumstances and reasonably trustworthy information as well as personal
identified knowledge
- Is the filing of a criminal charge a condition precedent to prove validity of - Reasonably trustworthy information: may be a witness/victim of the crime;
warrantless arrest? police officers need not verify information
o No. police officers/prosecution must still prove validity of warrantless - Requisites:
arrest 1. Crime had just been committed;
2. Personal knowledge of the arresting officer that the person to be arrested
has committed it 2 tests to determine whether or not right to privacy is infringed or the
reasonable expectation of privacy test:
Administrative arrests 1. Subjective test – person’s expectation of privacy by his conduct
Ø May administrative agencies issue warrants of arrest? 2. Objective test – person’s expectation of privacy is recognized by society
General Rule: No. as reasonable
Exception: Deportation provided there is a final order of deportation;
for carrying out a final order finding a violation of the law Sps. Ching v. Choachuy
Ø How about the random conduct of drug tests? - Video surveillance cameras should not cover places where there is
Randomized drug tests to students and employees do not violate the reasonable expectation of privacy
right to privacy - There is reasonable expectation of privacy in business areas
Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College
RIGHT TO PRIVACY - Right to privacy online depends on privacy tools
- The right to privacy is the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of - There must be a manifestation by a user of an intent to keep his posts private
one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as (i.e. Only Me, Custom in Facebook posts)
to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities (Cruz, 2015) - A setting of “Friends” or “Friends Only” does not bolster Vivares’
Olmstead Ruling v. Katz Ruling contention that there is a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy. It is
Olmstead v. US Katz v. US not a guarantee that it would not be viewed by other persons who are not
Search and seizure clause did not One who occupies a telephone booth your friends
prohibit non-trespassory wiretaps, who closes the door behind him is - Objective reasonable expectation of privacy = “Only Me” or “Custom”
only physical trespass is prohibited; entitled to assume that the words he Gamboa v. Chan
objects seized must be tangible speaks to the mouthpiece would not - No violation of right to privacy as surveillance on Gamboa was an inherent
be broadcast to the world factor in investigation and intelligence gathering
- Thank God for Katz for the protection we now enjoy in our communications - The state interest of dismantling private army groups far outweighs the
alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the
Disini v. Secretary of Justice collection and forwarding by the PNP of information against her was
- Realtime data collection which does not require a warrant but only due pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the writ of habeas data will not lie
cause is not valid. Due cause is insufficient as it has no precedence in Morfe v. Mutuc
law/jurisprudence; leaves unbridled discretion to police officers; Sec. 12 of - SALNs do not violate the right to privacy
the Cybercrime Law does not define due cause -- it is akin to a general search - A public officer is bereft of constitutional protection.
warrant prohibited by the Constitution - The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act could also be hardly declared as
unconstitutional when one takes into account the harsh and compelling
2 categories of privacy: realities of public service with its ever-present temptation to heed the call of
1. Decisional privacy – right to independence in making certain important greed and avarice
decisions Pollo v. Constantino-David
2. Informational privacy – right to: (a) not have private information - Personal files in a computer obtained without consent of the user is not a
regarding one’s self disclosed; and (b) to live free from surveillance violation of the right to privacy
- It must be assessed in the context of employer relations Ø In Diocese of Bacolod, the SC cited Commissioner Lino Brocka’s proposal
- There is a reduced expectation of privacy in a workplace especially in the to include “expression” in Art. III, Sec. 4 in order to make it more
public sector expansive
- Even assuming, arguendo, that he had put up a reasonable expectation of Ø Are all speeches treated the same?
privacy, such would be rebutted by the CSC’s policy under Office o No. even if a speech is protected, the level of protection varies.
Memorandum No. 10 S. 2002 wherein it was explicitly stated that there is no Not everything we say/express is protected
expectation of privacy relative to the use of computer resources of the CSC. o Commercial speeches are not the same as political speeches, the
latter is given more protection
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
3 tests:
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of 1. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine – permits limitation on speech if there
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the is a rational correlation with the speech and the evils feared
government for redress of grievances. (Art. III, Sec. 4, 1987 Const.) - Under this test, a person could be punished for his ideas even if
they only tended to create the evil sought to be prevented. It was
Thomas Jefferson: You cannot say that you are free if you are uninformed. not necessary to actually create the evil; a mere tendency toward
Ø Free speech is the essence of a democratic society the evil was enough (Cruz, 2015)
Chavez v. Gonzales 2. Balancing of Interest Test – if in a given situation it should appear that
- Mere statements by the Secretary of Justice were enough to violate free there is urgent necessity for protecting the national security against
speech improvident exercise of freedom of expression, the right must yield (Id.)
- Free speech entails ability to discuss only matters of public interest without 3. Clear and Present Danger Test – where speech must be restrained as
censorship or fear of punishment the speech will lead to a substantive danger the government has a right
- The right to dissent; constitution protects even the ideas and opinions we to prevent
hate - Requires proximity and degree
- As Justice Holmes put it, “Freedom for the thought that we hate as much as - The rule is that the danger created must not only be clear and
the thought that we agree with.” present but also traceable to the ideas expressed. The term clear
- Constitutional expression includes those that are instructive, informative, seems to point to a causal connection with the damage of the
religious, etc. substantive evil arising from the utterance questioned. Present
- A governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based refers to the time element (Cruz, 2015)
on content (content-based regulation) is given the strictest scrutiny, with the
government having the burden of overcoming the presumed 4 aspects of Art. III, Sec. 4:
unconstitutionality by the clear and present danger test. This rule applies 1. Freedom from prior restraint – imposed prior to utterance
equally to all kinds of media, including broadcast media 2. Freedom from subsequent punishment
3. Freedom of access to information
Ø Art. III, Sec. 4 does not compel you to speak, it includes the right to be 4. Freedom of circulation
silent
1. Freedom from Prior Restraint Soriano v. Laguardia
- Prior restraint bears heavy presumption of unconstitutionality - SC applied the balancing-of-interest test
Content-based regulation Content-neutral regulation - Parens patriae – the State is the protector of its citizens
Pertains to the subject matter of the Merely concerned with the incidents - In this case, the minors were the ones being protected by the State
expression of speech (time, place, manner) 1. Medium used – television which is more accessible to children
Strict scrutiny test; apply the clear Maybe intermediate test/rational 2. Time slot – primetime while the children are still awake
and present danger test basis test 3. Rating – it was rated as for general viewership
- The distinction is important for us to know the test applicable - The statements of Brother Eli may be classified as an indecent language to
- In Chavez v. Gonzales, respondent argued that print media is not the same as the average child
broadcast media. The SC disagreed. All subjects of media are subject to the INC v. CA
clear and present danger rule even for broadcast media. Unlike the US, the - INC was attacking the Catholic Church which merited their episodes x-
Philippines does not dichotomize. But the clear and present danger test still ratings
applies only to content-based regulation. Not every violation of the law - Opinion here refers to religious speech
justifies the straitjacketing of freedom of speech and of the press - SC: the remedy for a doctrine which is attacked is a better doctrine. The best
- In Chavez, a press statement warning media practitioners is a governmental argument against a doctrine attacking another doctrine is a better doctrine
act. In this case, the SOJ made the press statement in his official capacity Newsounds v. Dy
- Statements made in an official capacity may be a governmental act; it does - Atty. Sarangaya: similar to the Rappler drama; is Malacañang’s barring of
not have to be formalized as an Executive Order, Administrative Order, etc. Rappler a violation of free speech? #UpholdPressFreedom
- SC: Based on the circumstances, it appeared that the regulation was content-
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC neutral. But delving deeper into it, it is actually content-based. The SC
- Does size matter? looked at the factual milieu and the surrounding circumstances of the case
- Even a COMELEC opinion may be construed as a governmental act - In 2001, Bombo Radyo (which is owned by petitioners in this case) had been
- Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 is not applicable because the Diocese is not a holder of a aggressive in exposing election irregularities in Isabela which effectively
franchise favoured respondent Dy and other members of the Dy political dynasty in
- Provisions cited by the COMELEC only pertain to candidates this case. Prior to 2002, petitioners never encountered any problems securing
- If Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 and the Fair Elections Act are invoked, distinguish permits for the continued operation of their radio stations. It was only in
between public/private individual 2002, when herein respondent Mayor Cesar Dy was elected into office that
- Why is the issue of being a content-based and content-neutral regulation the local government started to impose these additional requirements to
relevant in this case? substantiate the conversion of petitioners’ property to commercial use.
- Size matters: SWS v. COMELEC
1. It enhances the efficiency of the communication - COMELEC argued that surveys were detrimental to the electoral process
2. It conveys the idea that the message is important - Justice Kapunan’s dissent: the restriction has a noble purpose – to not
3. The larger the tarpaulin, the more message it bears pressure the voters
- Thus, the COMELEC’s opinion in this case was a content-based regulation - SC: insisted on employing the clear and present danger test using the
- Property rights were also violated in this case O’brien test: a government regulation is sufficiently justified when: [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 freedom of expression; and [4] if Primicias v. Fugoso
the incidental restriction is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of - BP 880
interest. - The SC juxtaposed the case with Reyes v. Bagatsing
- In this case, the provision failed to meet item [3] as there is a causal - For a permit to be refused to those applying for it, there must be a clear and
connection between the expression and the asserted governmental interest present danger that the assembly for which the permit is being applied for
which makes such governmental interest related to the suppression of the is illegal. The danger is imminent in character that must be prevented and
freedom of expression. suppressed.
- The licensing authority must use the clear and present danger test
Reno v. ACLU - Proximity between the assembly and the substantive evil sought to be
- US Supreme Court struck down the “indecent transmission” and “patently prevented
offensive” provision of the Communications Decency Act for overbreadth - The pertinent provisions of the subject ordinance which grants the Mayor
Near v. Minnesota the power to issue permits for the use of public spaces, should mean that the
- While liberty of the press is not absolute, the regulation in this case is Mayor had no authority to refuse the issuance of such permit, but rather
actually a prior restraint on publication only to determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade or
- If the newspaper is consistent in its attack of public officers, the remedy is procession would be conducted.
libel, not the prohibition of publication conveying potentially libelous - Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free
statements men from the bondage of irrational fears.
Grosjean v. American Press Co.
- The State license tax is a restraint on publication Libel
- As opposed to Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance – the Php 1,000.00 registration Is the right of private citizens to assail the actions of public officials absolute?
fee is merely administrative and is not directed to the privilege of - No.
publication; that in Grosjean attacks the privilege to publish Are news outfits or publishers always required to be correct in the statements
Adiong v. COMELEC contained in their articles?
- Overbreadth was applied – governmental interest must not be achieved by - No. (New York Times v. Sullivan)
means that unnecessarily sweep and infringe on constitutional rights - Certain margin of error: How do you quantify this?
- The COMELEC regulation infringes on the right to property – how to use o The doctrine of actual malice does not require 100% exactitude
property (cars) owned by individuals with respect to the information contained in the article. What is
- The way one conveys information is likewise vital important is that even if there are inaccuracies in the opinion,
- Equalization of opportunities for candidates is not as important as the rights there is no knowledge that the facts upon which the opinion is
of property owners to express their own views and preferences with their based are false or based on a false supposition
consent Tulfo v. People
- It depends on the property owner’s consent, not the wealth of the candidate - Tulfo did not make any effort to validate or verify the reports given to
- The constitutional objective of providing equal opportunity for rich and poor him by his sources in the BOC
candidates to inform the electorate could not prevail over a constitutionally - The SC also used the Journalist’s Code of Ethics
protected freedom – compared to the paramount interest of the State in - Is the defense that this is a fair commentary on matters of public concern
guaranteeing freedom of expression, the constitutional objective is of tenable?
marginal significance. o In this case, no.
- Assuming, arguendo, that it is a fair commentary, what should be Is there an absolute privileged communication?
proved? Absolute privileged Qualified privileged
o Actual malice: actual knowledge of falsity, reckless disregard of communication communication
whether or not it was false or not Privileged speech in Congress Art. 354, Doctrine of Fair
Commentaries on Matters of
New York Times v. Sullivan Public Concern
- The US Supreme Court defined actual malice as: actual knowledge of Regardless of malice, the Malice is considered
falsity, reckless disregard of whether or not it was false or not person making the statement
is immune
Scenario: Mario Ressa wrote a negative opinion on the oust-duterte matrix
released by Sal Panelo saying that it was unverified, bogus. Could Sal Panelo There is presumption of malice in every defamatory imputation. However, if it
sue him? is published as a fair commentary on matters of public concern, there is then
- Qualify. If it is a fair commentary regarding a matter of public concern, the need to prove actual malice. In other words, the presumption does not apply
then the accuser (Panelo) must prove actual malice i.e. actual knowledge to privileged communications (absolute privileged, qualified privileged, and
of its falsity and reckless disregard of whether or not it was false or not. fair commentaries on matters of public concern) because in the latter, there is
The establishment that it is a fair comment regarding a matter of public need to prove actual malice.
concern triggers this requirement. Ø Actual malice is relevant only when we’re talking about qualified
- There is no actual malice if Mario Ressa’s opinion was based on an privileged communication
actual fact – the matrix issued by Malacañang/Sal Panelo.
- There is actual malice when Mario Ressa assumed that a matrix will be • Political speech occupies a higher rank in the levels of speech. Political
issued which, in his opinion, highlights the stupidity of Panelo. In this speech shapes our views
case, there was no matrix or concrete fact upon which Mario Ressa could • Political sovereignty influences the framework of the legal sovereign –
base his opinion. the State. We could exercise it by the freedom of speech and expression
because said exercise shapes public opinion
Borjal v. CA • Free speech, press, builds the very fiber of our democracy
Qualifiedly privileged communication under Art. 354 of the RPC
1. Private communications But it does not mean that everything that we say must be left unpunished.
2. Fair and true report made in good faith without comments or remarks UP Faculty case
- There was no fair commentary on matters of public concern in Art. 354. But - Group of faculty members criticized the Supreme Court
the SC nevertheless ruled that Art. 354 was not exclusive. Art. 354 - The exercise erodes the faith of the people in the courts
merely concretizes the same. - The statement of the faculty members really accused the SC of injustices
Is the RPC the source of privileged communications? Marantan v. Diokno
- No. The Constitution is. - A public utterance or publication is not to be denied the constitutional
protection of freedom of speech and press merely because it concerns a
judicial proceeding still pending in the courts, upon the theory that in
such a case, it must necessarily tend to obstruct the orderly and fair - For all purposes, Enrile is a public figure, having participated in the
administration of justice EDSA revolution which had become part of our history. He even sits in
- Test in subjudice: clear and present danger test -- that the administration a very public position – the Senate of the Philippines. He cannot shield
of justice is obstructed; the independence of the courts is prejudiced; or himself with the right to privacy as public figures and officials are
the people’s faith in the courts is eroded subjected to a more narrow scope of privacy than private individuals.
Ø The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all
the court. its transactions involving public interest.
Limitations: lawful order of the court. Not just a court order but a lawful order Sereno v. Committee on Trade and Related Matters
- Freedom of Information is not absolute
Villavicencio v. Lukban - Petitioner wants information on trade and other related matters in
- Manila mayor had the women of ill-repute rounded up, put on a ship, relation to petrol-related products
and transported to Davao City to serve as workers. - The case involves a close-door meeting
- The Supreme Court said that the women were not chattels but Filipino - Exceptions to Freedom of Information: (NITBaC)
citizens who had the fundamental right not to be forced to change their o National security matters;
place of residence. This case justifies one of the basic rights of citizen -- o Intelligence information;
the right of domain. o Trade secrets – how a company produces a certain product;
- Liberty of Abode is a principle so deeply embedded in our o Banking transactions; and
jurisprudence and considered so elementary in nature so as not even to o Criminal matters – information given by informants
require a constitutional sanction. Kahit wala sa Constitution, this is very - The government is invoking privileged information pursuant to the
basic. separation of powers which includes close-door cabinet meetings
- The validity of the rule in this case was tested through the strict scrutiny (Chavez v. Public Estates Authority), military secrets, diplomatic matters
test thru the compelling state interest test - The fact that some of the Committee members are not cabinet members
is of no moment. What determines whether the information is privileged
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION is its nature – whether the information was within the ambit of the
exception from the people’s right to access to information
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers Chavez v. Public Estates Authority
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government - Although exchanges between cabinet members are
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the confidential/privileged, once a body or a committee comes up with an
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. (Sec. 7, Art. III, official recommendation, then it becomes a definite proposition and the
1987 Const.) right to access to information already attaches
- All information during the exploratory stage is not subject to disclosure. - While in Chavez, it was said that an official recommendation becomes a
But once the committee comes up with an official recommendation, definite proposition, here, the SC used the doctrine of deliberative and
there arises a definite proposition on the part of the government which pre-decisional communications. Citing Akbayan v. Aquino, the SC said
can be accessed by the citizen pursuant to his right to access information the privileged character of the information does not end when an agency
has adopted a definite information/when a contract has been
3 Categories of Information Covered by Art. III, Sec. 7: formalized otherwise, the concept of the privilege will be defeated
1. Official records; - The limitation on the freedom to access information was to prevent the
2. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, and chilling effect on deliberative communications
decisions; and - If the purpose to be served is to protect the frank exchanges of
3. Government research data ideas/information between cabinet members, the deliberative process
privilege applies
Why are presidential conversations privileged/excluded from the right to - However, the SC only partially granted the petition because the one
access information? claiming deliberative process privilege must specify the nature of the
- A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments free from the information. So, it is incumbent upon the parties to assert the nature of
glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties is essential to the information
protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise
presidential and judicial matter Neri v. Senate Committee
- Deliberative and pre-decisional matters – privileged - Presidential communications privilege may be claimed by the President
- Executive sessions in the Senate are also privileged (tho not really only, not his/her cabinet members
obvious as Senators bask in publicity and attention) - But the executive secretary may invoke executive privilege long as he
does it by authority of the president
Is there an obligation on the part of public officers to produce summaries, - Presidential communications are presumptively privileged
tables, charts, explaining the information
- No. Not covered by the right to access information FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
- The officer cannot be compelled to summarize the records. The public
has to take the information as it is (e.g. does not matter whether the The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
document is voluminous) sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary
to law shall not be abridged. (Art. III, Sec. 8, 1987 Const.)
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission
- Civil service eligibility of the employees - Art. XIII, Sec. 3 (State shall afford full protection to labor #AttyDJMagic)
- Public concern, public interest is broad and eludes exact definition - Art. IX-C, Sec. 2, Sub-sec. 5 (The right to self-organization shall not be
- It is up to the courts to determine what is a matter of public denied to government employees)
concern/interest on a case-to-case basis - “For purposes contrary to law” – no longer necessary as all rights are
subject to this limitation
DFA v. BCA International Corporation - The right to join an organization necessarily includes the right not to
- Certain information are being requested from the RTC under the join, as a general rule
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act
People v. Ferrera - FEBTC had employees and employment contracts which BPI was bound
- Involves certain individuals charged with the Anti-Subversion Act to assume
- The Anti-Subversion Act outlaws the existence of the Communist Party - BPI’s union security clause – a close-shop clause in its CBA
of the Philippines - Are these “new” employees from FEBTC covered by this clause?
- Is the Anti-Subversion Act violative of the freedom of association? o Justice de Castro said there is no need to differentiate between
o No. the Supreme Court made a balancing act between the absorbed employees and incoming employees because both
freedom of association and the State’s right to self-preservation. became employees of BPI, the surviving corp., after the effectivity
There must be a balance (balancing of interests test) between the of the CBA
freedom of association and the State’s right to self-preservation - The remedy is to absorb these employees but subject to existing union
but the Supreme Court in this case sided with the State’s right to security clauses.
self-preservation - The basis of sustaining a union security clause is the State’s interest to
- Self-preservation is the ultimate value of society. It surpasses and protect unionism which prevails over an individual’s preference. The
transcends every other value. For if a society cannot protect its own State likewise protects the CBA from impairment (Non-Impairment
internal structure from an armed internal attack, no subordinate value Clause)
could be protected
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union
Gonzales v. COMELEC - Members of the INC cannot participate in labor unions
- SC ultimately said that R.A. 4880 is broad and sweeping. It suffers from - There’s a closed-shop clause in the CBA, meaning only members of the
overbreadth. But the Constitution then required a 2/3 vote from the union may maintain their employment
Justices in order to render a statute is null and void. Failing to obtain - Balancing of interest: Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion viz.
such 2/3 vote from the Justices in this case, R.A. 4880 was not annulled Unionism, Non-Impairment
- Penera v. COMELEC: There is no law penalizing premature - SC: In the Industrial Peace Act, an exception was made to the effect that
campaigning. The interpretation by Justice Carpio was that a candidate religious organizations which prohibit their members from joining the
only becomes a candidate at the start of the campaigning period, not at unions are not covered by these union security clauses
the filing of the certificate of candidacy (COC) - Despite the Industrial Peace Act being repealed, the principles in this
- Nevertheless, the “majority” opinion, which ironically did not win, was case still apply. Freedom of Religion prevails over Non-Impairment of
to the effect that the provisions of the law were constitutionally infirm Contracts
and formidable
- In short, freedom of association, as an aspect of freedom of expression, Does the exemption impose religious tests for the exercise of a civil or
is also subject to the usual standards employed in a free speech case (i.e. political right?
overbreadth, as in this case) - No. Membership in the religion that prohibits the joining in a religion is
not a requirement in the inclusion in the union nor the exclusion from
BPI v. BPI Employees Union the union nor is there an affirmative act performed by the union or
- Merger: 2 corporations would merge with one surviving corporation. employee
The surviving corporation would acquire the assets of the - There is no violation of the constitutional right and no religious test shall
absorbed/merged corporation be employed in the exercise of civil and political rights
Do government employees have a right to organize themselves for mutual NON-IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS
aid or protection?
- Yes. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. (Sec. 10, Art. III)
SSS v. Court of Appeals - Contract: Any lawful arrangement on property or property rights
- Government employees do not have the right to strike whether express or implied
- But according to Fr. Bernas, because the prohibition is statutory, the said - But contract does not include licenses (Chavez v. Romulo). In Chavez, it
prohibition may be lifted by law was held that gun licenses are not contracts within the purview of the
due process clause.
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. Bureau of Labor Relations - Public office is not subject to a contract because it is not a property right.
- There is a difference between a union and a worker’s association. The (Cornejo v. Gabriel) In fact, the salaries of public officers may be reduced
latter is organized for mutual aid and protection, whereas the former is by law. Except those salaries which they have already earned because
organized to collectively bargain with the management. But this is then, the public officers have already been vested with a property right
entirely the prerogative of the employees, regardless of the composition that may be reduced by legislation
- Lands of the public domain are also not subject of contractual relations
In Re: Edillon - Law: includes executive orders, administrative regulations, and
- Is the termination of membership in the IBP on ground of non-payment ordinances. But it does not include judicial and quasi-judicial decisions
of IBP dues a violation of the freedom to associate? and rules
o No. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the IBP is not violative - Impair: (RECSRR)
of his constitutional right to associate. Integration does not make 1. Retroactive application of the law;
a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not yet a member 2. Diminishes the efficacy of the contract;
o Integration only provides an official national organization for a 3. If the law already changes the terms and conditions and alters the
well-defined and incohesive group of which every lawyer is intents of the parties;
already a member 4. If the period of performance is shortened;
o By virtue of being a lawyer, you are already a member of the 5. Deprives parties of remedies; and
Integrated Bar of the Philippines 6. Removal or addition of a remedy for the enforcement of a contract.
o Art. VIII of the Constitution even provides that the Supreme - The proper way to say it is “impair the obligations of contracts”.
Court shall integrate the Philippine Bar - Example: Mr. Pacumio and Mr. Canolo entered into a contract
o The payment of IBP dues is pursuant to the State interest to with a penalty clause which entitles an aggrieved party to recover
elevate the quality of professional legal services 5% of the contract price. There’s a law that limits the amount of
o Such compulsion, if there is any, is justified under the exercise of liquidated damages recoverable is 2% which applies
police power of the State retroactively. There is an impairment of the obligations of
contracts between the parties
Request for Documents in Corona Impeachment - Obligation: the vinculum juris, the law between the parties that binds
- Results of the raffle may be made available to the litigants except: them to perform their obligations according to their terms and
disbarment cases, administrative cases, criminal cases penalized by life conditions
imprisonment which are privileged in character - But this constitutional right cannot prevail over:
- Proper exercise of police power; international law, primacy is given in favor of the rights of the
- Freedom of religion (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union) individual
- Burden of proof in extradition cases for purposes of bail: lies with the
Lozano v. Martinez potential extraditee to show that he/she is not a flight risk
- Does BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) impair the freedom of contract?
- No. Non-impairment clause only protects lawful contracts. Contracts Evidence of guilt is strong, meaning
that contravene public policy are not lawful. Checks as a medium in People v. Cabral
commercial transactions, and as usual substitutes for money form part - Defined evident proof as clear, strong evidence which leads a well-
of the banking system and, therefore, not entirely free from the guarded, dispassionate judgement to the conclusion that the offense has
regulatory power of the State been committed as charged, that the accused is the guilty agent, and that
he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered
BAIL - Presumption great: inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom
- Sec. 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court: Security given for the release of a is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgement, and excludes
person in custody of law guaranteeing his appearance in court given the probability of any other conclusion
in the form of: corporate surety, property bond, or recognizance - Bail is merely interlocutory3
- Recognizance: obligation of record entered into before the court - Test: Evidence must show evident presumption of guilt or a great
guaranteeing the appearance of the accused for trial. A contract between presumption of guilt which is strong, clear, and convincing to an
the surety and the State unbiased judgement which excludes any other contrary conclusion
Rationale behind the grant of the right to bail: - Not yet proof beyond reasonable doubt for the latter pertains to the
1. Presumption of innocence of the accused – essential in observance of proof required in judgements
criminal due process; and
2. To prepare for his defense without being the subject of punishment When is bail a matter of right?
even before trial - All persons in custody before or after conviction of first-level courts
(MTCs), or before conviction of second-level courts (RTCs) of an offense
Is the right to bail applicable to soldiers or military personnel? not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment (Rule
Comendador v. de Villa 114, Sec. 4, Rules of Court)
- No. The right to bail is not applicable to a soldier under court martial 1. Persons in custody before or after conviction in MTCs; and
because of the disciplinary nature of the military and because by 2. Persons in custody before conviction by RTCs of an offense not
tradition, it is not granted to them for they have the fiduciary capacity punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
to bear arms and thus, the possibility of wreaking havoc
When is bail discretionary?
Hong Kong v. Olalia - Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
- As far as extradition is concerned, the right to bail is applicable although reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is
the burden of proof/standards are different. Under 21st Century discretionary (Rule 114, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)
People v. Escobar (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
- The issue arose as to whether the previous grant of bail was barred by hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987
res judicata which is not only unrecognized in criminal cases, but also Const.)
inapplicable since judgements on bail/orders regarding bail are mere - Criminal liability attaches in violation of rights of persons under
interlocutory orders thus, not covered by res judicata because custodial investigations
judgements/orders covered by res judicata must be on the merits
- The elements of res judicata are as follows: Rights covered:
(1) the former judgment or order must be final; 1. Right to remain silent;
(2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; 2. Right to competent and independent counsel of own choice;
(3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the 3. Right to be informed of these rights;
subject matter and the parties; and
(4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of - Covers both admissions and confessions. Admissions are acts or
parties, of subject matter and cause of action. omissions of a party as to relevant facts. Confessions pertain to a
declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged
People v. Yap or any offense included therein. Even includes any evidence
- Prosecution asks the amount of bail to be pegged at 5.5 million pesos communicative4 in nature
(the amount of civil liability) which the SC dismissed as excessive and - The rationale is to prohibit the eliciting of a coerced confession. Because
unreasonable an environment dominated by the police, creates an atmosphere of fear
- The amount of bail should not be pegged as high as the amount of civil and intimidation which compels a person to confess/admit
liability involuntarily
- The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the - Custodial investigation: if there’s an inquiry directed at a particular
accused when required suspect; if it ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime; the
investigators have custody over the person of the suspect
MIRANDA RIGHTS - R.A. 7438 – Covers invitations
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an Miranda v. Arizona
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and - Miranda was charged with kidnapping, rape and was subjected to
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If lengthy interrogations but was not apprised of his right to have a lawyer
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.
Tanenggee v. People Ø What if a suspect voluntarily submits himself and admits the crime? The
- These rights do not apply to administrative proceedings in the rule on custodial investigations do not apply because the rationale was
employer’s level especially if there’s no proof that the employee was to prevent coerced confessions or admissions
coerced
- Investigations in employer’s level are not custodial investigations Ø An extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must be:
- A “written statement” made in the course of an administrative (1) Voluntary;
investigation, and “given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently,” (2) With the assistance of counsel;
would be admissible in evidence (3) In writing; and
(4) Express (Cruz, 2015)
People v. Endino
- Admission before members of the media are not covered by the rights People v. Tawat
of persons under custodial investigation and is deemed to be voluntary - Admissions before persons who are not law enforcement officers are
in nature admissible in court against the person
- But the SC reminded RTCs to exercise extreme caution in admitting
similar confessions especially if there’s a possibility of police Are the rights under Art. III, Sec. 12 applicable in a police lineup?
- Qualify. If no question is asked, then no (General Rule). But if there is a People v. Velarde
move on the part of police officers to elicit confessions or information, - Whether the person to whom the accused is confessing has an interest
then the rights in Art. III, Sec. 12 already apply. adverse to the accused (i.e. prosecutor) is the test on whether the lawyer
- General rule: Police lineups are not part of custodial investigations is independent
(People v. Lamsing). The process has not yet shifted from investigatory to - Thus, an accused confessing to a prosecutor fails to satisfy this
accusatory requirement because a prosecutor has an adverse interest in the outcome
of the case and thus, not independent
People v. Hassan - In People v. Cachuela, the SC held that the assistance of a lawyer provided
- It was made to appear that the accused was being subjected to a police by the same agency investigating the accused was not the kind of
lineup but he was merely alone and was presented to the witness alone assistance required of lawyers in a custodial investigation
- SC said it was already a confrontation. It was pointedly suggestive,
generated confidence where there was none, activated visual People v. Ramos
imagination, and subverted reliability as eye-witness - The law enforcer must have the patience to explain the rights to the
accused
o Accusatory questions asked in transit is already covered by the rules on
custodial investigation (People v. Compil) People v. Broqueza
- Even vague answers are not enough. There must be a showing that the
Independent and Competent Counsel Preferably of his own choice accused knew and understood the significance of his rights
People v. Mujello
- “Preferably of his own choice” is not exclusive as to preclude any other No presumption of regularity in Custodial Investigations
competent attorneys to attend to or handle the case/custodial
investigation RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
o What is important is the accused is apprised of his right to remain silent (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
and his right to independent and competent counsel. process of law.
- As long as the counsel is vigilant, he is already deemed competent (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
People v. Sayaboc counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
- Burden of the lawyer is to show that he was able to satisfy himself him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
during the conduct of the custodial investigation that the suspect to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
understands his rights and the questions propounded and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
- The lawyer must satisfy himself that the accused understands not just trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that
the import but the consequences of answering the questions he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec. 14
propounded (1), and (2), 1987 Const.)
- The lawyer must be vigilant. He must be able to make the accused
realize the consequences of the words he is about to utter
- Equipoise rule: where the evidence in criminal cases is equally balanced,
Art. III, Sec. 1 Art. III, Sec. 14 the courts must tilt the scales in favor of the accused pursuant to the
applies to due process in general - limited to criminal cases constitutional right to presumption of innocence
and covers both substantive and and covers only procedural
procedural matters matters. People v. Maraorao
- Mere suspicion, no matter how strong, must not sway judgement.
- Denial of this right constitutes a violation of criminal due process Where there is reasonable doubt, accused must be acquitted.
- The procedure differs in cases before the Office of the Ombudsman
because the latter has the power to dismiss outright a case for being Proof beyond reasonable doubt: Not absolute certainty. Moral certainty
utterly devoid of merit suffices. Degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.5
- Criminal due process: basic ingredient of trial in accordance with the
rudiments of fair play o Determination of accused’s guilt is a question of fact.
- Mistrial: when the proceedings were held under such circumstances
when the accused could not freely present his defense or the judge could Makayan, Jr. v. People
not freely make his decision - G.R.: The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
- An exception to the rule on double jeopardy - Exceptions:
1. When the findings are grounded on surmises, conjectures;
Tañada v. Tuvera 2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
- Conviction under a law that was not published is a violation of criminal impossible;
due process 3. When there is grave abuse of discretion;
4. When the judgement is based on a misapprehension of facts;
David v. Marquez 5. When the findings of fact are conflicting;
- A private complainant may appeal the judgement of acquittal and has 6. When the CA went beyond the issues of the case and is contrary to
right to file special civil action for certiorari if the ground was grave the admissions of the appellant and appellee;
abuse of discretion on lack of due process 7. When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
- G.R.: Petition for Certiorari may be filed in behalf of the State 8. When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
- XPN: If the ground was grave abuse of discretion grounded on lack of evidence on which they are based;
due process 9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in petitioner’s main
and reply briefs are not disputed by respondents; and
Presumption of Innocence 10. When the findings of fact by the CA are premised on the supposed
- What overthrows the presumption is not the weakness of the defense absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
but the strength of the prosecution’s evidence
- What if the probative value of the evidence presented by the prosecution Should the evidence pointing to the accused’s conviction be always direct?
and the defense the same? The court must side in favor of the accused. - No. Circumstantial evidence may suffice, provided the following
This is the equipoise rule. requisites concur:
6 Id.
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient in law to support a conclusion People v. Dy
- Accused refuses to be arraigned because he still wanted to appeal the
o Right to be informed may not be waived. The accused may only refuse ruling of the prosecutor before the Secretary of Justice. But this is not
to enter a plea. In other words, the right to an arraignment may not be one of the grounds to suspend arraignment under the Rules of Court
waived o What may be waived is the right to enter a plea and enter a plea of not
guilty but the arraignment is not waivable
What would prevail? The technical name or the allegations in the body?
- It is the allegations of facts that prevails. Political Offense Doctrine: Common crimes perpetrated in furtherance of
- The contents of the information must contain the qualifying, political offenses cannot be punished separately from the criminal offense and
aggravating circumstances, if any. It need not be in legalese or in the are absorbed in the political offense and assume the political complexion of the
language of the law political offense
o If the information is insufficient (i.e. does not allege an offense), the Ocampo v. Abando
remedy is to file a motion to quash. But before that can be done, the - Rebellion. Homicide, murder perpetrated in furtherance of rebellion,
prosecution must be given an opportunity to correct the defect by the killings assume the political complexion of rebellion
amendment. The motion to quash may only be granted if the - What is the remedy if there are separate charges?
prosecution fails to make the amendment or even if amended, still - Amendment or substitution of the information
suffers from the same defects - It would not place the accused in double jeopardy
o What if the allegations are vague? The remedy is to file a Motion for Bill Right to be heard by himself and counsel
of Particulars (Enrile v. People) - When it comes to criminal proceedings, there must always be a counsel.
Because even lawyers get confused by the technical rules of procedure.
Enrile v. People How much more a lay person
- Only ultimate facts need to be alleged in the information. The ultimate
facts are the ones which have to be proven in trial People v. Liwanag
- As opposed to evidentiary facts, the latter pertains to those used to - Does not mean intelligent counsel. It only means an effective and
prove the ultimate facts vigilant counsel
- Just to prevent force and fraud to the accused
People v. Quitlong
- Conspiracy must also be alleged in the information Hilario v. People
- But in alleging conspiracy, there is no need to aver all details of - Certiorari filed by accused only, without the counsel signing the petition
conspiracy. Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with the same - SC: there was violation of the right to counsel under the Constitution
degree of particularity required in proving substantive offenses - If this is the case, there would be a denial of criminal due process as the
- Sufficient allegation of conspiracy: ordinary and concise language. Just accused was not properly assisted by counsel
enough to be able to apprise the accused that he is charged in conspiracy
with the other accused
4. Prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.
Ibañez v. People
- Even if an accused is merely represented by a counsel de officio, the same Remulla v. Sandiganbayan
satisfies the constitutional requirement - The burden of expediting the prosecution rests on the prosecution itself.
- It is not the right to confrontation that is guaranteed but the right to have There is no duty on the part of the accused to make a follow-up of the
the opportunity to cross-examine which may be waived7 case
Is there a right to counsel in a contempt charge? - The delay must be justified by the prosecution
Flores v. Ruiz - The determination as to the violation of this right is taken on an ad hoc
- Yes. It is akin to a criminal proceeding despite not being a criminal or case-to-case basis
charge
Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of Plunder Cases of
What if the lawyer makes a mistake? Is this a violation of the right to Joseph Estrada
counsel? - SC did not allow Estrada’s objection to the broadcast because of the
- Mistakes by the lawyer binds the client. Negligence by the lawyer also significance and the historical value of the proceedings before the
binds the client. Sandiganbayan
- What is violative of the right to counsel is gross negligence or - No violation of right to privacy (Ayer v. Capulong)
incompetence. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer
Right to meet the witnesses face-to-face
Andrada v. People - The right is the opportunity to cross-examine, not the actual
- SC cited examples: confrontation
1. Client abandoned by the lawyer; - May be waived by accused or by counsel
2. Failure to file appellant’s brief on time due to sheer irresponsibility - “The best cross is no cross”
of counsel - Two-fold purpose:
- Such circumstances must be taken on a case-to-case basis 1. Afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of witnesses by
cross-examination;
Right to speedy, impartial, and public trial 2. To allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses (Cruz, 2015)
When is this violated?
- Attended by vexatious, capricious delays People v. Rivera
- This is a ground for dismissal on the merits - Remedy if the witness was not properly cross-examined:
- Constitutes double jeopardy - Rule 132, Sec. 9, Rules of Court: recalling of witness
- Is the period of time of delay the only factor? No, the following are the
factors: (LRAP) People v. Seneris
1. Length of delay; - Witness failed to be cross-examined
2. Reason for the delay; - Remedy is to strike his testimonies off the records
3. Assertion or non-assertion of his right; and
Right to compulsory process May witnesses refuse to take the witness stand?
- To secure the attendance of witnesses and produce evidence in their - In civil cases, no. but in criminal cases, they may refuse to take the
behalf witness stand
- Subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum
- The judge must take steps to secure the attendance of witnesses and Incriminatory questions: if it tends to subject the witness to criminal liability
production of evidence only
- Must be invoked during trial otherwise, it is deemed waived - Applies only to testimonial9 compulsion only
Motion for Production of Subpoena - If the accused is required to produce a hair sample, for instance, the right
Documents does not apply
Against the adverse party in the Against a third person
case Boyd v. United States
- Defendant was required to produce private books, invoice, and papers
Trial in Absentia alleging violation of customs laws.
Requisites: (ANU) - The US Supreme Court said that this was a violation of the right against
1. Accused has already been arraigned; self-incrimination
2. Accused has been duly notified of trial; and
3. Failure to appear is unjustified Scope of Right Against Self-Incrimination: Natural persons only
- Juridical persons are subject to visitorial powers pursuant to the valid
What if the accused is tried without arraignment? exercise of police power
- The adjudgment may be set aside for violating criminal due process
o Accused may refuse to take the witness stand altogether but a witness
NOTE: Right to Travel may not but he may refuse to answer questions at the time the
- Grant of bail is a valid limitation on the right to travel question is propounded.
8The rights of the resource persons must still be respected and upheld in legislative inquiries 9There must be an application of intelligence, attention, and is communicative (i.e. signatures,
(Art. VI, Sec. 26) reenactment of a crime)
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
- Right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution again of any Doctrine of Supervening Event11
person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or - When, after filing of a complaint, a graver offense developed (common
convicted (Cruz, 2015) in physical injuries cases)
- Bars the prosecution from pursuing further appeal except: - Sec. 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court: Conviction of the accused shall
- Mistrial not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
- Grave abuse of discretion includes the offense charged in the former complaint/information
- Does not apply to administrative proceedings. However, contempt under any of the following instances:
proceedings which partake the nature of criminal proceedings are 1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the
covered same act or omission constituting the former charge;
2. Facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered
Requisites of Double Jeopardy: only after the filing of the former complaint or information;
1. Valid Complaint; 3. Plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the
- In private crimes, certain persons must initiate the prosecution of the prosecutor and the offended party
crimes and cannot be prosecuted de officio (i.e. adultery, concubinage,
seduction, etc.) Inseparable Offenses
2. Filed before a court of competent jurisdiciton10; - Cannot be subject of separate prosecutions
- A, who was on the boundary of Makati killed B, who was on the - Reckless imprudence is a single offense and is not a means to commit a
boundary of Taguig. Where should the criminal complaint be filed? crime (Ivler v. San Diego)
3. Valid plea;
- If the accused pleads guilty but raises mitigating circumstances later, o Conviction/acquittal under ordinances shall bar further prosecutions
there is no standing plea (People v. Balisacan) for crimes relative to the same subject matter (e.g. jueteng)
4. Case was dismissed or terminated without the accused’s express
consent. PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
- Excludes mere silence on the part of the accused - Cruel, degrading, inhuman punishment: not just excessive, the
- Exceptions to the rule that dismissal must be without the accused’s punishment must be flagrantly and plainly offensive – disproportionate
express consent: to the nature of the offense regardless if it just entails imprisonment
1. Accused files demurrer to evidence; - R.A. 9346: Suspends the efficacy of death penalty which does not bar the
2. Violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial possible reenactment of the death penalty
- Art. 7 of the RPC on death penalty:
Crimes covered: original offense, attempted and frustrated stages, crimes 1. When the guilty person is already 70 years of age;
which necessarily include or is necessarily included 2. When on appeal, all members of the SC are not unanimous;
Jurisdiction over the subject matter, and territorial jurisdiction, Sec. 10, Rule 110, Rules of
10 11 Rule 117, Sec. 7, Rules of Court
Court
People v. Mercado 4. Alters legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony
- Death by lethal injection is not cruel or unusual than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in
- Under the ICCP, the right to life is recognized but capital punishment is order to convict the offender;
also recognized as a valid limitation to the right to life provided it be or 5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a
the most serious crime penalty or the deprivation of a right for something which when done
- State parties in the ICCP are not obliged to prohibit death penalty, but was lawful;
merely limit its use 6. Deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which
they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction,
Republic v. N. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc. or acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty.
- The fine was not excessive as it was for the protection of our waters
Lacson v. Executive Secretary
NO IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT OR POLL TAX - R.A. 8249
Lozano v. Martinez - Law involved here is merely a substantive law on jurisdiction, not a
- Is BP 22 punishing the act of incurring the debt? penal law
- It punishes the act of issuing a worthless check - What constitutes an ex post facto law is a penal law
Poll tax: Cedula tax on the basis of his class Bill of Attainder
- Imposes a penalty without judicial trial
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
- Every enforced or compulsory service of one to another no matter under People v. Ferrer
what for such servitude may be disguised - Anti-Subversion Act is not a bill of attainder as members of the CPP
- Exceptions: would only be convicted after the trial
1. When a crime is involved (convict was required to render services to
the community);
2. Return to Work Order (Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Kahoy sa
Pilipinas)