UPDATED DRAFT

Constitutional Law Two Atty. Edilwasif T. Baddiri

Second Semester, 2015-2016 Saturday

Required Textbook

Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2011) The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer,
Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2003) The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Nachura, Antonio (2006) Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Quezon City: VJ Graphil Arts, Inc.

Classroom Policies

Students are expected to have read the assigned materials for the class sessions and will be called
for recitation.

Attendance is checked. University rules governing absences are observed.

Cell phones and other electronic devices must be kept in silent mode. Students must refrain from
using these devices during classroom sessions.

Plagiarism and cheating are grave offenses of intellectual dishonesty and are punishable by
university rules.

Consultation and discussion is available upon request of the student. Email me:
[email protected]

Article III – Bill of Rights

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.

1. Purpose of the Bill of Rights

2. Three Great Powers of Government
3. Police Power
Lozano v. Martinez, GR No. L-63419, December 18, 1986
DOH v. Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., G.R. No. 202943, March 25, 2015
Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015
Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, 737 SCRA 145 (2014)
Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015

1
4. The Seat of Police Power
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, etc GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000

5. Primacy of Human Rights

Republic v. Sandiganbayan GR 104768, July 21, 2003
Mijares v. Ranada, GR 139325, April 12, 2005

6. Hierarchy of Rights: Life, Liberty, Property

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc., 51
SCRA 189
Salonga v. Pano, GR No. L-59524, February 18, 1985
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, GR No. L-25246, Sept. 12, 1974
Social Justice Society, et al v. Atienza, Jr., GR No. 156052, February 13, 2008

7. Due Process: In General

Tupas v. CA, 193 SCRA 597
Asilo v. People, 645 SCRA 41
Phil. Amusement Gaming Corp. v. De Guzman, GR No. 208261,744 SCRA 153, 2015
Cudia v. The Superintendent of The Philippine Military Academy, 751 SCRA 469, G.R. No.
211362, February 24, 2015
Jardeleza v. Sereno, 733 SCRA 279, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014
Ray Shu v. Dee, G.R. No. 182573, April 23, 2014
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, GR No. 203335, 2014
Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015
Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr. 721 SCRA 146 (2014)

8. Procedural Due Process

In General
Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca 37 P 921
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, July 21, 2016

Aspects of the Proceedings [VOLUNTARY – 3 cases each]

Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685
State Prosecutor v. Muros 236 SRCA 505-
Martinez v. CA 237 SCRA 395
Espeleta v. Avelino 62 SCRA 395
Rabino v. Cruz 222 SCRA 493
Ysmael v. CA 273 SCRA 165
Carvajal v CA 280 SCRA 351
People v. Castillio 289 SCRA 213
Cosep v. PEO 290 SCRA 378
Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan GR 125498 Feb. 18, 1999
People v. Huli 338 SCRA 2000
People v. Cabiles 341 SCRA 2000

2
Gozum v. Liangco 339 SCRA 253
Soriano v. Angeles 339 SCRA 253
Villanueva v. Malaya 330 SCRA 278
Almendras v. Asis 330 SCRA 69
Dayot v. Garcia 353 SCRA 280
People v. Hapa GR 125698 July 19, 2001
Aguirre v. people GR 144142 August 23, 2001
Puyat v. Zabarte 352 SCRA 738
Baritua v. Mercader 350 SCRA 86
Barbers v. Laguio 351 SCRA 606
People v. Herida 353 SCRA 650
People v. Medenilla GR 1311638 Mar. 26, 2001
People v. Rivera GR 139180 July. 31, 2001
People v. Basques GR 144035 Sept. 27, 2001
Cooperative Development v. DOLEFIL GR 137489 May 29, 2002
Garcia v. Pajaro GR 141149 July 5, 2002
Briaso v. Mariano, GR 137265, Jan. 31, 2003
Macias v. Macias GR 1461617, Sept. 3, 2003
Albior v. Auguis, AM P-01-1472, June 6, 2003
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR 152154, Nov. 18, 2003
Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 422 SCRA 649
People v. Larranaga, 412 SCRA 530
R. Transport v. Philhino 494 SCRA 630
Trans Middle East v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 308
Uy v. First Metro 503 SCRA 704
Deutsche Bank v. Chua 481 SCRA 672
People v. Santos 501 SCRA 325
Victoriano v. People 509 SCRA 483
Santos v. DOJ 543 SCRA 70
DBP v. Feston 545 SCRA 422
Ruivivar v. OMB 565 SCRA 324
Borromeo v. Garcia 546 SCRA 543
Cesar v. OMB 553 SCRA 357
DAR v. Samson 554 SCRA 500
Hilano v. People 551 SCRA 191
Pastona v. CA 559 SCRA 137
Bibas v. OMB 559 SCRA 591
Espina v. Cerujano 550 SCRA 107
Geronga v. Varela 546 SCRA 429
OMB v. Magno GR 178923, Nov. 27, 2008
Avenido v. CSC 553 SCRA 711
Romuladez v. COMELEC 553 SCRA 370
Multi-Trans Agency v. Oriental 590 SCRA 675
Siochi v. BPI 193872, October 18, 2011
Catacutan v. People 656 SCRA 524
Mortel v. Kerr 685 SCRA 1 (clear violation and errors of counsel)

3
 Gravides v. COMELEC 685 SCRA 382 (error of counsel)

Publicity and T.V. Coverage

Webb v. de Leon 247 SCRA 652
People v. Teechankee 249 SCRA 54
People v. Sanchez GR 121039-45 Jan. 25, 1999
People v. Sanchez GR 121039 Oct. 18, 2001
Perez v. Estrada A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC June 29, 2001
Perez v. Estrada A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC Sept. 13, 2001
People v. Roxas- 628 SCRA 378

Administrative; Quasi-Judicial Proceedings; Arbitration

1. In General Administrative due process

Ang Tibay v. CIR 69 P 635
Dazon v. Yap - 610 SCRA 19
Estrada v. Ombudsman, GR No. 212140-41, 748 SCRA 1, Jan. 21, 2015
In re: Allegations made under oath at the senate blue ribbon committee against
Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan, September 26, 2013

2. Judges and Disciplinary Process

OCA v. Pascual 259 SCRA 125
Valenzuela v. Bellosillo 322 SCRA 536

3. Aspects of the Proceedings

Lumiqued v. Exevea 282 SCRA 125
Fabella v. CA 282 SCRA 256
Joson v.Exec. Sec. 290 SCRA 279
Busuego v. CA GR 95325 Mar. 11, 1999
CSC v. Lucas GR 127838 Jan. 21, 1999
NPC v. Bernabe 332 SCRA 74
Summary Dismissal v. Torcita 330 SCRA 153
Velayo v. Comelec 327 SCRA 713
Ramoran v. Jardine 326 SCRA 208
Immam v. Comelec 322 SCRA 866
Villarosa v. Comelec GR 133927 Nov. 29, 1999
Go v. Comelec GR 147741 May 10, 2001
Mollaneda v. Umacob R 140128 June 6, 2001
Cruz v. CSC GR 144469 Nov 27, 2001
Condilla v. De Venecia GR 150605 Dec 10, 2002
Associated Communication v. Dumlao GR 136762 Nov. 21, 2002
Velllarosa v. Pomperada, AdminCase No. 5310, Jan. 28, 2003
Alauya v. Comelec, GR 152151-52, Jan. 22, 2003
Spouses Casimiro v. CA 135911, Feb. 11, 2003
Sy v. CA, GR 147572, Feb. 27, 2003

4
 Namil v. Comelecc, GR 15040, Oct. 28, 2003
Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003
Office of OMB v. Coronel 493 SCRA 392
Erece v. Macalingay 552 SCRA 320
Marcelo v. Bungubung 552 SCRA 589
SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354
Calinisan v. Roaquin 630 456
IBP v. Atienza 613 SCRA 518
Domingo v. OMB 577 SCRA 476
Zambales v. CAstellejos 581 SCRA 320
OMB v. Evangelista 581 SCRA 350
Phil Export v. Pearl City 608 SCRA 280
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary 677 SCRA 408
Arroyo v. DOJ 681 SCRA 181

4. Extradition Proceedings
Sec, of Justice v. Lantion 343 SCRA 377
Cuevas v. Munoz GR 140520 Dec. 18, 2000
Gov’t. of U.S.A v. Purganan GR 148571 Sept. 24, 2002
Rodriguez v. Presiding Judge, 483 SCRA 290
Gov’t. of Hong Kong v. Olalia, GR 153675 April 19, 2007

5. Arbitration
RCBC v. Banco de Oro 687 SCRA 583

Academic Discipline

1. In General
Angeles v. Sison 112 SCRA 26
Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359
Guzman v. NU 142 SCRA 699
Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7
Non v. Judge Dames 185 SCRA 523
ADMU v. Capulong 222 SCRA 644
U.P. v. Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342
Go v. Colegio De San Juan de Letran 683 SCRA 358

Deportation Proceeding

1. In General
Lao Gi v. CA 180 SCRA 756
Domingo v Scheer, 421 SCRA 468

Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession

5
 1. Rates
Philcomsat y. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218
Randiocom v. NTC 184 SCRA 517
Maceda v. ERB 199 SCRA 454
Globe Telecom c. NTC, 435 SCRA 110

2. Profession
Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31

Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement etc….

1. Dismissals in Government Boards and Commissions

Abalos c. CSC 196 SCRA 81
GSIS v. CSC 201 SCRA 661
Macayayong v. Ople 204 SCRA 372
Gonzales v. CSC 226 SCRA 66
Go. V. NPC 271 SCRA 447
CHR v. CSC 227 SCRA 42
Uy v. COA 328 SCRA 607
Lameyra v. Pangilinan 322 SCRA 117
NPC v. Zozobrado, 487 SCRA 16
PAGCOR v. CA, GR 185668, December 13, 2011

2. Dismissals in Private Sector

Hellinic v. Siete 195 SCRA 179
Salaw v. NLRC 202 SCRA 7
Conti v. NLRC, GR 119253 April 10, 1997
Aparente v. NLRC, GR 117652
Lopez v. Alturas 647 SCRA 566

3. Preventive Suspension
Alonzo v. Capulong 244 SCRA 80
Castillio – Co v. Barbers 290 SCRA 717
Bacsasar v. CSC 576 SCRa 787
Carabeo v. CA 607 SCRA 390
Villasenor v. OMB, GR. No. 20230, 725 SCRA 230

Ordinance/Status/Memo Cir/Rules
People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 136
Franscisco v. CA 199 SCRA 595
Misamis Or. V. DOF 238 SCRA 63
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan GR 148560 Nov. 19, 2001

Motion for Reconsideration

Mendenilla v. CSC 194 SCRA 278

6
 Mendenilla v. CSC 221 SCRA 295
Rodreguez v. Proj. 6 247 SCRA 528
Lazo v. CSC 236 SCRA 469
Salonga v. CA 269 SCRA 534
Bernardo v. CA 275 SCRA 413
Casuela v. Ombudsman 276 SCRA 635
Cordenillio v. Executive Secretary 276 SCRA 652
Chua v. CA 287 SCRA 33
De la Cruz v. Abelle 352 SCRA 691
Rodreguez v. CA GR 134275 August 7, 2002
Gonzales v. CSC 490 SCRA 741
Berboso v. CA 494 SCRA 583
Pontejos v. Desierto 592

I. Suretyship
Stronghold Insurance v. CA 205 SCRA 605

J. Tariff and Customs Code

Feeder v. CA 197 SCRA 842
K. Appeal
Alba v. Deputy Ombudsman 254 SCRA 753
Telan v. CA 202 SCRA 246
Rivera v. CSC 240 SCRA 43
Singson v. NLRC 274 SCRA 358
Building Care v. Macaraeg 687 SCRA 643

L. Closure Proceeding
CB v. CA 220 SCRA 536
Rural Bank v. CA 162 SCRA 288
Phil. Merchants v. CA GR 112844 June 2, 1995

M. Biddings

Concerned Officials v. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502

N. UDHA – RA 7279

Perez v. Madrona 668 SCRA 696

O. Cancellation of Property Rights/Privileges

American Inter-Fashion v. OP, 197 SCRA 409

Alliance of DFLO v. Laguesma, 254 SCRA 565
ABAKADA v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1
British American Tobacco v. Camacho 562 SCRA 511, 585 SCRA 36

7
P. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation-Ombudsman
Roxas v. Vasquez GR 114944 June 19, 2001
Ocampo v. Ombudsman 322 SCRA 17
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan GR 148468 Jan. 28, 2003

9. Substantive Due Process

US v. Toribio – 15 Phil. 85
Churchill v. Rafferty – 32 Phil. 580
People v. Fajardo – 104 Phil. 443
Ermita-Malate Hotel & Operator v. City of Manila – 20 SCRA 849
Ynot v. Intermediate Court of Appeals – 148 SCRA 659
Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195
Balacuit v. CFI – 163 SCRA 182
National Development Co. and New Agrix v. Phil. Vet. Bank – 192 SCRA 257
Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC – 238 SCRA 190
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties – 234 SCRA 255
Bennis v. Michigan – No. 94-8729 March 4, 1996
Cruzan v. Dir. Missouri – No. 88-1503 June 25 1990
JMM Promotion and Management Inc. v. CA – 260 SCRA 319
Corona v. United Harbor – 283 SCRA 31
Kelly v. Johnson – 425 US 238
Chavez v. Romulo – 431 SCRA 534 (2004)
Cruz v. Flavier, GR 135385, December 6, 2000
Smith Kline v. CA, GR 121267, October 23, 2001
Pareno v. COA 523 SCRA 390
Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag 529 SCRA 654
BF v. City Mayor 515 SCRA 1
St. Luke’s v. NLRC 517 SCRA 677
Carlos v. DSWD 526 SCRA 130
Perez v. LPG 531 SCRA 431
MMDA v. Viron 530 SCRA 341
Sec. of DND v. Manalo 568 SCRA 42 (Amparo)
SJS v. DDB 570 SCRA 410
SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92
SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354
People v. Siton 600 SCRA 476
White Light v. City of Manila 576 SCRA 416
CREBA v. Romulo 614 SCRA 605
Southern Hemisphere v. ATC 632 SCRA 146
Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo 630 SCRA 211
Meralco v. Lim 632 SCRA 195
Pollo v. Karina Constantino. GR 181881, October 8, 2011
Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245

10. Equal Protection of the Law

8
REQUISITES of VALID CLASSIFICATION:
It must rest on Substantial distinctions
It must be germane to the purpose of the law.
It must not be limited to existing conditions only.
It must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Standards of Judicial Review

a) Rational Basis Test: described as adopting a ‘deferential’ attitude towards legislative
classifications. It applies to legislative classifications in general, such as those pertaining to
economic or social legislation.

b) Strict Scrutiny Test: A legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the
exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is
presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon government to prove that the classification is
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect
such interest. This is used on issues of speech, gender, and race.

c) Intermediate Scrutiny Test: government must show that the challenged classification serves an
important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that
interest.

People v. Cayat – 68 PHIL. 12, 18

Ichong v. Hernandez – 101 PHIL. 1155
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho – 86 SCRA 270
Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017
Dumlao v. COMELEC – 96 SCRA 392
Goesart v. Cleary - 335 US 464
Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City – Feb. 7, 1968
Sison, Jr. v. PAGCOR – May 14, 1991
Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 230 SCRA 711
Himagan v. People – 237 SCRA 538
Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286
Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337
Tiu v. CA – GR 127410 Jan. 20, 1999
Aguinaldo v. COMELEC – GR 132774 June 21, 1999
De Guzman v. COMELEC – 336 SCRA
People v. Mercado – GR 116239, Nov. 29, 2000
People v. Jalosjos – 324 SCRA 689
People v. Piedra – 350 SCRA 163
International School v. Quisumbing – June 1, 2000
Central Bank Employees Assn. v. BSP – 446 SCRA 299
Ycasuegi v. PAL 569 SCRA 467
SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92
Gobenciong v. CA 550 SCRA 302
MIAA v. Olongapo 543 SCRA 269

9
Nicolas v. Romulo 578 SCRA 438
League of Cities v. COMELEC 608 SCRA 636
Quinto v. COMELEC 613 SCRA 385
CREBA v. Romulo 614 SCRA 605 (supra)
NPC v. Pinatubo 616 SCRA 611
Biraogo v. PTC 637 SCRA 78
League v. COMELEC 643 SCRA 149
PAGCOR v. BIR 645 SCRA 338
Gancayco v. Quezon City 658 SCRA 853
Mendoza v. People, GR 183891, October 19, 2011
Bureau of Customs v. Teves, GR 181704, December 6, 2011
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary (supra)
Alvez v. People 677 SCRA 673
Garcia v. People 677 SCRA 750
Arroyo v. DOJ
Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245
Republic v. Daisy Yahon, GR No. 201043, 726 SCRA 437, June 16, 2014

Section 2. The right to of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

1. Purpose of Section 2

2. Scope of the Protection

Moncada v. People’s Court, 80 PHIL 1
Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57
Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC, GR 113271, Oct 16, 1997
People v. Mendoza, GR 109279, Jan 18, 1999
People v. Bongcarawan, GR 143944, July 11, 2002

3. Requisites for a Valid Warrant

A. Probable Cause

I. Definition
Henry v. US, 361 US 98

For Arrest:
People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667
Alvarez v. CFI , 64 Phil 33
Webb v. De Leon, GR 121234, August 23, 1995

10
For Search:
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
Prudente v. Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69
United States v. Jones, January 23, 2012

II. Who Determines Probable Cause?

People v. CA, GR 126005, Jan 21, 1999

III. Kind of Evidence Needed to Establish Probable Cause

Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp, GR 140946, Sept. 13, 2004

IV. In General
Nala v. Barroso, GR 153087 Aug. 7, 2003
Betoy v. Judge AM NO. MJJ-05-1108, Feb 26, 2006
20th Century Fox v. CA, 162 SCRA 655
Columbia Pictures v. CA, 262 SCRA 219

B. Personally Determined by the Judge

Placer v. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463
Lim v. Judge Fenix, 194 SCRA 292
People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788
People v. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715
Allado v. Diokno – 232 SCRA 192
Gozos v. Tac-an – GR 123191, Dec. 17, 1998
Flores v. Sumaljag – 290 SCRA 568

C. Personal Examination (After Examination Under Oath or Affirmation the Complainant and
the Witnesses He May Produce)
Bache & Co. v Ruiz – 37 SCRA 823
Soliven v. Makasiar, GR 8287, Nov. 14 1981
Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310
Kho v. Judge Makalintal, GR 94902-06, April 21, 1999
Alvarez v. Court, 64 Phil 33
Bache v. Cruz, 37 SCRA 823
Borlongan v. Pena, GR 143591, Nov. 23, 2007
People v. Mamaril, GR 147607, Jan 22 2004
Ortiz v. Palaypayon – 234 SCRA 391

D. Particularity of Description
People v. Veloso 48 Phil 169
Alvarez v. CFI – 64 Phil. 33
Corro v. Lising – 137 SCRA 541
Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988)
Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)
People v. Martinez – 235 SCRA 171

11
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp (2004)
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP 133 SCRA 890
Frank Uy v. BIR , 344 SCRA 36
Yousex Al-Ghoul v. CA GR 126859 Sept. 4 , 2001
People v. CA – 291 SCRA 400
Paper Industries v. Asuncion, GR 122092 May 19, 1998
Malalaon v. CA, 232 SCRA 249
People v. Estrada – GR 124461, June 26, 2000

4. Only a Judge May Issue a Warrant

Salazar v. Achcoso, 183 SCRA 145
Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438
Morano v. Vivo, 80 SCRA 562
Sy v. Domingo
Tron Van Nyhia v. Liway, 175 SCRA 318
Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La Rosa, 197 SCRA 853
Harvey v. Santiago 162 SCRA 840
Ho vs. People – 280 SCRA 365

*Administrative Arrest (Exceptions to the rule that only a judge may issue a warrant):
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation may issue warrants to carry out a final finding of
a violation. (Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La Rosa, 197 SCRA 853) It is issued after a
proceeding has taken place.

5. “Of Whatever Nature and for Any Purpose”

Material Distributions v. Judge, 84 Phil 127 (1989)
Oklahoma Press v. Walling, 327 US 186
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 ( 1967)

6. Warrantless Searches and Seizures [VOLUNTARY]

A. General Rule: Get a Search Warrant.

People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 85
People v. Oliver Edano, GR No. 188133, 729 SCRA 255, July 7, 2014
Dale Grady v. North Carolina, March 30, 2015 (Use of GPS Tracker)

B. When is a search a “search”?

Valmonte v. General de Villa – 178 SCRA 211 (Main) and 185 SCRA 655 (MR)
Guazon v. De Villa – 181 SCRA 623

C. No Presumption of Regularity in Search Cases

People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003
Sony Music v. Judge Espanol, GR 156804, March 14, 2005

D. Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures

12
List: People v. Sevilla – 339 SCRA 625

i. Incidental to a Lawful Arrest

Sec. 12 Rule 16, Rules of Court

Two Requisites:
1. Item to be searched was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control.
2. Search was contemporaneous with an arrest.

Padilla v. CA, GR 121917 March 12, 1997

Espano v. CA 288 SCRA 558 (1998)
People v. De Lara – 236 SCRA 291
People v. Leangsiri – 252 SCRA 213
People v. Cuenco – GR 128277, Nov. 16, 1998
People v. Che Chun Ting – 328 SCRA 592
People v.Chi Chan, G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015

ii. Plain View

Requisites:
1. Prior valid intrusion
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
3. Illegality of the evidence is immediately apparent; and
4. Noticed without further search.

People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 413

People v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144 (1993)
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
United Laboratories v. Isip – GR 163858 (June 28, 2005)
People v. Doria – GR 125299, Jan. 22, 1999
Del Rosario v. People, GR 142295, May 31, 2001

iii. Moving Vehicle

There must be a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity.

Hizon v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517 (1996)

Bagalihog v. Fernandez – 198 SCRA 614
Aniag, Jr v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402
People v. Malmstedt, GR 91107, June 19, 1991
People v. Lo Ho Wing, GR 88017, Jan 21, 1991
People v. Saycon – 236 SCRA 329
People v. CFI – 101 SCRA 86
People v. Barros – 231 SCRA 557
Mustang Lumber v. CA – 257 SCRA 430

13
People v. Lacerna – 278 SCRA 561

iv. Consent/Waiver

Requisites:
1.It must appear that the right exists.
2. The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of the right.
3. The person had actual intention to relinquish the right.

De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 PHIL 689

Caballes v. Court of Appeals, GR 136292, Jan 15, 2002
People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325
Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)
People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457
People v. Asis, GR 142531, October 15, 2002
Spouses Veroy v. Layague, GR 95632, June 18, 1992
People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462
People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679
People v. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557
People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003
People v. Tabar – 222 SCRA 144
People v. Encinada – 280 SCRA 72
People v. Aruta – 288 SCRA 626

v. Customs Search
Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857
Pacis v. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16
People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785
People v. Susan Canton, GR 148825, December 27, 2002
People v. Johnson – 348 SCRA 526

vi. Stop and Frisk Situation

Malacat: “Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with
whom he is dealing may be armed and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed
and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior he identifies
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of
the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety, he is entitled for
the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer
clothing of such person in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”

Malacat (1997): Probable cause is not required. However, mere suspicion or a hunch is not
enough. Rather, a “genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed
about him.”

14
Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1
Posadas v. CA, GR NO. 89139, August 2, 1990
People v. Solayao 202 SCRA 255 (1996)
Malacat v. CA 283 SCRA 159 (1997)
Manalili v. CA, GR 113447, October 7, 1997
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)
People v. Sy Chua, GR 136066, February 4, 2003
People V. Victor Cogaed Y Romana, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014

vii. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)

*Drug, Alcohol and Blood Tests

Requisites to be valid:
1. It must be random, and
2. It must be suspicionless.

Laserna v. DDB, GR 158633, Nov. 3, 2008: The constitutional validity of the mandatory,
random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver of their
right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntary submitting their
persons to the parental authority of school authorities.
In case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random
and suspicious drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and
requirement.
However, there is no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes
punishable with at least 6 years and one day imprisonment as they are singled out and impleaded
against their will. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are “randomness” and
“suspicionless.”

Pimentel, Jr v. COMELEC, GR 161658, November 3, 2008: The mandatory drug test

requirements as a pre-condition for the validity of a certificate of candidacy of electoral
candidates not established under the Constitution, e.g. local government positions, is valid.

7. Warrantless Arrests

Rule 113, Section 5. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another

A. In Flagrante Delicto

15
People v. De La Cruz, GR 83260, April 18, 1990
People v. Doria, GR 125299, January 22, 1999
Espiritu v. Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991
Umil v. Fidel Ramos, GR 81567, July 9, 1990
People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388
People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791
People v. Yap, 229 SCRA 787
People v. Alolod, 266 SCRA 154
People v. Mengote – 210 SCRA 174
People v. Elamparo – 329 SCRA
Rizaldy Sanchez Y Cajili v. People, G.R. No. 204589, November 19, 2014

B. Hot Pursuit

Two Requisites:
1. An offense had just been committed.
2. The person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge
of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested committed it.
*There must be immediacy between the time the offense is committed and the time of the arrest.

Go v. CA – 206 SCRA 138

People v. Manlulu, 231 SCRA 701 (1994)
People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992)
People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586
People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997)
People v. Del Rosario, GR 127755, April 14, 1999
People Samus, GR 135957, April 14, 1999
People v. Cubcubin, GR 136267, October 2, 2001
People v. Gorente, 219 SCRA 756
Padilla v. CA, GR 121917, March 12, 1997
People v. Burgos – 144 SCRA 1
People v. Sucro – 195 SCRA 388
People v. Briones – 202 SCRA 708
People v. Sequino – 264 SCRA 79
People v. Nazareno – 260 SCRA 256
People v. Mahusay – 282 SCRA 80
People v. Alvario – 275 SCRA 529
Larranaga v. CA – 287 SCRA 521
People v. Olivarez – GR 77865, Dec. 4, 1998
Cadua v. CA – 312 SCRA 703
People v. Cubcubin – 360 SCRA
People v. Compacion – 361 SCRA 540
Posadas v. Ombudsman – 341 SCRA
People v. Acol – 232 SCRA 406

16
C. Escaped Prisoner

D. Waiver

E. Procedural Rules

People v. Rabang – 187 SCRA 682

People v. Lopez – 246 SCRA 95
Velasco v. CA – 245 SCRA 677
People v. Buluran – 325 SCRA 476

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by
law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.

Cybercrime Law- R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012): The State recognizes the
vital role of information and communications industries such as content production,
telecommunications, broadcasting electronic commerce, and data processing, in the nation’s
overall social and economic development. The State also recognizes the importance of providing
an environment conducive to the development, acceleration, and rational application and
exploitation of information and communications technology (ICT) to attain free, easy, and
intelligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information; and the need to protect and
safeguard the integrity of computer, computer and communications systems, networks, and
databases, and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and data stored
therein, from all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by making punishable under the law
such conduct or conducts. In this light, the State shall adopt sufficient powers to effectively
prevent and combat such offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at
both the domestic and international levels, and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable
international cooperation.

Disini v. The Secretary of Justice, GR No. 203335, February 11, 2014

Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 437 (1967): the US Supreme Court held that the act of FBI
agents in electronically recording a conversation made by petitioner in an enclosed public
telephone booth violated his right to privacy and constituted a “search and seizure”.   Because
the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a
personal telephone call, the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to such area. In the
concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, it was further noted that the existence of privacy right
under prior decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first, that a person has exhibited an actual
(subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).
Riley v. California, June 25, 2014
U.S. v. Graham, August 05, 2015

17
Factors to Determine Violation of the Right to Privacy
In the matter of the Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo I. Sabio, GR
174340, October 17, 2006: In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court
must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so,
whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.

Briccio Pollo v. Chairperson Karina David, GR 181881, October 18, 2011

Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila, A.M. Nos. P-08-2519 and P-08-2520, November 19, 2008, 571 SCRA 361.
Synhumliong v. Rivera, GR 200841, June 4, 2014

RA No. 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Law

Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590: “Private communication” in Section 1 of RA 4200 is deemed to
include “private conversations.”
Navarro v. CA, GR 121087, August 26, 1999: The Anti-Wiretapping Law prohibits the
overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications. Thus, a tape recording of an
altercation or verbal exchange between a policeman and a radio reporter at a police station is
admissible in evidence.

Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, AM 08-1-16-SC

Writ of Habeas Data: the remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

Not Covered
Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188
In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382
People v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123
Dr. Lee v. P/Supt. Ilagan, GR No. 203254, October 08, 2014
Gamboa v. P/Supt. Chan, GR No. 193636, July 24, 2012

Exclusionary Rule
Gaanan v. IAC – 145 SCRA 112
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA – 235 SCRA 111
Zulueta v. CA – 253 SCRA 699
Ople v. Torres – 293 SCRA 141
Waterous Drug Corp v. NLRC, GR 113271, October 16, 1997
People v. Marti – 193 SCRA 57
People v. Artua – 288 SCRA 626

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.

18
Content-based Regulation: Restraint is aimed at the message or idea of the expression. Apply the
Strict Scrutiny Test and the challenged act must overcome the clear and present danger rule.

Content-neutral Regulation: Restraint is aimed to regulate the time, place or manner of the
expression in public place without any restraint on the content of the expression. Apply the
Intermediate Approach Test wherein a regulation is justified if it is : within the constitutional
power of government, furthers an important or substantial government interest, government
interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and the incident restriction on the
alleged freedom of speech and expression is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that
interest. Here, it only requires substantial government interest for validity.

Facial Challenge Concept: A facial challenge is an exception to the rule that only persons who
are directly affected by a statute have legal standing to assail the same. This is only applicable to
statutes involving free speech, impeached on the grounds of overbreadth or vagueness. Here, the
litigants are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are
violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may
cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.

Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014: While this Court has withheld the application of
facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it has expanded its scope to cover statutes not only
regulating free speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental rights.
The underlying reason for this modification is simple. For unlike its counterpart in the U.S., this
Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Law not only to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Overbreadth Doctrine: A ground to declare a statute void when “it offends the constitutional
principle that a government purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to
state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby
invade the area of protected freedoms.”

Tests for Valid Government Interference to Freedom of Expression

1.Clear and Present Danger Test
2.Dangerous Tendency Test
3.Balancing of Interest Test

State Regulation of Different Types of Mass Media

1.Broadcast and Radio Media: It is subject to dual regulation: First, procure a legislative
franchise. Second, register and be subject to regulations set by the NTC. (Divinagracia v.
CBS, Inc GR 162272, April 7, 2009)
2.Print Media

The freedom of television and radio broadcasting is lesser in scope that the freedom accorded to
newspapers and print media. (Eastern Broadcasting Corp v. Dans Jr)

19
Private vs. Government speech

Heckler’s Veto: This involves situations in which the government attempts to ban protected
speech because it might provoke a violent response.

1. Prior Restraint: Refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.

Valid Prior Restraint:

1. Movies, television, and radio broadcast censorship in view of its access to numerous
people.
2. Pornography
3. False or misleading commercial statement
4. Advocacy of imminent lawless action
5. Danger to national security (Chavez v. Gonzales)

Near v. Minnesota – 238 US 697

Freedman v. Maryland – 380 US 51
New York Times Co. v. US – 403 US 713
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – GR 115444, Oct. 30, 1995
Alexander v. US – 113 S. Ct. 2766, 125 L. Ed. 2d. 441
INC v. CA, 259 SCRA 529 (1996)
SWS v. COMELEC, GR 147571, May 5, 2001
Chavez v. Gonzales, GR 168338, February 15, 2008
Newsounds Broadcasting v. Dy, GR 170270 and 179411, April 2, 2009
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN, GR 155282, January 17, 2005
Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, AM No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001
Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785, April 29, 2009
The Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, GR No. 205728, 747 SCRA 1, Jan 21, 2015
GMA Network, Inc. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014
Davao City Water District v. Aranjuez, G.R. No. 194192, June 16, 2015
1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015
Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015

2. Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez – 45 Phil. 599
Espiritu v. General Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991
Dennis v. US – 341 US 494
Gonzales v. COMELEC – 27 SCRA 835
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr. – 137 SCRA 628
Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. V. Judge Capulong – 160 SCRA 865
Kelley v. Johnson – 425 US 238
Brandenburg v. Ohio – 395 US 444
Miriam College Foundation v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000

3. Speech and the Electoral Process

20
Sanidad v. COMELEC – 181 SCRA 529
National Press Club v. COMELEC – 207 SCRA 1
Adiong v. COMELEC – March 31, 1992
Osmena v. COMELEC – 288 SCRA 447
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC – 323 SCRA 811
SWS v. COMELEC – 357 SCRA 496
Penera v. COMELEC, GR 181613, November 25, 2009

4. Commercial Speech
Rubin v. Coors Brewing – 131 L. Ed. 2d 532
Cincinnati v. Discovery Network – 123 L. Ed. 2d 99
Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 US 557
Pharmaceutical v. Secretary of Health, GR 173034, October 9, 2007
City of Laduc v. Gilleo – 129 L. Ed. 2d 36
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, GR No. 203335, 2014

5. Libel (Unprotected Speech)

Policarpio v. Manila Times – 5 SCRA 148
Lopez v. CA – 34 SCRA 116
New York Times Co. c. Sullivan – 376 US 254
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. – 403 US 254
Gerts v. Robert Wlech – 418 US 323
Hustler v. Magazine – 485 US 46
In Re Jurado AM No. 90-5-2373, 4 LR 19 Aug’09
In Re Jurado – 243 SCRA 299
Vasquez v. CA – GR 118971 Sept. 15, 1999
Borjal v. CA – GR. 126466 Jan. 14, 1999
Vicario v. CA – GR 124491 June 1, 1999
Pader v. People – 325 SCRA 117
Fermin v. People, GR 157643, March 28, 2008

6. Obscenity (Unprotected Speech)

Miller v. California – 37 L. Ed. 2d 419
Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak – 137 SCRA 717
Pita v. CA – 178 SCRA 362
Barnes v. Glen Theater – 498 US 439
FCC v Pacifica Foundation – 438 US 726
Renton v. Playtime Theater – 475 US 41
Bethel School District v. Fraser – 478 US 675
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier – 484 US 260
Fernando v. CA, GR 159751, December 6, 2006
Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785, April 29, 2009

7. Assembly and Petition

Navarro v. Villegas – 31 SCRA 73
PBM Employees v. PBM – 51 SCRA 189

21
JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing – 125 SCRA 553
PCIB v. Philnabank Employees, 105 SCRA 314
Malabanan v. Ramento – 129 SCRA 359
De la Cruz v. CA, GR 126183, March 25, 1999
Bangalisan v. CA, GR 124678, July 23, 1997
Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233
BAYAN v. Ermita – GR 169838, April 25, 2006
GSIS v. Kapisanan, GR 170132, December 6, 2006
In Re Valmonte, 296 SCRA
In Re Petition to Annul 98-7-02 SC

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.

Purpose

I. Non-Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201
Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
School District v. Schempp, 394 RS 203
Board of Education v. Allen, 392 US 236
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672
Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 57 LW 504
Zobrest v. Catalina, No. 92-94 June 18, 1993
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinetter & Ku Klus Klan, US No. 94-780, June 29, 1995
Lee v. Welsman, US No. 90-1014, June 24, 1992
Manosca v. CA, 252 SCRA 412
Islamic Dawah v. ES, GR 153888, July 9, 2003
Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014

II. Free Exercise of Religion

Tests
a) Clear and Present Danger Test: When words are used in such circumstance and of such nature
as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has
a right to prevent.

b) Compelling State Interest Test: When a law of general application infringes religious exercise,
albeit incidentally, the state interest sought to be promoted must be so paramount and compelling
as to override the free exercise claim. Three-step test:
1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise of religion?

22
2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of religious liberty?
3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive means possible so
that the free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of
the state? (Estrada v. Escritor)

c) Conscientious Objector Test: Persons who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war
in any form by reason of religious training and belief may be exempted from combat training and
service in the armed forces. Religious training and belief means an individual’s belief in relation
to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does
not include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal code.

Victoriano v. Elizalde, 59 SCRA 94

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296
US v. Ballard – 322 US 78
American Bible Society v. City of Manila – 104 Phil. 386
Ebranilag v. Divison Superintendent – 219 SCRA 256; (MR) 251 SCRA
Wisconsin v. Yoder – 406 US 205
Goldman v. Weinberger – 54 LW 4298
German v. Baranganan – 135 SCRA 514
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – 249 SCRA 628
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos – 236 SCRA 197
Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeach – No. 91-948, June 11, 1993
Lamb’s Chapel v. School Disctrict – No.91-2024, June 7, 1993
In re Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Court of Iligan City, 477 SCRA 648
Estrada v. Escritor – AM P-021651, August 4, 2003 (Compelling State Interest Test)
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014

III. No Religious Test

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 SCRA 488
Pamil v. Teleron – 86 SCRA 413
McDaniel v. Paty – 435 US 618
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010

IV. Ecclesiastical Matters

Austria v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 293

Long and Almeria v. Basa, GR 134963, September 7, 2001
Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.

Article 13 (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights

23
Article 12 (4) Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Watch-list, hold departure orders and lookout order

Reyes v. CA, GR 182161, December 3, 2009

Return to One’s Country

Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668

Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel

Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
Silverio v. CA – 195 SCRA 760
Santiago v. Vasquez – 217 SCRA 633
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan – 247 SCRA 127
Yap v. CA, GR 141529, June 6, 2001
Mirasol v DPWH, 490 SCRA 318
OAS v. Judge Macarine, 677 SCRA 1

Human Security Act, Section 26: In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person
charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is
granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of
the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in
the interest of national security and public safety. Travel outside said municipality or city,
without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of
his bail, which shall then be forfeited under the Rules of Court.

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

(FOI) E.O. signed by Pres. Duterte on people’s constitutional right to information and the state
policies of full public disclosure and transparency in the public service: “Section 3. Access to
information- Every Filipino shall have access to information, official records, public records, and
to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for public-document.”

Right to Information

Scope of the Right

Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250, July 9, 2002

Limitation on the Right

Chavez v. PCGG, GR 130716, Dec. 9, 1988: No right to information in the following:
1. National security matters and intelligence information
2. Trade secrets and banking transactions

24
3. Criminal matters
4. Other confidential information which includes diplomatic correspondence, closed door
Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either Houses of Congress, and the internal
deliberations of the Supreme Court.

In Re: Production of Court Records, 14 February 2012

In General: Access to court records, Government contract negotiations, Diplomatic negotiations,

etc.

Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530

Bantay Republic Act v. COMELEC, GR 177271, May 4, 2007
Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256
Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 SCRA 515
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, GR 132601, Oct. 12, 1988
Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR 140835, August 14, 2000
RE: Request for Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 248
RE: Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 62
Hilado v. Reyes, 496 SCRA 282 (Access to Court Records)
Sabio v. Gordon, 504 SCRA 704
Bantay v. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 1
Berdin v. Mascarinas, 526 SCRA 592
Chang v. NHA, 530 SCRA 335
Senate v. Ermita – GR 169777, April 20, 2006
Suplico v. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008
Neri v. Senate – GR 180643, March 25, 2008; MR Sept. 4, 2008
Akbayan v. Aquino – GR 170516, July 16, 2008
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, 568 SCRA 402
Guingona v. COMELEC, 620 SCRA 448
Antolin v. Domondon, 623 SCRA 163
Center for People v. COMELEC, 631 SCRA 41
Francisco v. TRB, 633 SCRA 470
Initiatives v. PSALM, 682 SCRA 602
Belgica v. Executive Secretary, GR 208566, November 19, 2013
Gov. Villafuerte, Jr. v. Hon. Robredo GR No. 195390, December 10, 2014

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Scope
Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 137 SCRA 42

Right to Association
Occena v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404
UPCSU v. Laguesma – 286 SCRA 15
Bel-Air Village Association v. Dionisio, 174 SCRA 589

25
Padcom Condominium Association v. Ortigas Center Association, Inc, 382 SCRA 222

Government Employees (Right to Strike)

TUCP v. NHC, 173 SCRA 33
SSS Employees v. CA, 175 SCRA 686
MPSTA v. Secretary of Education, GR 95445, August 6, 1991
Jacinto v. CA, GR 124540, November 4, 1997
GSIS v. Kapisanan, GR 170132

Membership in the Philippine Bar

In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 554

Section 9. Private Property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Expropriation in General
Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, March 14, 2000
NHA v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, GR 15441, June 19, 2003
Mactan v. Lozada, 613 SCRA 618 (Reversion)
Vda De Ouna v. Republic, 642 SCRA 384 (Reversion)

Power to Undertake Expropriation Case

Iron and Steel Authority v. CA, 249 SCRA 538
Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272
Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337
Estate of Heirs v. City of Manila, 422 SCRA 551
Lagcao v. Labra, GR 155746, October 13, 2004

Rights of Owner Before Expropriation

Greater Balanga v. Municipality of Balanga, 239 SCRA 436
Velarma v. CA, 252 SCRA 406
Solanda v. CA, 305 SCRA 645
Republic v. Salem, 334 SCRA 320 (Title not cancelled until paid)

1. Elements of “Taking”
Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi – 58 SCRA 336
Garcia v. CA – 102 SCRA 597
City of Government v. Judge Ericta – 122 SCRA 759
US v. Causby – 328 US 256
People v. Fajardo – 104 Phil 443
Republic v. PLDT – 26 SCRA 620
NPC v. Jocson – 206 SCRA 520
Penn Central Transportation v. NY City 438 US 104
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto – 467 US 986
NPC v. Manubay – 437 SCRA 60
NPC v. San Pedro – 503 SCRA 333
NPC v. Tianco – 514 SCRA 674

26
LBP v. Imperial – 515 SCRA 449
NCP v. Bongbong – 520 SCRA 290
Tan v. Republic - 423 SCRA 203
NPC v. Ibrahim – 526 SCRA 149
NPC v. Purefoods – 565 SCRa 17
NPC v. Capin – 569 SCRA 648
PNOC v. Maglasang – 570 SCRA 560 (lease not basis for taking)
NPC v. CO – 578 SCRa 243
NPC v. Villamor - 590 SCRA 11
NPC v. Maruhom – 609 SCRA 198
OSG v. Ayala – 600 SCRA 617 (free parking spaces in malls)
NPC v. Tuazon – 653 SCRA 84

2. Public Use
Sumulong v. Guerrero – 154 SCRA 461
Phil. Columbian Assn. v. Hon. Panis – 228 SCRA 668
Manosca v. CA – 252 SCRA 412
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA – 222 SCRA 173
Lagcao v. Judge Labra – GR 155746, Oct. 13, 2004
Reyas v. NHA, GR 147511, Jan 20, 2003
Masikip v. Pasig, 479 SCRA 391
Didipio v. Earth Savers v. Guzon, 485 SCRA 586
Barangay v. CA, 581 SCRA 649
Manapat v. CA, 536 SCRA 32
Mactan v. Tudtud, GR 174012, November 14, 2008
City of Manila v. Tan Te, 658 SCRA 88(socialized housing)
Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Borbon, GR No. 165354, 745 SCRA 40, Jan 12, 2015

3. Just Compensation
City of Manila v. Estrada – 25 Phil 208
Manila Railroad v. Paredes – 31 Phil. 118
Santos v. Land Bank – GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000
Municipality of Daet v. CA – 129 SCRA 665
NPC v. CA – 129 SCRA 665
EPZA v. Dulay – 149 SCRA 305
Maddumba v. GSIS – 182 SCRA 281
Berkenkotter v. CA – 216 SCRA 584
Meralco v. Pineda – 206 SCRA 196
NPC v. CA – 254 SCRA 577
Land Bank v. CA – 249 SCRA 149; (MR) 258 SCRA 404
Panes v. VISCA – 264 SCRA 708
Republic v. CA – 263 SCRA 758
NPC v. Henson – GR 129998, December 29 1998
Santos v. Landbank, GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000
Sigre v. Ca, GR 109568, Aug. 8 2002
NHA v. Heirs of Isidro, GR 154411, June 19 2001

27
Mactan v. Urgello – 520 SCRA 515
San Roque v. Republic – 532 SCRA 493
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Peralta, G.R. No. 182704, April 23, 2014
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Eusebio, Jr., G.R. No. 160143, July 2, 2014
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Sta., G.R. No. 183290, July 9, 2014
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Beriña, G.R. Nos. 183901 & 183931
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Susie Irene Galle, G.R. No. 171836,August 11, 2014

4. Judicial Review
De Knecht v. Bautista – 100 SCRA 660
Manotoc v. NHA – 150 SCRA 89
Republic v. De Knecht – 182 SCRA 141
Militante v. CA, GR 107040, April 12, 2000
Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr. G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Clemens v. Nolting, 42 Phil 702, 1922

Home Building and Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell – 290 US 398
Rutter v. Esteban – 93 Phil. 68
Del Rosario v. De los Santos – L-20589-90
Abella v. NLRC – 152 SCRA 140
Phil. Vet. Bank Employees v. Phil. Vet. Bank – 189 SCRA 14
Presley v. Bel-Air Village Association – 201 SCRA 13
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – 235 SCRA 630
Siska Development v. Office of the President – 231 SCRA 674
Miners Association v. Factoran – 240 SCRA 100
Juarez v. CA – 214 SCRA 475
FPIB v. CA – 252 SCRA 259
CMMA v. POEA – 243 SCRA 666
PNB v. O.P. – 252 SCRA 5
Eugenio v. Drilon – 252 SCRA 106
Meralco v. Province of Laguna – 306 SCRA 750
Lim v. Pacquing – 240 SCRA 649
Ortigas v. Feati Bank – 94 SCRA 533
Juarez v. CA – 214 SCRA 475
FPIB v. CA – 252 SCRA 259
CMMA v. POEA – 243 SCRA 106
JMM v. CA – (supra)
PNB v. OP – 252 SCRA 5
Eugenio v. Drilon – 252 SCRA 106
JMM v. CA – (supra Substantive)
C & M Timber v. Alcala – 273 SCRA 402
Republic v. Agana – 2269 SCRA 1
Producers v. NLRC – GR 118069, November 16, 1998
Blaquera v. Alcala – GR109406, September 11, 1998

28
Philreca v. Sec. of DILG, GR 1543076, June 10, 2003
Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corp. 426 SCRA 517
Chavez v. COMELEC – 437 SCRA 415
Alvarez v. PICOP - 508 SCRA 498
Lepanto v. WMC – 507 SCRA 315
Republic v. Caguioa – 536 SCRA 193
Land Bank v. Republic – 543 SCRA 453
Serrano v. Gallant – 582 SCRA 254
Alvarez v. PICOP – 606 SCRA 444
Surigao v. ERC - 632 SCRA 96
Hacienda Luisita v. Pac – 653 SCRA 154

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Indigent Party: One who is authorized by the court to prosecute his action or defense as an
indigent upon an ex parte application and hearing showing that he has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family. (Rules
of Court, Rule 3, Section 21)

Legal Provisions on Free Access

1. RA 6035: stenographers are required to give free transcript of stenographic notes to indigent
and low-income litigants.
2. Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21
3. Constitution, Article 3, Section 12: the court appoints a counsel de officio for an accused who
cannot afford to engage the service of a counsel de parte.
4. Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Section 4: No docket or other lawful fees shall be required for
the filing of the petition.
5. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 4: No docket and other lawful fees are required from
indigent petitioner.

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which violate the free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

I. Custodial Investigation, In General

29
A. Definition
People Pavillare, GR 129970, April 5, 2000
People v. Bandula - 232 SCRA 566
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000
OCA v. Sumulong, 271 SCRA 316
People v. Almanzor, GR 124918, July 11, 2002 (no need for counsel)
People v. Valdez, GR 129296, September 25, 2000
People v. Marra - 236 SCRA 565
People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999
Manuel v. NC Construction – 282 SCRA 326
People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
*People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611
People v. Andan – 269 SCRA 95
People v. Artellero, GR 129211, October 2, 2000
People v. De Jesus – 213 SCRA 345
People v. Legaspi, GR 117802, April 27, 2000

B. Rationale
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436
People v. Canton, GR 148825, Dec. 27, 2002

II. Instances of Custodial Investigations

People v. Isla- 278 SCRA 47
People v. Salazar – 266 SCRA 607
People v. Casimiro, GR 146277, June 20, 2002
People v. Castro – 274 SCRA 115
People v. Bolanos – 211 SCRA 262
People v. Lim - 196 SCRA 809

III. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations

A. Procedural Requirements
*Miranda v. Arizona- 384 US 436
People v. Mahinay – GR 122485 February 1, 1999
People v. Camat - 256 SCRA 52

B. Duty of an Officer During Custodial Investigation

People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
People v. Salcedo – 273 SCRA 473

C. When the Rights of Custodial Investigation May Be Invoked

People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47
Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000
People v. Tan – 286 SCRA 207

30
D. The Right to Remain Silent
People v. Bandin – 226 SCRA 299
People v. Lacbanes – 270 SCRA 193
People v. Morico – 246 SCRA 214
People v. Ang Chun Kit – 251 SCRA 660
People v. De Las Marinas – 196 SCRA 504
People v. Castro – 274 SCRA 115
People v. Enriquez – 204 SCRA 674
People v. De Castro, G.R. No. 171672

E. The Right to Counsel

a. When to Invoke
People v. Sunga, GR 126029, Mar. 29, 2003
People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999
People v. Sapal, GR 124526, March 17, 2000
People v. Lamsing - 248 SCRA 471
People v. Maqueda - 242 SCRA 565
People v. Macam – 238 SCRA 306
People v. De Jesus – 213 SCRA 345
People v. Dimaano – 209 SCRA 819
People v. Compil - 244 SCRA 135
People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47

b. When Presence of Counsel is Required

People v. Rodriguez - 232 SCRA 227
Estacio v. Sandiganbayan – 183 SCRA 12
People v. Bandula - 232 SCRA 566
People v. Isla- 278 SCRA 47
People v. Jimenez - 204 SCRA 719
People v. Cortes, 323 SCRA 131
People v. Rous - 242 SCRA 732
People v. Espanola – 271 SCRA 689
People v.Zuela, 325 SCRA 589
People v. Macabalang 508 SCRA 282
Almendras, Jr. v. Almendras, GR No. 179491, 2015

c. Effective and Vigilant Counsel Defined

*People v. Sunga, GR 126029, March 27, 2003
People v. Velarde, GR 139333, July 18, 2002
People v. Culala, GR 83466, October 13, 1999
People v. Gerolago – 263 SCRA 143
People v. Paule – 261 SCRA 649
People v. Delmo, GR 130078, Oct. 4, 2002

31
People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
People v. Lucero - 249 SCRA 425
People v. Espanola – 271 SCRA 689
People v. Bacor – GR 122895 April 30, 1999
People v. Sahagun – 274 SCRA 208
People v. Taliman, GR 109143, October 11, 2000
People v. Espiritu – GR 128287 February 2, 1999
People v. Barasina - 229 SCRA 450
People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122
People v. Suarez – 267 SCRA 119
People v. Parojinog - 203 SCRA 673
People v. Baello – 224 SCRA 218
Galman v. Pamaran – 138 SCRA 295
People v. Jerez – 285 SCRA 393
People v. Ranis, GR 129113, Sept. 17, 2002
People v. Dumalahay, 380 SCRA 37
People v. Pamon – 217 SCRA 501
People v. Cabiles – 284 SCRA 199
People v. Gallardo, 323 SCRA 318
People v. Base, GR 109773, March 30, 2000
People v. Obrero, GR 122142, May 17, 2000
Cariaga v. People – 626 SCRA 231

d. Independence
People v. Porio, 376 SCRA 596

e. Competence
People v. Suela, supra, 373 SCRA 163
Uyboco v. People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 211703, December 10, 2014

f. Assistance After Start of Custodial Investigation

People v. Matigunas, 379 SCRA 56
People v. Suela, supra.

g. Valid Confession with Counsel

People v. Tablon, 379 SCRA 280
People v. Principe, GR 135862, May 2, 2002
People v. Oranza, GR 127748, July 25, 2002
People v. Canicula, GR 131802, Aug. 6, 2002
h. Confession Without Counsel
People v. Casimiro, GR 146277, June 20, 2002
People v. Ochate, GR 127154, July 30, 2002
People v. Mendez, GR 147671, Nov. 21, 2002 (reiterates P. v. Morada)
*People v. Lauga – 615 SCRA 548
Lumanog v. People – 630 SCRA 42

32
People v. Tumaco – 610 SCRA 350l
People v. Bokingo – 655 SCRA 313
*People v. Uy – 649 SCRA 236

i. Failure to Object to Confession Made Without Counsel

People v. Gonzales, GR 142932, May 29, 2002
People v. Tamayo, GR 137856, July, 30, 2002
People v. Samus, GR 135957, Sept. 17, 2002
People v. Avendano, GR 137407, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Mole, GR 137366, Nov. 27, 2003

j. Right to Be Informed
People v. Manriquez, GR 122510-11, March 17, 2000
Magtoto v. Manguera - 63 SCRA 4
*People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122
People v. Sabban – 260 SCRA 630
People v. Barlis - 231 SCRA 426
People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541
People v. Samolde, GR 128551, July 31, 2000
People v. Sevilla, GR 124077, September 5, 2000
People v. Muleta – GR 130189 June 25, 1999
People v. Tizon, GR 133228, July 30, 2002
People v. Llenaresas - 248 SCRA 629
People v. Cajara, GR 122498, September 27, 2000
People v. Manriquez, GR 122510-11, March 17, 2000
People v. Samolde, GR 128551, July 31, 2000

IV. Waiver of Rights

A. Requisites of a Valid Waiver

a. Must Be in Writing and in the Presence of Counsel
People v. Taliman, GR 109143, October 11, 2000
People v. Gomez – 270 SCRA 432
People v. Cabintoy – 247 SCRA 442
People v. Corullo – 289 SCRA 481
People v. Olivarez – GR 77865 December 4, 1998
People v. Ruelan - 231 SCRA 650
People v. Simon - 234 SCRA 555
Malacat v. CA – (supra, Warrantless Arrests)
People v. Bacor, 306 SCRA 522
People v. Quidato – GR 117160 or 6 October 1, 1998

b. Must Be Voluntary, Knowing and Intelligent

People v. Nicolas - 204 SCRA 191
People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541

33
V. Extrajudicial Confessions
A. Difference Between Admission and Confession
Ladiana v. People, GR 144293, Dec. 4, 2002
People v. Maqueda - 242 SCRA 565

B. Requisites for Valid Extrajudicial Confession

People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000
People v. Pagaura – 267 SCRA 17
People v. Calvo – 269 SCRA 676
People v. Tan – 286 SCRA 207
People v. Olivarez – GR 77865 December 4
People v. Base, GR 109773, March 30, 2000
People v. Continente, GR 100801-02, August 25, 2000
People v. Naag, 322 SCRA 710
People v. Fabro – 277 SCRA 19
People v. Sinoc – 275 SCRA 357
People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
People v. Maneng, GR 123147, October 13, 2000
People v. Llanes, GR 140268, September 18, 2000
People v. Deang, GR 128045, August 24, 2000
People v. Avendano, GR 137407, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Espanola – 271 SCRA 689
People v. Nicolas, GR 135877, Aug. 22, 2002
People v. Sabalones – 294 SCRA 751
People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455
People v. Lising – 285 SCRA 595
People v. Obrero, GR 122142, May 17, 2000
People v. Capitle – 639 SCRA 373
Jesalva v. People – 640 SCRA 253
People v. Capitle – 639 SCRA 373

C. Voluntariness
People v. Santos – 283 SCRA 443
People v. Alvarez, GR 140388-91, Nov. 11, 2003
Astudillo v. People - 509 SCRA 302
Jesalva v. People – 640 SCRA 253

D. Presumptions
People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
People v. Figueroa, GR 134056, July 6, 2000
People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000
People v. Maneng, GR 123147, October 13, 2000
People v. Vallejo, GR 144656, May 9, 2002
People v. Sahagun – 274 SCRA 208

34
People v. Sabban – 260 SCRA 630
People v. Ranis, GR 129113, Sept. 17, 2002
People v. Rous - 242 SCRA 732
People v. Parojinog - 203 SCRA 673
People v. Montiero – 246 SCRA 786
People v. Ruelan - 231 SCRA 650
People v. Aquino – GR 123550-51 July 19, 1999
People v. Tolentino, 423 SCRA 448
People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999
People v. Santos – 283 SCRA 443
Santos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 71523-25, December 8, 2000
People v. Magdamit – 279 SCRA 423
People v. Aquino, GR 130742, July 18, 2000
People v. Hernandez – (supra, Warrantless Arrests)
People v. Sabalones – 294 SCRA 751
People v. Calvo – 269 SCRA 676
People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 131036, June 20, 2001

E. To Whom Such Confession Can Be Used Against

People v. Lising – 285 SCRA 595
Santos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 71523-25, December 8, 2000
Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999

F. Lawyer Given by Police Investigator; Valid Confession

Aquino v. Paiste, 555 S 255

G. Exceptions
VI. When Custodial Investigations May Not Apply
A. Preliminary Investigation
People v. Judge Ayson - 175 SCRA 216

B. Voluntary Surrender
People v. Taylaran – 108 SCRA 373

C. Audit Examination
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
Kimpo v. Sandiganbayan - 232 SCRA 53

D. Administrative Investigation
Manuel v. NC Construction – 282 SCRA 326
Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.13747, August 2, 2001
Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000
Escleo v. Durado, AM no. P-99-1312, July 31, 2002

E. Not in Police Custody

People v. Tobias – 266 SCRA 229

35
OCA v. Sumulong, 271 SCRA 316

F. Police Line-up
General Rule
People v. Piedad, GR 131923, Dec. 5, 2002 (no need for counsel)
People v. Lamsing – 248 SCRA 471
People v. Frago - 232 SCRA 653
*Gamboa v. Judge Cruz - 162 SCRA 675
People v. Salvatierra – 276 SCRA 55 (supra, Warrantless Arrests)
Dela Torre v. CA – 294 SCRA 196
People Pavillare, GR 129970, April 5, 2000
People v. Timple - 237 SCRA 52
People v. Dimaano – 209 SCRA 819
People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47
People v. Tolentino, 423 SCRA 448
People v. Martinez, 425 SCRA 525
People v. Sultan, GR 130594, July 5, 2000
People v. Escordial, 373 SCRA 585 (line- up after custodial investigation starts,
requires counsel)

Exceptions
People v. Hatton – 210 SCRA 1
People v. Gamer, 326 SCRA 660
*People v. Teehankee, Jr. – 249 SCRA 54 (supra, Procedural)
People v. Meneses – 288 SCRA 95

G. Spontaneous Statements
People v. Barrientos – 285 SCRA 221
Arroyo v, CA - 203 SCRA 750
People v. Andan – 269 SCRA 95
People v. Dumantay, 307 SCRA 1
People v. Morada – GR 129723 May 19, 1999
People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000
People v. Ulit, 423 SCRA 374

H. Marked Money
*People v. Linsangan – 195 SCRA 784

I. Booking Sheets

*People v. Ang Chun Kit – 251 SCRA 660

J. Paraffin Test
People v. Gamboa – 194 SCRA 372

K. When Body of the Accused is Examined

36
People v. Sinoc – 275 SCRA 357
People v. Piedad, GR 131923, Dec. 5, 2002 (no need for counsel)
Gutang v. People, GR 135406, July 11, 2000
People v. Paynor – 256 SCRA 611

L. Taking of Pictures
People v. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835

M. Incident to a Lawful Arrest

People v. Enriquez – 204 SCRA 674
Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan – GR 109242 January 26, 1999

VII. The Exclusionary Rule

A. Violation of Rights
People v. Simon - 234 SCRA 555
People v. Hermoso, GR 130590, October 18, 2000
People v. Pinlac - 165 SCRA 675
People v. Bacamante - 248 SCRA 47
People v. Andan – 269 SCRA 95
People v. Montes – GR 117166 December 13, 1998
People v. Salcedo – 273 SCRA 473
People v. Macoy – 275 SCRA 1
People v. Arceo - 202 SCRA 170
People v. Atrejenio – GR 120160 July 13, 1999
Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999
People v. Binamira – 277 SCRA 232
People v. Turingan – 282 SCRA 424
People v. Pagaura – 267 SCRA 17
People v. Quidato – GR 117401 October 1, 1998
People v. Sequino – 264 SCRA 79
People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541
People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97
People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122
People v. Bravo, GR 13562
People v. Bariquit, GR 122733, October 2, 2000
People v. Malimit – 264 SCRA 167
People v. Rivera – 245 SCRA 421
People v. Meneses – 288 SCRA 95
People v. Figueroa, GR 134056, July 6, 2000
People v. Paburada, GR 137118, December 5, 2000
People v. Lapitaje, GR 132042, Feb. 19, 2003

B. Immunity against Self-Incrimination

*Galman v. Pamaran – (supra, Custodial Investigation)

37
C. Re-enactments
People v. Suarez – 267 SCRA 119

D. Applicability to Aliens
People v. Wong Chuen Ming - 256 SCRA 182

E. Verbal Confessions
People v. Deniego – 251 SCRA 626
People v. Bonola – 274 SCRA 238
People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (confession to private party)
People v. Taboga, 376 SCRA 500 (confession to private party)
People v. Baloloy, GE 140740, Apr. 12, 2002 (res gestae)
People v. Guillermo, 420 S 326
F. Co-Accused not Bound
People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52

G. Who May Raise the Question

People v. Balisteros - 237 SCRA 499

H. When Must the Objection Be Raised

People v. Samus, GR 135957, Sept. 17, 2002
People v. Montilla – 285 SCRA 703
People v. Salvatierra – 276 SCRA 55
Gamboa v. Judge Cruz - 162 SCRA 675
Macasiray v. People – 291 SCRA 154

I. Admissible Evidence
People v. Espiritu, 302 SCRA 533
People v. Lumandong, 327 SCRA 650

VIII. Rights After Custodial Investigation

People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
People v. De Guzman - 194 SCRA 191

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.

I. Right to Bail
Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321
People v. Gako, GR 135045, December 15, 2000
*Yap v. CA, GR 141529, June 6, 2001
Fortuna v. Sitaca, AM No. RTJ-01-1633, June 19, 2001

38
Jinggoy Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002
Gov’t of USA v. Hon Purganan, GR 148571, Sept. 24, 2002
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan. 28, 2003
*Gov’t of Hongkong v. Hon. Olalia, April 19, 2007
People v. Sandiganbayan – 529 SCRA 764
Juan Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015
Jinggoy Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015

II. Waiver of the Right

People v. Judge Donato & Rodolfo Salas – 198 SCRA 130
People v. Mapalao - 197 SCRA 79

III. Excessive Bail

*De La Camara.v. Enage - 41 SCRA 3
Chu v. Dolalos – 260 SCRA 309
Magsucang v. Judge Balgos, AM no. MTJ- 02- 142, Feb. 27, 2003

IV. Right to Bail of Military Personnel

Commendador v. Gen. de Villa - 200 SCRA 80

V. Aspects of the Right to Bail

Sule v. Biteng - AM MTJ-95-1018, 243 SCRA 524
Paderanga v. CA – 247 SCRA 741
Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Chin v. Judge Gustilo, et al. "AM No- RTJ-94-1243,
247 SCRA 175
People v. Nitcha – 240 SCRA 283
Padilla v. CA – 260 SCRA 155
Parada v. Veneracion – 269 SCRA 371
Obosa v. CA – 266 SCRA 281
Moslares v. CA – 291 SCRA 440
Catiis v. CA 482 SCRA 71

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Due Process
People v. Boras, GR 127495, December 22, 2000
People v. Horio, GR 137842, August 23, 2001
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, July 21, 2016

39
Military Tribunal
Olaguer v. Military - 150 SCRA 144
Tan v. Barrios - 190 SCRA 685

Presumption of Innocence
*United States v. Luling - 324 PHIL. 725
People v. Mingoa - 92 PHIL. 856
*Dumlao v. COMELEC - 95 SCRA 392
Pamintuan v. People - 234 SCRA 63
Marquez v. COMELEC – 243 SCRA 538
Hizon v. CA – 265 SCRA 517
People v. Caranguian, GR 124514, July 6, 2000
People v. Aquino, GR 130742, July 18, 2000
People v. Guillermo, GR 111292, July 20, 2000
People v. Balacano, GR 127156, July 31, 2000
People v. Mansueto, GR 135196, July 31, 2000
Soriano v. Angeles, GR 109920, August 31, 2000
People v. Fajardo, GR 128583, November 22, 2000
Rueda v. Sandiganbayan, GR 129064, November 29, 2000
People v. Baulite, G.R. No. 137599, October 8, 2001
!24

Right to Be Heard and to Production of Evidence

Maliwat v. CA - 256 SCRA 718
People v. Buemio – 265 SCRA 582
People v. Ramilla – GR 127485 July 19, 1999
Marquez v. Sandiganbayan – 641 SCRA 175
Suyan v People, GR No. 189644, 729 SCRA, 1 July 2, 2014
Ejercito v. Hon. Comelec, GR No. 212398, 742 SCRA 210, Nov. 25 2014
Nacion v. COA, March 17, 2015

Right to Counsel
*People v. Holgado - 86 PHIL. 752
United v. Ash - 413 U. S. 300
People v. Rio – 201 SCRA 702
Salaw v. NLRC - 202 SCRA 7
Carillo v. People - 229 SCRA 386
People v. Macagaling - 237 SCRA 299
De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan - 256 SCRA 171
People v. Cuizon - 256 SCRA 329
People v. Cabodoc – 263 SCRA 187
People v. Echegaray – 267 SCRA 682
Reyes v. CA – 267 SCRA 543
People v. Serzo – 274 SCRA 553
Dans v. People – 285 SCRA 504
Amion v. Chiongson – AM No. RTJ-97-1371 January 22, 1999

40
People v. Ambray – GR 127177 February 25, 1999
People v. Bolatete – GR 127570 February 25, 1999
People v. dela Cuesta – GR 126134 March 2, 1999
People v. Lakindanum – GR 127123 March 10, 1999
People v. Cantos – GR 129298 April 14, 1999
People v. Alba – GR 131858-59 April 14, 1999
People v. Onabia – GR 128288 April 20, 1999
People v. Bermas – GR 120420 April 21, 1999
People v. Pedres – GR 129533 April 30, 1999
People v. Acala – GR 127023-25 May 19, 1999
People v. Puertollano – GR 122423 June 17, 1999
People v. Bonghanoy – GR 124097 June 17, 1999
People v. Larena – GR 121205-09 June 29, 1999
People v. Nuñez – GR 128875 July 8, 1999
People v. Ramilla – GR 127485 July 19, 1999
People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 8, 1999
People v. Santoclides, G.R. No. 109149, December 21, 1999
People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001
People v. Bagas, G.R. No. 104383, July 12, 2001
People v. Liwanag, G.R. No. 120468, August 15, 2001
People v. Bernas, 377 SCRA 391
People v. Caralipio, GR 137766, Nov. 27, 2002
Sia v. People 504 SCRA 507
Briones v. People – 588 SCRA 362
Villanueva v. People – 644 SCRA 356

Absence of Violation
People v. Aquino, GR 129288, March 30, 2000
Villanueva v. People, GR 135098, April 12, 2000

Presence of Violation
People v. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490
Callangan v. People 493 SCRA 269

Right to Be Informed
*People v. Regala – 113 SCRA 613
Enrile v. Salazar - 186 SCRA 217
People v. Taguba - 229 SCRA 188
People v. Barte - 230 SCRA 401
People v. Vitor - 245 SCRA 392
Sabiniano v. CA – 249 SCRA 24
People v. Reyes - 242 SCRA 264
People v. Legaspi - 246 SCRA 206
People v. Ramos - 245 SCM 405
People v. Namayan - 246 SCRA 646
Pecho v. People – 262 SCRA 518

41
People v. Laurente - 255 SCRA 543
People v. Rosare – 264 SCRA 398
People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611
People v. Cruz – 259 SCRA 109
People v. De Guzman – 265 SCRA 228
Salud Imson-Souweha v. Rondez – 279 SCRA 258
People v. Manansala – 273 SCRA 502
People v. Palomar – 278 SCRA 114
People v. Ortega – 276 SCRA 166
People v. Antido – 278 SCRA 425
People v. Sadiosa – 290 SCRA 92
People v. Villamor – GR 12444 October 7, 1998
People v. Rosare – 264 SCRA 398
People v. Llaguno – 285 SCRA 124
People v. Bugayong – GR 126518 December 2, 1998
People v. Manalili – 294 SCRA 220
People v. Dimapilis – GR 128619 December 17, 1998
People v. de Guzman – 289 SCRA 470
People v. Quitlong – 292 SCRA 360
People v. Perez – GR 122764 September 24, 1998
People v. Renido – 288 SCRA 369
People v. Venerable – 290 SCRA 15
People v. Lozano – GR 125080 September 25, 1998
People v. Padilla – GR 126124 January 20, 1999
People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 142726, October 17, 2001
People v. de la Pena G.R. No. 138358-59 Nov. 19, 2001
People v. Abino, G.R. No. 137288, December 11, 2001
People v. Tan, GR 116200-02, June 21, 2001
People v. Tagana, GR 137608-09, July 6, 2001
People v. Alcalde, GR 139225, May 29, 2002
People v. Mejeca, GR 146425, Nov. 21, 2002
People v. Esurina, 374, SCRA 429
People v. Togud, 375 SCRA 291
People v. Espejon, 377 SCRA 412
People v. Lavador, 377 SCRA 424
People v. Hermanes, 379 SCRA 190
People v. Portugal, 379 SCRA 212
People v. Baluya, 380 SCRA 533
People v. Arofo, 380 SCRA 663
People v. Cana, GR 139229, June 6, 2002
People v. Soriano, GR 135027, July 3, 2002
People v. Radam, GR 138395, July 18, 2002
People v. Abala, GR 135858, July, 23, 2002
People v. Romero, GR 137037, Aug. 5, 2002
People v. Magtibay, GR 142985, Aug. 6, 2002
People v. Miclat, GR 137024, Aug. 7, 2002

42
People v. Guardian, GR 142900, Aug. 7, 2002
People v. Ocampo, GR 145303, Aug. 7, 2002
People v. del Ayre, GR 139788, Oct. 3, 2002
People v. Caliso, GR 131475, Oct. 14, 2002
People v. Buado, GR 137341, Oct. 28, 2002
People v. Alemania, GR 146221, Nov. 13, 2002
People v. Terible, GR 140635, Nov. 18, 2002
People v. Victor, GR 127904, Dec. 5, 2002
People v. Velasquez, 377 SCRA 219
People v. Lachica, GR 143677, May 9, 2002
People v. Sajolga, GR 146684, Aug. 21, 2002
People v. Ramos, GR 142577, Dec. 27, 2002
People v. Mascarinas, GR 144034, May 28, 2002
People v. Sanchez, 375 SCRA 355
People v. Abayon, GR 142874, July, 31, 2002
People v. Gavina, GR 143237, Oct. 28, 2002
People v. Orbita, GR GR 136591, July 11, 2002
Dado v. People, GR 131421, Nov. 18, 2002
Santos v. People, GR 14761, Jan. 20, 2002
People v. Bon, GR 149199, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Llanto, GR 146458, Jan. 20, 2003
People v. Migrante, GR 147606, Jan. 14, 2003
People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003
People v. Lapitaje, GR 132042, Feb. 19, 2003
People v. Ostia, GR 131804, Feb. 26, 2003
People v. Ganete, GR 142930, Mar. 28, 2003
Garcia v. People, GR 144785, Sept. 11, 2003
People v. Villanueva, GR 138364, Oct. 15, 2003
!26
Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 123144, Oct. 15, 2003
People v. Rote, GR 146188, Dec. 11, 2003
People v. Rata, GR 145523-24, Dec. 11, 2003
Andaya v. People 493 SCRA 539
People v. Estrada – 583 SCRA 302
People v. Abella – 610 SCRA 19
People v. Pangilinan – GR 183090, November 14, 2011

Relationship
People v. Cepedon, 542 S 550
People v. Talan, GR 177354, November 14, 2009
People v. Estrada – 610 SCRA 222
People v. Corpuz – 577 SCRA 465
People v. Regino – 582 SCRA 189

Nature of Offense: Different Offense; Same Offense;

People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97

43
People v. Paramil, GR 128056-57, March 31, 2000
Evangelista v. People, GR 108135-36, August 14, 2000
People v. Puzon, GR 123156-59, August 29, 2000
People v. Valdesancho, G.R. NO. 137051-52, May 30, 2001
People v. Dawisan, G.R. No. 122095, September 13, 2001
Mapas v. People, 544 S 85
Pactolin v. Sandiganbayan, 554 S 136
People v. Hu, 567 S 697

Absence of Qualifying Circumstance

People v. Ronato, G.R. No. 124298, October 11, 1999
People v. Bayron, G.R. No. 122732, September 7, 1999
People v. Abella, G.R. No. 131847, September 22, 1999
People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, September 29, 1999
People v. Panique, G.R. No. 125763, October 13, 1999
People v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 130784, October 3, 1999
People v. Tabion, G.R. No. 132715, October 20, 1999
People v. Torio, G.R. No. 132216, November 7, 1999
People v. Alfanta, G.R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 123599, December 13, 1999
People v. Ramon, G.R. No. 130407, December 15, 1999
People v. Villar., 322 SCRA 390
People v. Bernaldez, 322 SCRA 762
People v. Flores, 322 SCRA 779
People v. Palanco, 322 SCRA 790
People v. Bacule, 323 SCRA 734
People v. Bartolome, 323 SCRA 836
People v. Bayona, 327 SCRA 190
People v. Siao, 327 SCRA 231
People v. Bayzo, 327 SCRA 771
People v. De los Santos, GR 121906, August 5, 2000
People v. Fraga, GR 134130-33, April 12, 2000
People v. Licanda, GR 134084, May 4, 2000
People v. Sabredo, GR 126114, May 11, 2000
People v. Alicante, GR 127026-27, May 31, 2000
People v. Traya, GR 129052, May 31, 2000
People v. Mamac, GR 130332, May 31, 2000
People v. Decena, GR 131843, May 31, 2000
People v. Lomibao, GR 135855, August 3, 2000
People v. Canonigo, GR 133649, August 4, 2000
People v. Cruz, GR 128346-48, August 14, 2000
People v. Watimar, GR 121651-52, August 16, 2000
People v. Gabiana, GR 123543, August 23, 2000
People v. Banihit GR 132045, August 25, 2000
People v. Gutierrez, GR 132772, August 31, 2000
People v. Villanueva, GR 135330, August 31, 2000

44
People v. Melendres, GR 133999-4001, August 31, 2000
People v. Mendez, GR 132546, July 5, 2000
People v. Alarcon, GR 133191-93, July 11, 2000
People v. Baybado, GR 132136, July 14, 2000
People v. Surilla, GR 129164, July 24, 2000
People v. Campaner, GR 130500, July 26, 2000
People v. Balacano, GR 127156, July 31, 2000
People v. Villaraza, GR 131848-50, September 5, 2000
People v. Baniguid, GR 137714, September 8, 2000
People v. Bali-Balita, GR 134266, September 15, 2000
People v. Cajara, GR 122498, Sepember 27, 2000
People v. Nogar, GR 133946, September 27, 2000
People v. Magtrayo, GR 133480-82, October 4, 2000
People v. Taguba, GR 112792-93, October 6, 2000
People v. De la Cuesta, GR133904, October 5, 2000
People v. Arves, GR 134628, October 13, 2000
People v. Baldino, GR 137269, October 13, 2000
People v. Baltazar, GR 130610, October 16, 2000
People v. Francisco, GR 136252, October 20, 2000
People v. Sarmiento, GR 134768, October 25, 2000
People v. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835
People v. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167
People v. Paramil, GR 128056-57, March 31, 2000
People v. Gallego, GR 130603, August 15, 2000
People v. Tejada. G.R. No. 126166, July 10, 2001
People v. Lalingjaman, G.R. No. 132714, September 6, 2001
People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 139904, October 12, 2001
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001
People v. Marahay, GR 120625-29, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Montemayor, GR 124474, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Delim, GR 142773, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Acosta, GR 140402, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Caloza, GR 138404-06, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Layoso, GR 14773-76, Jan. 22, 2003
People v. Baldogo, GR 128106-07, Jan. 24, 2003
People v. De la Cruz, GR 175954, December 16, 2008
People v. De la Cruz, GR 174371, December 11, 2008
Andres v. People – 588 SCRA 830
Sambilon v. People – 591 SCRA 405
Valenzuela v. People – 596 SCRA 1

Difference of Commission of Crime

People v. Capinpin, GR 118608, October 30, 2000

Number of Offenses

45
People v. Tresballes, G.R. No. 126118, September 21, 1999
People v. Gerona, G.R. No. 126169, December 21, 1999
People v. Pambid, GR 124453, March 15, 2000
People v. Alvero, GR 134536, April 5, 2000
People v. Guiwan GR 117324-8, April 27, 2000
People v. Surilla, GR 129164, July 24, 2000
People v. Rama, 379 SCRA 477
People v. Cuyugan, GR 146641, Nov. 18, 2002
People v. Montinola, 543 SCRA 412

Date of Commission of Crime

People v. Narito, G.R. No. 132058, October 1, 1999
People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 12888, December 3, 1999
People v. Ladrillo, G.R. No. 124342, December 8, 1999
People v. Ferolino, GR 131730-31, April 5, 2000
People v. Gianan, GR 135288-93, September 15, 2000
People v. Trelles, GR 137659, September 19, 2000
Sumbang v. General Court Martial PRO- Region 6, GR 140188, August 3, 2000
Arambulo v. Laqui, GR 138596, October 12, 2000
People v. Tagana, G.R. Nos. 137608-09, July 6, 2001
People v. Bidoc 506 SCRA 481
People v. Ceredon, 542 SCRA 550
People v. Pascual, 569 SCRA 534
People v. Aure, 569 SCRA 836
People v. Diocado, GR 170567, November 14, 2008
People v. Canares – 579 SCRA 582
People v. Aboganda – 585 SCRA 1
People v. Jimenez – 586 SCRA 580
People v. Lazaro – 596 SCRA 587

No Violation
People v. Escoro, 376 SCRA 670
People v. Pascual, 379 SCRA 235
People v. Conde, 380 SCRA 159
People v. Miranda, GR 142566, Aug. 8, 2002
People v. Roque, GR 130569, Aug. 14, 2002
People v. Segovia, GR 138974, Sept. 29, 2002
People v. Caralipio, GR 137766, Nov. 27, 2002
People v. Cantomayor, GR 145522, Dec. 5, 2002
People v. sarazan, GR 123269-72, Jan. 22, 2003
People v. Taperla, GR 142860, Jan. 16, 2003
People v. Lizada, GR 143468-71, Jan. 24, 2003
People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan.16, 2003
Batulanan v. People 502 SCRA 35
People v. Corpuz 482 SCRA 435
Soledad v. People – 644 SCRA 258

46
Torres v. People – 655 SCRA 720

Right to Speedy Trial

People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999
Tai Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131483, October 26, 1999
*Conde v. Rivera - 45 PHIL. 650
Nepomuceno v. Sec. of National Defense - 108 SCRA 658
People v. Gines - 197 SCRA 481
Abadia v. CA - 236 SCRA 676
Gonzales v. CA - 232 SCRA 667
Cadalin v. POEA – 238 SCRA 721
People v. Tampal – 244 SCRA 202
Dacanay v. People - 240 SCRA 490
Guerrero v. CA - 257 SCRA 703
Dizon v. Lopez – 278 SCRA 483
Luzarraga v. Meteoro, AM 00-1572, August 3, 2000
Solar Entertainment and People v. Hon. How, GR 140863, August 22, 2000
De Zuzurregui v. Rosete, GR AM no. MTJ-02-1426
People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003
Lumanlaw v. Peralta 482 SCRA 396
Padilla v. Apas 487 SCRA 29
People v. Hernandez 499 SCRA 688
Uy v. Adriano 505 SCRA 625
Benares v. Lim 511 SCRA 100
Gaas v. Mitmug, 553 SCRA 535
Albert v. Sandiganbayan – 580 SCRA 279
Tan v. People – 586 SCRA 139
Tallo v. People – 588 SCRA 520
Olbes v. Buemio – 607 SCRA 336
Jacob v. Sandiganbayan – 635 SCRA 94
Barcelona v. Lim, G.R. No. 189171, June 3, 2014

Right to Impartial Trial

*Mateo. Jr, v. Villaluz - 50 SCRA 18
People v. CA – 262 SCRA 452
Maliwat v. CA – 256 SCRA 718
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan – 268 SCRA 332
People v. Adora – 275 SCRA 441
Cosep v. People – 290 SCRA 378
People v. Castillo – 289 SCRA 213
People v. Vaynaco – GR 126286 March 22, 1999
People v. Estrada, GR 130487, June 19, 2000

Impartiality of a Judge
Soriano v. Angeles, GR 109920, August 31, 2000
Almendra v. Asis, AM RTJ-1550, April 6, 2000
People v. Zheng Bai Hui, GR 127580, August 22, 2000

47
People v. Genosa, GR 135981, September 29, 2000
Uy v. Judge Flores, RTJ-12-2332, 2014

Right to a Public Trial

In Re Oliver -333 U. S. 237
Garcia v. Domingo - L-30104
Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) G.R. No. 183152-54, January 21, 2015

Compulsory Process
Fajardo v. Garcia - 98 SCRA 514
People v. Yambot, GR 120350, October 13, 2000
Relative to CA, G.R. SP NO. 108807 OCA IPI No. 14-220-CA-J, March 17, 2015

Right to Confrontation, to Cross-Examine, or to Meet Witness Face to Face

*Tampar v. Usman - 200 SCRA 652
People v. Digno - 250 SCRA 237
People v. Miyake – 279 SCRA 180People v. Narca – 275 SCRA 696
People v. Quidato – GR 117401 October 1, 1998
People v. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167
People v. Libo-on, G.R. NO. 136737, May 23, 2001
Carriaga v. C.A., G.R. No. 143561, June 6, 2001
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001
People v. Monje, GR 146689, Sept. 27, 2002
Victorino v. People 509 SCRA 483
Herrera v. Sandiganbayan – 579 SCRA 32
Ho Wai Pang v. People – GR 1716229, October 19, 2011

Trial in Absentia; Right to Be Present

*Carredo v. People - 183 SCRA 273
People v. Ravelo - 202 SCRA 655
People v. Rivera - 242 SCRA 26
People v. Tabag – 268 SCRA 115
Parada v. Veneracion – (supra, Right to Bail)

Admissibility of Evidence
People v. Morial, G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001
People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of
invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies

Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases

People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999

48
*Binay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120681, October 1, 1999
Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan - 199 SCRA 299 (no violation)
Socrates v. Sandiganbayan - 253 SCRA 773 (no violation)
Bolalin v. Occiano – 266 SCRA 203 (violation)
Angchangco v. Ombudsman – 268 SCRA 301 (violation)
Lambino v. De Vera – 275 SCRA 60
Duterte v. Sandiganbayan – 289 SCRA 721(preliminary investigation, violation)
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan – GR 126995 October 6, 1998 (violation)
Roque v. Ombudsman – GR 129978 May 12, 1999 (violation)
Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan – GR 108595 May 18, 1999 (violation)
Dansal v. Fernandez, 327 SCRA 145 ( no violation )
Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, 322 SCRA 655 (no violation)
Castillo v. Sandiganbayan, GR 109271, March 14, 2000 (no violation)
Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000
Dela Pena v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 144542, June 29, 2001
Lopez v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 140529, September 6, 2001
Lee v. People, Gr137914, Dec. 4, 2002
People v. Monje, GR 146689, Sept. 27, 2002
Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, 374 SCRA 200
Guiani v. Sandiganbayan, GR 146897, Aug. 6, 2002 (delay in preliminary
investigation)
Avilla v. Reyes 479 SCRA 334
Enriquez v. Office of OMB, 545 SCRA 618
OMB v. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135
Perea v. People, 544 SCRA 532
Gaas v. Mitmug, 553 SCRA 335
Roquera v. Chancellor – 614 SCRA 723
Lumanog v. People – 630 SCRA 42

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Right Against Self-Incrimination

*United States v. Navarro - 3 PHIL. 143 (rationale)
*United States v. Tan Teng - 23 PHIL.145
*United States v. Ong Siu Hong - 36 PHIL. 73 (discharge)
*Villaflor v. Summers - 41 PHIL. 62 (pregnancy test)
!30
*Beltran v. Samson - 53 PHIL. 570 (writing)
Bermudez v. Castillo - 64 PHIL. 483
Chavez v. CA – L- 29169, Aug.19, 1968
*Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr. - L-19052
**Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners - L-25018
People v. Gamboa - 194 SCRA 372 (paraffin test)
People v. Canceran - 229 SCRA 581 (paraffin test)
People v. Tranca - 235 SCRA 455 (x-ray, not a violation)
Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286

49
People v. Go – 237 SCRA 73
Regala v. Sandiganbayan – 262 SCRA 122
People v. Malimit – 264 SCRA 167
Galman v. Pamaran – (supra, Custodial Investigation)
People v. Banihit, GR 132045, August 25, 2000 (relate to Tan Teng)
People v. Besonia, 422 SCRA 210
Sabio v. Gordon 504 SCRA 704
Benares v. Lim 511 SCRA 100
**Standard Chartered v. Senate – 541 SCRA 546
Dela Cruz v. People of the Phil. GR No. 200748, July 23 2014

Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted.

Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014

Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall
be dealt with by law.

Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Punishment; Excessive Fines

*People v. Estoista - 93 PHIL. 647
People v. Dapitan - 197 SCRA 378
Baylosis v. Chavez - 202 SCRA 405 (modified by Robin Padilla)
People v. Munoz - 170 SCRA 107
People v. Amigo - 252 SCRA 43
*People v. Echegaray – 267 SCRA 682 (death penalty)
People v. Tongko – 290 SCRA 595
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice – 12 LR 32 N’98
Padilla v. CA – (supra, Right to Bail)
People v. Alicante, GR 127026-27, May 31, 2000
Lim v. People, GR 149276, Sept. 27, 2002
People v. Gabiana, GR 123543, August 23, 2000
People v. Horio, GR 137842, August 23, 2001
Pagdayawon v. Sec. of Justice, GR154569, Sept. 23, 2002
Perez v. People, 544 SCRA 532

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

50
Imprisonment for Debt
**Lozano v. Martinez - 146 SCRA 323 (check)
Caram Resources v. Contreras - 237 SCRA 724 (check).
Tiomico v. CA – GR 122539 March 4, 1999 (trust receipt)
Recuerdo v. People, GR 133036, Jan. 22, 2003 (Check)

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution for the same act.

Dismissal at Preliminary Investigation; No Jeopardy

Attachment of jeopardy
*People v. Ylagan - 58 PHIL. 851
People v. Balisacan - L-26376
Cinco v. Sandiganbayan - 202 SCRA 726
People v, Vergara - 221 SCRA 560
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
Galvez v. CA - 237 SCRA 685
Cunanan v. Arceo - 242 SCRA 88
People v. Tampal - 244 SCRA 202
People v. Montesa - 248 SCRA 641
De La Rosa v. CA – 253 SCRA 499
People v. Leviste - 255 SCRA 238
People v. Cawaling – 293 SCRA 267
Cudia v. CA – 284 SCRA 173
Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 123045, November 16, 1999
Dimatulac v. Villon – GR 127107 October 12, 1999
People v. Maquiling – GR 128986 June 21, 1999
People v. Nitafan – GR 707964-66 February 1, 1999
!31
Binay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120681, October 1, 1999
Limpangog v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134229, November 26, 1999
Flores v. Joven, GR 129874, Dec. 27, 2002
Miranda v. Tuliao 486 SCRA 377
Cabo v. Sandiganbayan 491 SCRA 264
Romualdez v. Marcelo 497 SCRA 89
People v. Terrado, 558 SCRA 84 (acquittal not reviewable)
People v. CA – 626 SCRA 352
People v. CA, G.R. No. 183652, 2015

Termination of Jeopardy; Existence; Non-Termination

*Bulaong v. People - 17 SCRA 746
Bustamante v. Maceren - 48 SCRA 155
People v. Obsania - L-24447
Rivera, Jr. v, People - 189 SCRA 331
Dizon-Pamintuan v. People - 234 SCRA 63
COMELEC v. CA - 229 SCRA 501

51
People v. Bans - 239 SCRA 48
State Prosecutors v. Muro - 236 SCRA 505
People v. Bellaflor - 233 SCRA 196
Guerrero v. CA - 257 SCRA 703
Teodoro v. CA - 258 SCRA 603
Cuidia v. CA – 284 SCRA 173
People v. Lising – 285 SCRA 595
People v. Araneta, GR 125894 December 11, 1998, 95 OG 4556
Cuison v. CA – 289 SCRA 159
People v. CA, GR 128986 June 21, 1999
People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 135451, September 30, 1999
Barangan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123307, November 29, 1999
People v. Velasco, GR 127444, September 13, 2000
Tupaz v. ULEP, G.R. No. 127777, October 1, 1999
People v. Verra, GR 134732
Merciales v. CA, 379 SCRA 345
Poso v. Mijares, AM No. RTJ-02-1693, Aug. 21, 2002
People v. Alberto, GR 132374, Aug. 22, 2002
Condrada v. People, GR 141646, Feb. 28, 2003
People v. Romero, GR144156, March 20, 2003
People v. Espinosa, GR 153714, Aug. 15, 2003
Oriente v. People – 513 SCRA 348
Pacoy v. Cajigal – 534 SCRA 338
Summerville v. Eugenio – 529 SCRA 274
Herrera v. Sandiganbayan – 579 SCRA 32
Javier v. Sandiganbayan – 599 SCRA 324
Co v. Lim – 604 SCRA 702
Lejano v. People – 639 SCRA 760
Bangayon v. Bangayon, GR 172777, October 19, 2011
Goodland v. Co, GR 196685, December 18, 2011

Rule on “Supervening Facts”

*Melo v. People - 85 PHIL. 766
*People v. Buling - 107 PHIL. 712

Same Offenses
*People v. Tiozon - 198 SCRA 368
Lamera v. CA - 198 SCRA 186
Gonzales v. CA - 232 SCRA 667
People v. Turda - 233 SCRA 702
People v. Manungas - 231 SCRA 1
People v. Deunida - 231 SCRA 520
People v. Fernandez - 239 SCRA 174
People v. Quijada – 259 SCRA 191
People v. Ballabare – 264 SCRA 350
People v. Calonzo – 262 SCRA 534

52
People v. Benemerito – 264 SCRA 677
People v. Tobias – 266 SCRA 229
People v. Manoyco – 269 SCRA 513
People v. Tan Tiong Meng – 271 SCRA 125
People v. Sadiosa – 290 SCRA 92
People v. Sanchez – 291 SCRA 333
People v. Saley – 291 SCRA 715
!32
People v. Juego – GR 123162 October 13, 1998
People v. Ganadin – GR 129441 November 27, 1998
People v. Balasa – GR 106357 September 3, 1998
Paluay v. CA – 293 SCRA 358
People v. Mercado 304 SCRA 504
People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 115719, October 5, 1999
People v. Ong, 322 SCRA 38
People v. Meris, GR 117145-50, March 28, 2000
People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.
Potot v. People, GR 143547, June 26, 2002
People v. CA, 423 SCRA 605
Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 375
People v. Comila – 517 SCRA 153
Diaz v. Davao – 520 SCRA 481
Merencillo v. People – 521 SCRA 31
Lapasaran v. People – 578 SCRA 658
*Ivler v. Modesto – 635 SCRA 191
People v. Ocden – 650 SCRA 124
People v. Lalli, GR 195419, October 12, 2011 (trafficking in person)

No Appeal from Acquittal; Instances of Void Acquittal

People v. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 74

Yuchengco v. CA, 376 SCRA 531
San Vicente v. People, GR132081, Nov. 26, 2002
People v. CA, GR 132396, Sept. 23, 2002
People v. Sandiganbayan 491 SCRA 185
People v. CA – 516 SCRA 383
People v. Laguio – 518 SCRA 393
People v. Dumlao – 580 SCRA 409 (void acquittal)
Tiu v. CA – 586 SCRA 118
People v. De Grano – 588 SCRA 550
People v. Nazareno – 595 SCRA 438
People v. Duca – 603 SCRA 159 (void acquittal)
*Mupas v. People, GR 189365, October 12, 2011 (void order on demurrer)

Parties
Metrobank v. Meridiano, G.R. No. 118251, June 29, 2001

53
Ordinance and Statute
*People v. Relova - 148 SCRA 292

Applied to Impeachment
*Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001and MR-GR
146710-15 and 146738, April 3, 2001
People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder

*People v. Ferrer - 48 SCRA 382
*Virata v. Sandiganbayan - 202 SCRA 680
Trinidad v. CA - 202 SCRA 106
People v. Taguba - 229 SCRA 188
People v. Sandiganbayan – 211 SCRA 241
Co v. CA – 227 SCRA 444
Rosales v. CA - 255 SCRA 123
Subido v. Sandiganbayan – 266 SCRA 379
Sesbreno v. CBAA – 270 SCRA 360
People v. Burton – 268 SCRA 531
*Lacson v. Executive Secretary, GR 128096 January 20, 1999
People v. Nitafan, GR 107964-66 February 1, 1999
Fajardo v. CA, GR 128508 February 1, 1999
People v. Valdez, GR 127663 March 11, 1999
People v. Ringor, G.R. No. 123918, December 9, 1999
People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 128888, December 3, 1999
Republic v. Desierto, GR 136506, Aug. 23, 2001
People v. Torres - 501 SCRA 591
Salvador v. Mapa - ____SCRA 34 [2008]
Republic v. Eugenio - 545 SCRA 384
Valeroso v. People - 546 SCRA 450
Presidential v. Desierto - 548 SCRA
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Carpio Morales, 740 SCRA 368
(2014)

Article IV. CITIZENSHIP

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching
the age of majority; and

54
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Valles v. COMELEC, GR 137000, August 9, 2000

Ong Chia v. Republic, GR 127240, March 27, 2000

Children of Filipino fathers or mothers

*Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners – 197 SCRA 853
*Tecson v. Comelec, 423 SCRA 277
Go v. Ramos – 598 SCRA 266
Gonzales v. Rennisi – 614 SCRA 292
Cabiling v. Fernandez – 625 SCRA 566

Paragraph (3)
*Co. v. Electoral Tribunal - 199 SCRA 692
*Republic v. Sagun – 666 SCRA 321

Paragraph (4)
So v. Republic – 513 SCRA 267
Go v. Republic, G.R. No. 202809, 729 SCRA 138, July 2 2014
Republic of the Philippines v. Huang Te Fu, G.R. No. 200983, 2015

Loss of Citizenship
*Yu v. Defensor-Santiago - 169 SCRA 364
Frivaldo v. COMELEC - 174 SCRA 245
*Frivaldo v. COMELEC – 257 SCRA 727
Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC - 176 SCRA 1
*Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC – 211 SCRA 297
Aznar v. Osmena - 185 SCRA 703
*Mercado v. Manzano – GR 135083 May 26, 1999
Tabaso v. CA 500 SCRA 9
David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016

No Collateral Attack
Vilando v. HRET – 656 SCRA 17

Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens.

Bengson v. HRET – GR 142840, May 7, 2001

In re Mallare 59 SCRA 344
Chen Teck Lao v. Republic 55 SCRA 1
Cordero v. COMELEC – 580 SCRA 12

Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

55
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by
their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with
by law.

RA 9225 “An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizen who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent”
*AASJS-Calilung v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007

Article V. SUFFRAGE

Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified
by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for
at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months
immediately preceding the election.No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall
be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot
as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the
assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such
rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.

*Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR 157013, July 10, 2003

*Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC 497 SCRA 649
Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC – (supra, Citizenship)
Romualdez v. RTC – 226 SCRA 408
The Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, GR No. 205728, 747 SCRA 1, Jan 21, 2015

Special Registration Before General Elections

Akbayan v. COMELEC, GR 147066, March 26, 2001

Article XIII. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for
the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property
and its increments.

Policy to Remove Inequities

56
*International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, GR 128845, June 1, 2000

Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers
and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall
enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
to investments, and to expansion and growth.

Eagle Security v. NLRC - 173 SCRA 479

SSS Employees v. CA – (supra, Right to Form Association)
De Vera v. NLRC – 200 SCRA 439
Republic v. CA - 180 SCRA 428
MPSTA v. Laguio (supra, Right to Form Association)
Union v. Nestle – 192 SCRA 396
Jacinto v. CA – 281 SCRA 657
Telefunken Employees Union v. CA, GR 143013-14, December 18, 2000
Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security, GR 143604, June 20, 2003
Standard Chartered Bank Employees v Confesor, GR 114974, June 16, 2004
Agabon v. NLRC, GR 158693, Nov. 17, 2004

Agrarian Reform
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertaken an agrarian reform program founded on the right
of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
they till or in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this
end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject
to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into
account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.

Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well
as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning,
organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through
appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other

57
support services.

Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources,
including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to
prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their
ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which
shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.

Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland
and offshore. It shall provide supportto such fishermen through appropriate technology and
research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State
shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore
fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a
just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.

Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian
reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public
sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as
equity in enterprises of their choice.

*Assn. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform - 175 SCRA 343

Tanaka v. Japan - 7 Minshui 1523
*Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform – 192 SCRA 51
Natalia v. DAR – 225 SCRA 278
Phil. Veterans Bank v. CA, GR 132767, January 18, 2000
Daez v. CA, GR 133507, February 17, 2000
Bautista v. Araneta, GR 135829, February 22, 2000
Corpus v. Grospe, GR 135297, June 8, 2000
Heirs of Santos v. CA, GR 109992, March 7, 2000
Padunan v. DARAB, GR 132163, Jan. 28, 2003
*Hacienda Luisita v. PARC – GR No. 171101, July 5, 2011

Urban Land Reform

Section 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the
private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available
at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in
urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to
such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small
property owners.

Dee v. CA, GR 108205, February 15, 2000

Reyes v. NHA, GR 147511, Jan. 20, 2003

58
Section 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished,
except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.
No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation
with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.

Macasiano v. NHA – 224 SCRA 236

Jumawan v. Eviota – 234 SCRA 524
Filstream v. CA – 284 SCRA 716
**People v. Leachon – GR 108725 September 25, 1998 (just and humane
manner)
Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap v. Jessie Robredo, GR No. 200903, 730 SCRA 322, July 22,
2014

Human Rights
Section 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human
Rights.
(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-
born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term
of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall
provided by law.
(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights
shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.
(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly
released.

*CHR Employees v. CHR 496 SCRA 226

Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions:
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights;
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations
thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within
the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and
legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need
protection;
(4) Exercise visitatorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for
the primacy of human rights;
(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for
compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;
(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on
human rights;
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of
documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any

59
investigation onducted by it or under its authority;
(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its
functions;
(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

Section 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should
fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendations.

Powers of the Commission on Human Rights

*Carino v. CHR - 204 SCRA 483 (no adjudicating power, no contempt)
EPZA V. CHR, et. al. – 208 SCRA 125 (no injunctive power)
*Simon v. CHR – 229 SCRA 117 (no injunctive power)

Article XIV – Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports

Section 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.

Natural and Primary Right of Parents

Meyer v. Nebraska - 262 US 390
Pierce v. Society of Sisters - 262 US 510
Wisconsin v. Yoder - 406 US 205
Ginsberg v. New York - 390 US 629

Quality and accessibility of educational system

*DECS v. San Diego - 180 SCRA 534
Non v. Judge Dame - 185 SCRA 523

Section 3. (1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of
the curricula.
(2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster lover of humanity, respect for human
rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country,
teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral
character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and
technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.
(3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be
taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class
hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which
the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.

Duty of Institutions
*Miriam College v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000

Section 5. (1) the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and

60
shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.
(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.

Cudia v. PMA GR No. 211362, February 24, 2015

(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable,
and equitable admission and academic requirements.
(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-teaching
academic and non- academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.
(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching
will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate
remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.

Academic freedom of “institutions of higher learning".

*Garcia v. Faculty Admission, 68 SCRA 277
BME v. Judge Alfonso - 176 SCRA 304
Lupangco v. CA - 160 SCRA 848
*University of San Carlos v. CA - 166 SCRA 570
Capitol Medical Center v CA - 178 SCRA 493
Reyes v. CA – 194 SCRA 402
Tan v. CA – 199 SCRA 212
Camacho v. Coresis, GR 134372, Aug. 22, 2002
Civil Service Commission v. Sojor – 554 SCRA 160
Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of S&T, GR 156109, Nov 18, 2004

Language

Section 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further
developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages. Subject to
provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to
initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of
instruction in the educational system. Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction,
the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law,
English.
The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as
auxiliary media of instruction therein.
Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.

Section 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated
into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.

Section 9. The Congress shall establish a national language commission composed of

representatives of various regions and disciplines which shall undertake, coordinate, and promote
researches for the development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages.

Science and Technology

61
Section 10. Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The
State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization;
and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous,
appropriate, and self- reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the
country's productive systems and national life.

Section 11. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions, to encourage
private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in-
aid, or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers,
scientists, inventors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens.

Section 12. The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology from
all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the widest participation of private groups,
local governments, and community-based organizations in the generation and utilization of
science and technology.

Section 13. The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists,
and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial
to the people, for such period as may be provided by law.

Arts and Culture

Section 14. The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a
Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic
and intellectual expression.

Section 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the partronage of the State. The State shall conserve,
promote, and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as
artistic creations.

Section 16. All the country's artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the
nation and shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate its disposition.

Section 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural
communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider
these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.

Section 18. (1) The State shall ensure equal access to cultural opportunities through the
educational system, public or private cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives,
and community cultural centers, and other public venues.
(2) The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the arts and culture.

Sports

Section 19. (1) The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports programs,

62
league competitions, and amateur sports, including training for international competitions, to
foster self-discipline, teamwork, and excellence for the development of a healthy and alert
citizenry.
(2) All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in
cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors.

ARTICLE XV THE FAMILY

Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly,
it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall
be protected by the State.

Ronulo v. People GR No. 182483

Section 3. The State shall defend:

(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the
demands of responsible parenthood;
(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection
from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their
development;
(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation
of policies and programs that affect them.

Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so
through just programs of social security.

63