SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

A Bonifacio Street
2600 Baguio City, Philippines
Tel Nos (+6374) 442.3043 • 443.2001 • 444.8246 to 48
Fax (+6374) 442.2842
www.slu.edu.ph

Member • Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher Learning (ASAIHL)

• Association of Southeast and East Asian Catholic Colleges and Universities (ASEACCU)
• Association of Catholic Universities of the Philippines (ACUP)
• Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP)
• International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU)
School of Law • Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU)
• Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU)

REF SOL-JD-122-2024

SYLLABUS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Department Political and Criminal Laws
Course Name/Title Constitutional Law II
Course Number Law 122
Semester Offered Short Term, June-July 2024
Year Level Offered First Year
Credit Units 3
Pre-requisites (if any) None
This course is a pre- Political and International Law Review and Integration
requisite to
Labor Law and Social Legislation
Course Description This subject is a comprehensive study of the Bill of Rights,
which serves as a guarantee to all persons, citizens and non-
citizens, against possible abuses committed by the State
and its agents in the exercise of the powers of the State,
other constitutional rights and judicial review of the acts
affecting them. The course also emphasizes the importance
of gender and child sensitivity under the equal protection
clause and in the aspects of protecting, defending and
redressing violations of human rights in the Philippines. (as
per LEB Memo No. 24, Series of 2024)
Course Coverage 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
Article III – Bill of Rights
Suggested Reading The primary reading materials for the students are the
Materials following:
1. 1987 Philippine Constitution (read text before you
read cases)
2. Philippine Constitutional Law by Isagani A. Cruz and
Carlo L. Cruz
3. Cases assigned per topic
In addition, students are encouraged to read other
references, such as the following:
1. Outline Reviewer in Political Law by Antonio E.B.
Nachura
2. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, The 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 2009
Edition
Prepared by Atty. Jose Adrian M. Bonifacio, Atty. Arnulfo S. Soriano, Atty.
Maria Georgina A. Alvarez, Atty. Elijah Roland A. Cosalan
Updated by ATTY. MELCHOR CARLOS R. RABANES 07August2024
Learning Outcomes

At the end of the semester, the students should:

a. Know the rights of the people, citizens or non-citizens, as enshrined in and
protected by the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the
importance of gender and child sensitivity under the equal protection clause
and the aspects of protecting, defending and redressing violations of human
rights in the Philippines;
b. Be able to apply on given facts the tests of proper exercise of rights and
protecting, defending and redressing violations of the same;
c. Be capable to independently formulate a learned opinion on whether
specific acts are constitutional or unconstitutional; and,
d. Value the rule of law and espouse a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
equality, and peace in the Philippines.

Course Requirements and Grading Plan

Class Standing

1. Quizzes
2. Recitation 50%
3. Assignments

Departmental Examination (Midterm &

50%
Finals)
Final Grade would be the average of the Midterm Grade and the Tentative
Final Grade.

Course Outline

TOPIC I: JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. The Constitution and the Courts

B. Judicial Review Defined
C. Judicial Review Requisites
1. Actual Case or controversy
2. The constitutional question must be raised by the proper party
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity
4. The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the
case itself

Cases:
• DENR Employees Union v. Abad, G.R. No. 204152, January 19, 2021
• Pangilinan v. Cayetano, G.R. Nos. 238875, 239483 & 240954, March 16, 2021
• Saint Louis University, Inc. v. Olairez, G.R. No. 197126, January 19, 2021
• Biraogo v. Martires, G.R. No. 254516, February 2, 2021
• Guingona v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 125532, July 10, 1998
• John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v Lim, GR 119775, Oct. 24, 2003
• Province of Batangas v Romulo, GR 152774, May 27, 2004
• David v Macapagal Arroyo, GR 171396, May 3, 2006
• GSIS Family Bank Employees Union v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 210773, January 23,
2019
• Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019

2
 • Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
206719, April 10, 2019
• Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. de Lima, G.R. No. 212719, June 25, 2019
• Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino, G.R. No. 210500, April 2, 2019
• Palencia v. People, G.R. No. 219560, July 1, 2020

D. Functions of Judicial Review

• Salonga v Pano, 134 SCRA 438

2022 Cases
• Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines v. Land Transportation Office, G.R.
No. 231540, June 27, 2022
• Custodio v. Department of Public Works and Highways, G.R. No. 225373,
February 16, 2022
• Colmenares v. Duterte, G.R. Nos. 245981 & 246594, August 9, 2022
• Aguinaldo v. New Bilibid Prison, G.R. No. 221201, March 29, 2022
• Villafuerte v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 208379, March
29, 2022
• Santos v. Gabaen, G.R. No. 195638, March 22, 2022
• Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 24935, August 22, 2022
• Gana-Carait y Villegas v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 257453, August 9,
2022
• People v. Montierro, G.R. Nos. 254564, 254974, A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC & A.M.
No. 18-03-16-SC, July 26, 2022
• Aggabao v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 258456, July 26, 2022
• Dimapanat v. Hataman, G.R. No. 228726, July 19, 2022
• Amad v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 258448, July 5, 2022
• Marquez v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 258435, June 28, 2022
• Republic v. Ongpin, G.R. No. 207078, June 20, 2022
• Urot v. People, G.R. No. 208960, February 14, 2022
• Heirs of Angel Yadao v. Heirs of Juan Caletina, G.R. No. 230784. February 15,
2022
• Bernardez, Jr. v. City Government of Baguio, G.R. No. 197559, March 21, 2022

2023 Case
• ACT Teachers v. Duterte, G.R. No. 236118, January 24, 2023

TOPIC II: INTRODUCTION TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

Philippine Constitution, Art. III

Cases:
• Republic v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768 (2003)
• Philippine Blooming Mills Employee Organization v Philippine Blooming Mills
(1973)
• Stonehill v Diokno (1967)
• Central Bank v Morfe, 20 SCRA 507
• Ocampo v Enriquez. GR No. 225973 (2016)
• People v Marti, GR No. 81561 (1991)
• Yrasegui v PAL, GR No. 168081

TOPIC III: DUE PROCESS

Art. III, Sec. 1

A. Origin
B. Definition
C. Who are Protected
D. Meaning of Life, Liberty and Property

3
 • Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200
• Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660
• Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197]
E. Aspects of Due Process
1. Substantive
2. Procedural

Cases:
• Yambao v. Republic, G.R. No. 171054, January 26, 2021
• Baterina v. Sandiganbayan, Second Division, G.R. Nos. 236408 & 236531-36,
July 7, 2021
• Barroso v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 253253, April 27, 2021
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Spouses Magaan, G.R. No. 232663, May
3, 2021
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mcdonald's Philippines Realty Corp.,
G.R. No. 242670, May 10, 2021
• Secretary of the Department of Justice Leila De Lima v. Cabanes, G.R. Nos.
219295-96 & 229705, July 14, 2021
• Rodriguez v. National Bureau of Investigation, G.R. No. 219781 (Notice), July
28, 2021
• Ordoñez v. Spouses Pestaño, G.R. No. 212704 (Notice), May 14, 2021
• Fuertes v. The Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 208162, January 7, 2020, J.
Leonen
• Soliva v. Tanggol, G.R. No. 223429, January 29, 2020, J. Carandang
• Social Security System v. Seno, G.R. No. 183478, February 10, 2020, J. Hernando
• People v. Bacaltos, G.R. No. 248701, July 28, 2020, J. Lazaro-Javier
• Sombero v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 237888 & 237904, July 28,
2020, J. Reyes Jr., J.
• Delilah J. Ablong, et al. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 233308, August 18,
2020 J. Reyes, Jr., J.
• Joint Ship Manning Group, Inc. v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 247471, July
7, 2020, J. Gesmundo
• Flores-Concepcion v. Judge Castañeda, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438, September 15,
2020, J. Leonen
• Aldovino v. Gold and Green Manpower Management and Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 200811, June 19, 2019, J. Leonen
• Palacios v. People, G.R. No. 240676, March 18, 2019, J. Perlas-Bernabe
• Ong v. Senate, G.R. No. 257401, March 28, 2023
• CIR v. South Entertainment Valley, G.R. No. 223767, April 24, 2023

F. The Lochner Doctrine - Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905)

FDR Threatens to “Pack the Court”
• West Coast Hotel v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (“The Switch in Time that Saved Nine”)
The Modern Doctrine of Economic Due Process
• United States v. Carolene Products Co. (U.S. 1938) – What is “Footnote Four”?
• Wiliamson v. Lee Optical Co. (U.S. 1955) – How can laws survive a Due
Process challenge?

G. Procedural Due Process

1. Publication as part of Due Process- Can a law be made effective and
enforceable absent its publication?
• Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446( 1986)
• PITC v. Angeles, 263 SCRA 421 (1996)
• Republic v. Extelcom, G.R. No. 147096, January 15, 2002
• Province of Pampanga v. Romulo, G.R. No. 195987, January 12, 2021
• DENR Employees Union v. Abad, G.R. No. 204152, January 19, 2021

2. Appeal and Due Process

4
 • Tropical Homes, Inc. v. NHA, 152 SCRA 540]
• Alba v. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753,

3. Preliminary Investigation and Due Process

• Labay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 235937-40, July 23, 2018
• Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003
• Go v Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138
• Budiongan v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 170288, September 22, 2006
• Ichong v.Hernandez,101Phil.1155
• Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652
• People v. Teehankee, 249 SCRA 54
• Perez v. Estrada, A.M. No. 1-4-03-SC June 29, 2001 and September 13,
2001
• People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 121039, October 18, 2001
• People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, January 31, 2006
• Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001
• People v. Lagao, G.R. No. 118457, April 8, 1997
• Yusop v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 138859-60, February 22, 2001
• Victor Jose Tan Uyv. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 156399-400,
July 27, 2008
• Espina v. Soriano, G.R. No. 208436, July 25, 2023

4. Judicial Proceedings – What is due process in court proceedings?

a. An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear
and determine the matter before it.
b. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
defendant and over the property which is the subject matter of the
proceeding.
• Banco Espanol 37 P 921 (jurisdiction over person)
c. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.
d. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing

5. Publicity and T.V. Coverage

• Re: Petition for Radio and T.V. Coverage (Ampatuan Case), A.M. Nos.
10-11-5-SC (guidelines)

6. Administrative & Quasi-Judicial Proceedings – What is due process in

administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings?
• Ang Tibay v. CIR 69 Phil 635
• Shu v Dee 723 SCRA 512
• Sibayan v Alda, GR 23395, January 17, 2018
• Panarigan v. Civil Service Commission-Regional Office (CSCRO) No. III,
G.R. No. 238077, March 17, 2021
• Government of Hongkong v. Olalia, GR 153675, April19, 2007
• Summary Dismissal v Torcita, 330 SCRA 153
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Pascual 259 SCRA 604
• Valenzuela v. Bellosillo 322 SCRA 536
• Limiqued v. Exevea 282 SCRA 125
• Fabella v. CA 282 SCRA 256
• Office of Ombudsman v. Coronel 493 SCRA 392
• Government of the United States v. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, Sept.
24, 2002
• Atty. Odchigue-Bondoc v. Tan Tiong Bio, G.R. No. 188652, October 6,
2010
• Datu Andal Ampatuan v. Secretary De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3,
2013
• Sen. Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41, January
21, 2015

5
 • Quezon City Eye Center v. PhilHealth, G.R. No. 246710-15, February 6,
2023
• Sampana v. Maritime Training Center, G.R. No. 264439, February 26,
2024

7. Academic Discipline – What is due process in student discipline?

• ADMU v. Capulong 222 SCRA 644
• Go v Colegio de San Juan de Learn 683 SCRA 358
• Cudia v Supt. Of PMA, GR 211362, February 24, 2015
• Ateneo v Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 106
• Alcuaz v PSBA, 161 SCRA 7
• Non v Judge Dames, 185 SCRA 523
• Reyes v Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 402
• Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US 254 (1970)
• Bell v Burson, 402 US 535 (1971)
• UP v Hon. Ligot-Telan, 227 SCRA 342
• Guzman v. NU 142 SCRA 699

8. Extradition Proceedings
• Gov’t of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v Munoz GR 208342,
August 16, 2016

9. Deportation Proceedings – What is due process in deportation

proceedings?
• Lao Gi v. CA 180 SCRA 756
• Domingo v Sheer 421 SCRA 468
• Mison v Gallegas, GR 210759, June 23, 2015

10. Arbitration
• RCBC v Banco de Pro, 687 SCR 583

11. Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession - What is due process

requirement in fixing of rates and regulation of profession?
• St. Luke’s v. NLRC 517 SCRA 677 (regulation of profession)
• Maceda v ERB, 199 SCRA 454
• Philcomsat v. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218
• Radiocom v. NTC 184 SCRA 517
• Globe Telecom v. NTC 435 SCRA 110
• Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31

12. Closure Proceedings – What is due process requirement in closure of

establishments?
• CB v. CA 220 SCRA 288
• Rural Bank v. CA 162 SCRA 288
• Phil. Merchants v. CA, G.R. No. 112844, June 2, 1995

13. Termination Proceedings - What is due process requirement in termination

of employment?
• Salaw v NLRC, 202 SCRA 7
• Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004
• Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, March 28, 2005

14. UDHA – R.A. 7279; Squatting; Procedure for relocation; summary

abatement
• Perez v. v. Madrona 668 SCRA 696 (not nuisance per se)

15. Cancellation of Property Rights/Privileges

6
 • American Inter-Fashion v. OP 197 SCRA 409 (read with British American
Tobacco)
• British American Tobacco v. Camacho 562 SCRA 511 and (MR) 585
SCRA 36 (expansive tax category)
• Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004
• Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, March 28, 2005
• Meralco v. Yu, G.R. No. 255038, June 26, 2023

16. Substantive Due Process – Morality v Due Process

• Cruzan v. Dir. Missouri - No. 88-1503 June 25, 1990 (informed euthanasia)
• Sec. of DND v. Manalo 568 SCRA 42 (amparo)
• Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo 630 SCRA 211 (writ of amparo/habeas
corpus)
• Caram v. Segui – 732 SCRA 86 (adoption not subject to amparo)
• Mison v. Gallegos – 760 SCRA 363 (writ of amparo)
• Zarate v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 220028, November 10, 2015 (writ of
amparo/habeas data)
• Meralco v. Lim 632 SCRA 195 (writ of habeas data)
• Burgos v. PGMA, G.R. Nos. 183711-13, July 5, 2011 (writ of amparo ; non-
suability of PGMA)
• Chavez v. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534 (right to bear arms)
• GSIS v. Montescarlos, 434 SCRA 441 (survivorship pension claim)
• Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. 169848, April 25, 2006 (no permit, no rally)
• KMU v. Dir. Gen. 487 SCRA 623 (uniform ID system)
• Mirasol v. DPWH 490 SCRA 318 (motorcycle prohibition)
• Parreno v. COA 523 SCRA 390 (pension banned for US citizen)
• United States v. Toribio 15 Phil. 85

Other Cases:
• Ichong v.Hernandez,101Phil.1155
• Banco Espanol v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921
• DBP v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 328
• Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (19 November 2001)
• Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 685
• State Prosecutors v. Muros, 236 SCRA 505
• Carjaval v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 351
• Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652
• People v. Teehankee, 249 SCRA 54
• People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 121038-45, January 25, 1999
• Perez v. Estrada, A.M. No. 1-4-03-SC June 29, 2001 and September 13,
2001
• People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 121039, October 18, 2001
• People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, January 31, 2006
• Garcia v. Hon. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013 Professional

2022 Cases
• Regulation Commission v. Alo, G.R. No. 214435, February 14, 2022
• Ante v. University of the Philippines Student Disciplinary Tribunal, G.R. No.
227911, March 14, 2022
• Prime Steel Mill, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
249153, September 12, 2022
• Kingsam Express, Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 254086, September 7, 2022
• G & S Transport Corp. v. Medina, G.R. No. 243768, September 5, 2022
• Musahamat Workers Labor Union-1-ALU v. Musahamat Farms, Inc. Farm
1, G.R. No. 240184, July 6, 2022
• Tiongkiao v. Sherrah, G.R. No. 238355, June 27, 2022
• Aliping, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 221823, June 21, 2022
• Mulleno v. TV5 Network, Inc., G.R. No. 247445, June 13, 2022

7
 • Patadon v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 218347, March 15, 2022
• People v. Luspo, G.R. No. 224902, August 10, 2022

TOPIC IV: EQUAL PROTECTION

Article III, Sec. 1

A. Meaning
B. Scope
1. Economic
• Inchong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155
• Villegas v. Hiu Chong Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 270
• Dumlao v. COMELEC, 96 SCRA 392
2. Political
• Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil 534
• Yrasuegui v PAL, GR 168081, October 17, 2008
• People v Siton, 600 SCRA 476
• People v Jumawan, 722 SCRA 108
3. Social
Art. XIII, Sec. 1

C. Suspect Classifications – Race-Dependent decisions, profiling, Colorblind

Principle and the Anti-subordination principle, Disparate Impact
• Korematsu v. United States (U.S. 1944)
• Loving v. Virginia (U.S. 1967)

D. Levels of Scrutiny

1. Strict Scrutiny – elimination of wealth disparities, affirmative action

• Adarand Constructors v. Pena, US 1995
• Metro Broadcasting v. FCC
• Gratz v. Bollinger, U.S. 2003
• Regents of the Univ of California v. Bakke (1978)
• What is meant by Compelling Interest? Narrow Tailoring?

2. Intermediate Scrutiny– gender discrimination

• Frontiero v. Richardson
• United States v. Virginia [aka VMI Case], U.S. 1996
• Tuah Anh Nguyen v. INS

3. Rationality Review

• Romer v. Evans (U.S.1996)

• City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center (U.S.1985)
• City of Boerne v. Flores (U.S.1997)
• “Congruence/Proportionality” Rationality Test

4. Promoting Equality and the Avoidance of Backlash

• Brown v. Secretary of Education I, 347 US 483
• Brown II, 349 US 294

E. Application in the Philippines - Requisites for Valid Classification

1. Substantial distinctions which make for real differences
2. Germane to the purpose of the law.
3. Not limited to existing conditions only.
4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Cases

8
 • Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. v. Commission on
Audit, G.R. Nos. 213425 & 216606, April 27, 2021
• Tallado v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 246679 (Resolution), March 2,
2021
• Zomer Development Company, Inc. v. Special 20th Division of the Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 194461, January 7, 2020, J. Leonen, citing also White
Marketing Development Corporation v. Grandwood Furniture and
Woodwork
• Joint Ship Manning Group, Inc. v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 247471, July
7, 2020, J. Gesmundo
• People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12
• Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, L-237794, February 17, 1968
• People v. Vera
• Ichong v. Hernandez,101 Phil. 1155
• Dumlao v. COMELEC, 96 SCRA 392
• Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52
• Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508
• Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703
• Telebap v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337
• Loong v. COMELEC, 305 SCRA 832
• International School v. Quisumbing, 333 SCRA 13
• Tecson v COMELEC, 3 March 2004
• Biraogo v Truth Commission, 7 December 2010
• Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254
• Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, GR No 166715
• COMELEC v Cruz, GR No. 186616, 20 November 2009
• Central Bank Employees Association v BSP, GR No 148208, 15 December 2014
• Villanueva v JBC, GR No. 211833, 7 April 2015
• Laude v Ginez-Jibalde, GR No. 217456, 21 November 2015
• Soriano v Laguardia, GR No 164785, 29 April 2009
• NPC v. De Guzman, 229 SCRA 801
• Himagan v. People, 237 SCRA 538
• Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730
• Sison v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654
• Nolasco v. COMELEC, 275 SCRA 762
• Tiu v. CA, 301 SCRA 278
• Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298
• Soriano v. CA, G.R. No. 123936, March 4, 1999
• De Guzman v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118, July 19, 2000
• Dimaporo v. HRET, G.R. No. 158359, March 23, 2004
• Dimayuga v. OMB 495 SCRA 461
• Central Bank Employees Assoc. v. BSP, G.R. No. 18208, December 15, 2004
• Coconut Oil Refiners v. Torres, G.R. No. 133640, November 25, 2005
• BAT v. Camacho, G.R. No. 163583, August 20, 2008
• Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190
• Espinas v. COA, G.R. No. 198271, April 1, 2014

2022 Cases
• Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 217414,
June 22, 2022
• De Alban v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 243968, March 22, 2022

F. Laws on Gender Equality

1. R.A. No. 9710 – The Magna Carta of Women
2. R.A. No. 11648 – Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination (approved March 4, 2022)
3. R.A. No. 11930 – Anti-Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children
(OSAEC) Law (July 30, 2022)

9
 4. R.A. No. 11313 – Safe Spaces Act (approved April 17, 2019)
5. R.A. No. 11862 – An Act Strengthening the Policies on Anti-Trafficking in
Persons (approved on June 23, 2022)
6. R.A. 8353 – The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (approved September 30, 1997)
7. R.A. No. 11596 – An Act Prohibiting the Practice of Child Marriage (approved
December 10, 2021)
8. R.A. No. 11210 – 105-day Expanded Maternity Leave Law (approved Feb. 20,
2019)
9. R.A. No. 11861 – Expanded Solo Parents Welfare Act (June 4, 2022)

TOPIC V: Arrest, Search and Seizure

Article III, Sec. 2
In relation to Article III, Sec. 3(2)
Rule 113, Rules of Court (with emphasis on Sec. 5)
Rule 126, Rules of Court

A. Scope of Protection
• Moncada v. People’s Court, 80 Phil 1
• Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
• Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320
• People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457
• People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57]
• Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997
• People v. Alagaban, G.R. No. 244842, January 16, 2023

B. Zones of Privacy
• In re: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo Sabio, 535 Phil. 687

C. When is a search a “search”?

• Valmonte v. General de Villa, 178 SCRA 211 and 185 SCRA 665
• Guazon v De Villa, 181 SCRA 623
• Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800

D. Importance of the Right

• Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil 637 (1946)

E. Who May Invoke the Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures?
• Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 323 (1971)
• Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)

F. Online Searches
• World Wide Web v. People, GR 161106, 13 Jan 2014
• Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 Feb 2014

G. Requisites of a valid warrant

1. Existence of Probable Cause
2. Determination of Probable Cause is personally done by a judge
3. After examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce
4. Particularity of description

• People v. Gabiosa, G.R. No. 248395, January 29, 2020, J. Caguioa

• Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020, J. Gesmundo
• People v. Magayon, G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020, J. Lazaro-Javier

1. Existence of Probable Cause

• People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19,2001

10
 *What is probable cause?
• People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667
• Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 33
• Roberts v. CA, 254 SCRA 307
• People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999)

**Partially Valid Warrant

• People v Salanguit, GR No. 133254, April 18, 2001
• Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp., G.R.140946, September 13, 2004

2. Determination of Probable Cause is personally done by a judge

• Relampagos v. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), G.R. No. 235480,
January 27, 2021
• Secretary of the Department of Justice Leila De Lima v. Cabanes, G.R.
Nos. 219295-96 & 229705, July 14, 2021
• Office of the Ombudsman v. Gatchalian, G.R. Nos. 230679 & 232228-
30, February 10, 2021
• Arroyo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 210488, January 27, 2020, J.
Leonen
• Baya v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 204978-83, July 6, 2020, J. Leonen

3. After examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the

witnesses he may produce.
*Is the judge mandated to personally examine the complainant and
witnesses to determine probable cause?
• Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 394 (1988)
• Lim v. Felix, G.R. No. 94054-7, February 19, 1991
• Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080, April 19, 1991
• Abdula v. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1 (2001)
• People v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 147607, January 22, 2004
• People v. de los Reyes, 441 SCRA 305
• Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014
• Ocampo v. Hon. Abandon, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014

*How is examination of witnesses conducted?

• Pasion Vda. De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil 68 (1938)
• Yee Sue Kuy v. Almeda, 70 Phil. 141, (1940)
• Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 33 (1937)
• Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 (1984)

4. Particularity of description
• People v. Policarpio, G.R. No. 227868, January 20, 2021
• Estores y Pecardal v. People, G.R. No. 192332, January 11, 2021
• Re: Rolando Espinosa, Sr., A.M. Nos. RTJ-17-2494 & RTJ-19-2557, January
26, 2021
• Tabingo y Ballocanag v. People, G.R. No. 241610, February 1, 2021
• Surban y Gallardo v. People, G.R. No. 231045 (Notice), March 18, 2021
• Petron Corp. v. Yao, Sr., G.R. No. 243328, March 18, 2021
• Olaes v. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1987)
• Prudente v. Judge Davit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989)
• Chia v. Coll. Of Customs, 177 SCRA 755 (1989)
• 20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (1988)
• Retired SPO4 Laud v. People, G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014
• People v. Choi, G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006
• Nolasco v. Cruz Pano, 132 SCRA 152 (1985)
• PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999)
• Del Rosario v. People, G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001

11
 • People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 129035, April 22, 2002

*What may be seized or searched (objects of seizure)?

Sec. 2, Rule 126, Rules of Court]: (a) Subject of the offense; (b) Stolen or
embezzled property and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; and (c)
Property used or intended to be used as means for the commission of an
offense.
• Unilab v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005
• Katz v. United States, 389 US 347

H. Valid Warrantless Searches

*Can the police conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a vehicle on the sole
basis of an unverified tip relayed by an anonymous informant?
• People of the Philippines v. Jerry Sapla y Guerrero a.k.a. Eric Salibad y Mallari,
G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020, J. Caguioa
• People v. Alberto II, G.R. No. 247906, February 10, 2021
• Pagigan y Dela Peña v. People, G.R. No. 252003 (Notice), February 10, 2021
• Liwanag y Liwanag v. People, G.R. No. 249125 (Notice), April 26, 2021

1. Valid Waiver (voluntarily waived)

• People v. Alberto II, G.R. No. 247906, February 10, 2021
• People v. Sapla, GR No. 244045,16 June 2020
• Veroy v. Layague, 210 SCRA 97 (1992)
• People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457 (1992)
• People v. Evaristo, G.R. No. 93828, December 11, 1992
• People v. Tudtud, et al., G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003
• Lopez v. Comm of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)
• People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 85401-02, June 4, 1990
• People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462 (1992)
• People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557 (1994)
• People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679 (1998)
• Caballes v. Asis, et al., G.R. No. 142531, October 15, 2002
• Lui v. Matillano, G.R. No.141176, May 27, 2004
• Balicanta III v. People, G.R. No. 246081, June 26, 2023

2. “Stop and Frisk”

• Palencia v. People, G.R. No. 219560, July 1, 2020, J. Leonen
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
• People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
• People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)
• Manalili v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113447, October 7, 1997
• Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)
• People v. Sy Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003
• People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 248529, April 19, 2023
• People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 258060, August 16, 2023

3. When search and seizure is an Incident to a lawful arrest

*Requisite: As a rule, the arrest must precede the search; the process
cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous
with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to
make the arrest at the outset of the search
• Dionisio y Enriquez v. People, G.R. No. 249880 (Notice), February 17,
2021
• People v. Cabriole, G.R. No. 248418, May 5, 2021
• Pinga y Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 245368, June 21, 2021
• Amida y Bula v. People, G.R. No. 254489, January 11, 2021
• People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007

12
 • People v. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 83988, April 18, 1990
• People v. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220 (1990)
• People v. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 645 (1991)
• People v. Malmsredt, 198 SCRa 401 (1991)
• Espano v. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 558 (1998)
• People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592 (2000)
• People v. Estrella, G.R. Nos. 138539-40, January 21, 2003
• People v. Libnao, et al., G.R. No. 136860, January 20, 2003
• People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007
• Nogales v. People, G.R. No. 191080, November 21, 2011
• People v. Calantiao, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014

4. Plain view doctrine

• Pagigan y Dela Peña v. People, G.R. No. 252003 (Notice), February 10,
2021
• Liwanag y Liwanag v. People, G.R. No. 249125 (Notice), April 26, 2021
• People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019, J. Perlas-Bernabe
• Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019, J. Leonen
• Unilab v. Isip 461 SCRA 574
• People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993)
• Padilla v. CA, 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
• People v. Valdez, G.R. No.129296, September 25, 2000
• People v. Compacion, G.R. No. 12442, July 20, 2001
• People v. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004
• Veronia School District. 47 J v. ACTON, June 27, 1995
• People v. Huang 439 SCRA 350
• Carbonel v. People, G.R. No. 253090, March 1, 2023

5. Enforcement of fishing, customs and immigration laws

• Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 320 (1975)
• People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997)
• People v. Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, December 18, 2000
• People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825, December 27, 2002
• People v. Suzuki, G.R. No. 120670, October 23, 2003

6. Search of moving vehicles

• Evardo y Lopena v. People, G.R. No. 234317, May 10, 2021
• Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968)
• People v. CFI of Rizal, 101 SCRA 86 (1980)
• People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017, January 21, 1991
• Salvador v. People, G.R. No. 146707, July 15, 2005
• People v. Macarios, G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010

7. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire,

sanitary and building regulations. This is basically an exercise of the police
power of the State, and would not require a search warrant. These are
routine inspections which, however, must be conducted during reasonable
hours.

8. Search and seizure under exigent and Emergency Circumstances

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

9. Checkpoints – Are checkpoints valid areas for searches and seizures?

• Gen. De Villa v. Valmonte, G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990
• People v. Baterina, G.R. No. 236259, September 16, 2020, J. Lazaro-
Javier
• Aniag v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
• People v. Usana, 323 SCRA 754 (2000)

13
 • People v. Vinecario, G.R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004

I. Exclusionary Rule: Evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art. Ill, shall be

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding [Sec. 3 (2), Art. Ill], because it is
“the fruit of the poisoned tree.”
• People v. Marti - 193 SCRA 57 (search by private person)
• In Re Laureta,148 SCRA 382 (1987)
• Agbuya y Castro v. People, G.R. No. 236778 (Notice), April 28, 2021
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Guico, Jr., A.M. No. P-12-3049, June 29,
2021
• Dionisio v. People, G.R. No. 235110, January 8, 2020
• People v. Flores, G.R. No. 246471, June 16, 2020, J. Lopez)
• Gutang v.People, GR 135406, July 11, 2000

J. Valid Warrantless Arrests

1. When the person to be arrested has committed, is actuallv committing, or

is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of a police officer
(Crime Committed In Flagrante Delicto - In the Presence of Police Officers,
Hot Pursuit)
2. When an offense had iust been committed and there is probable cause to
believe, based on his personal knowledge of facts or of other
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed the offense.
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.

Cases:
• People v. Yusop, G.R. No. 224587, July 28, 2020, J. Reyes Jr., J.

*In flagrante delicto

• Bocuya y Miculob v. People, G.R. No. 241801 (Notice), February 10, 2021
• Tan y Sia v. People, G.R. No. 232611 (Resolution), April 26, 2021
• People v. Cabriole, G.R. No. 248418, May 5, 2021
• People v. Limpa y Marambong, G.R. No. 233869 (Notice), June 14, 2021
• People v. Abarquez y Lopez, G.R. No. 241781 (Notice), June 14, 2021
• People v. Querijero y Abrigo, G.R. No. 252564 (Notice), June 21, 2021
• Anion v. People, G.R. No. 240455 (Notice), June 30, 2021
• People v. Vocal y San Jose, G.R. No. 242167 (Notice), June 30, 2021
• People v. Gacayan, G.R. No. 251750 (Notice), March 18, 2021
• People v. Sangcupan y Aron, G.R. No. 220462 (Notice), March 24, 2021
• People v. Bolatan y Alonto, G.R. No. 194723, January 12, 2021; People v.
Cabrera, G.R. No. 232072, January 12, 2021
• People v. Ferma, Jr. y Viado, G.R. No. 249259, January 13, 2021
• People v. Remulta, G.R. No. 218953 (Notice), April 26, 2021
• Amida y Bula v. People, G.R. No. 254489, January 11, 2021
• Pagigan y Dela Peña v. People, G.R. No. 252003 (Notice), February 10, 2021
• Dionisio y Enriquez v. People, G.R. No. 249880 (Notice), February 17, 2021
• People v. Galang y Galang, G.R. No. 249829 (Notice), March 18, 2021
• Agbuya y Castro v. People, G.R. No. 236778 (Notice), April 28, 2021
• Pinga y Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 245368, June 21, 2021
• People v. Amago and Vendiola, G.R. No. 227739, January 15, 2020, J. Peralta
• Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019, J. Leonen
• People v. de Lara, September 5, 1994

*Hot Pursuit/Escaped Prisoners

• Dionisio y Enriquez v. People, G.R. No. 249880 (Notice), February 17, 2021

14
 • People v. Recepcion, G.R. No. 141923, Nov. 13 2002 (hot pursuit, waiver of
illegality)

*Drugs in Transit
• People v. Alberto II, G.R. No. 247906, February 10, 2021
• People v. Suerte y Edubos, G.R. No. 242015 (Notice), June 21, 2021
• People v. dela Cruz, 184 SCRA 416 (1990)
• People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 (1991)
• People v. Mengote, G.R. No. 87059, June 22, 1992
• People v. Luisito Go, G.R. No. 116001, March 14, 2001
• Larranaga v. CA, 281 SCRA 254
• People v. Bongalon, 374 SCRA 289 (consent, in flagrante, waiver)
• People v. Bohol, G.R. No. 171729, July 28, 2008

*In cases of Rebellion (rebellion being a continuing offense)

• Umil v. Ramos, G.R. No. 81567, July 9, 1990

*Time of Arrest
• People vs. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791(1992)
• Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 586(1992)
• People v. Calimlim, G.R. No. 123980, August 30, 2001
• People v. Vinalon, G.R. No. 135542, July 28, 2002
• People v. Mendez, G.R. No. 147671, November 21, 2002

*Marked Money
• People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586 (1993)

*Lack of Urgency
• People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001
• People vs. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 (1988)

*Waiver re Legality of Arrest

• Dionisio y Enriquez v. People, G.R. No. 249880 (Notice), February 17, 2021
• Alaska v. Garcia, G.R. No. 228298, June 23, 2021
• Bocuya y Miculob v. People, G.R. No. 241801 (Notice), February 10, 2021
• Pagulayan y Taguinod, G.R. No. 252545 (Notice), July 7, 2021
• Surban y Gallardo v. People, G.R. No. 231045 (Notice), March 18, 2021
• People v. Jimenez y Omero, G.R. No. 251576 (Notice), June 21, 2021)
• Agbayani y Dacones v. People, G.R. No. 251232 (Notice), June 23, 2021
• Saludares y Anolar v. People, G.R. No. 248031 (Notice), July 12, 2021

2022 Cases
• Tiongkiao v. Sherrah, G.R. No. 238355, June 27, 2022
• People v. Mamino, G.R. No. 257213, August 31, 2022
• People v. Villete, G.R. No. 229051, March 21, 2022
• Sio v. People, G.R. No. 224935, March 2, 2022
• People v. Cacho, G.R. No. 253175, October 3, 2022
• Villamor v. People, G.R. No. 243811, July 4, 2022
• People v. Molina, G.R. No. 231841, June 15, 2022
• People v. Taglucop, G.R. No. 243577, March 15, 2022
• People v. Leng Haiyun, G.R. No. 242889, March 14, 2022
• Aldaya, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 249986, June 15, 2022
• People v. Jumarang, G.R. No. 250306, August 10, 2022
• Ta-ala v. People, G.R. No. 254800, June 20, 2022

2024 Cases:
• De Vera v. People, G.R. No. 246434, January 24, 2024
• People v. Gepitulan, G.R. No. 259381, February 26, 2024

15
TOPIC VI: Free Access to Courts and Other Bodies, Custodial Investigation, Right to Bail,
Rights of the Accused, Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases, Privilege against Self-
Incrimination and Double Jeopardy, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Punishment,
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Read: Art. III, Section 11 in relation to Art. VIII, Sec. 5, Par. 5

Art. III, Section 12
Art. III, Section 13
Art. III, Section 14
Art. III, Section 16
Art. III, Section 17

A. Free Access to Courts and Other Bodies

(Art. III, Sec. 11)
• Pangcatan v. Maghuyop, G.R. No. 194412, 16 November 2016

B. Custodial Investigation
• People v. Agustin y Paraggua, G.R. No. 247718, March 3, 2021
• People v. Jamo, Jr., G.R. No. 224586 (Notice), March 24, 2021
• People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, March 2, 2020, J. Hernando
• People of the Philippines v. Aubrey Enriquez Soria, G.R. No. 248372, August 27,
2020, CJ Peralta
• Alemar A. Bansilan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 239518, November 3,
2020, CJ Peralta
• Porteria v. People, G.R. No. 233777, March 20, 2019, J. A. Reyes

1. Custodial Investigation - When is there custodial investigation?

• People v. Lugod, G.R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001
• Read RA 7438 in relation to People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755,
April 14, 1999
• People v. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
• People v. Lugod, G.R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001
• People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001
• People v. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992)
• People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)

2. Rights During Custodial Investigations

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
• People v. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
• People v. Guillen, GR 191756, 25 November 2013

a. To remain silent
b. To Competent & Independent Counsel - Is the right to counsel
absolute in all phases of the investigation and trial?
• People v. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566 (1994)
• People v. Quidato, G.R. No. 117401, October 1, 1998
• People v. Januario, 267 SCRA 608
• People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 12793, December 8, 1999
• People v. Samus, G.R. No. 135957-58, September 17, 2002
• People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133138, July 23, 2004
• People v. Bagnate, G.R. No. 133685-86, May 20, 2004

*Counsel of Choice - Will the proceeding be suspended until the

counsel of choice is available?
• People v. Gallardo, G.R. No. 113684, January 25, 2000
• People v. Barasina, 228 SCRA 450 (1994)

16
 **Counsel’s presence required in entire proceedings
• People v. Morial, G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001

c. To be informed of such rights

• People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289
• People v. Canela, 208 SCRA 842
• People v. Agustin, 240 SCRA 541

d. Rights cannot be waived except in writing and signed by the person

in the presence of his counsel.
Sec. 2(d), R.A. 7438
i. Must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel - Sec.
12 (1), Art. Ill
ii. No retroactive effect
iii. Burden of proof
iv. What may be waived

e. No torture, force, etc., which vitiates the free will shall be used.
• People v. Bagnate, G.R. Nos. 133685-86, May 20, 2004

f. Secret detention places, etc., are prohibited

g. Confessions/admissions obtained in violation of rights are inadmissible

in evidence.
* There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in
this section, namely (1) coerced confessions, the product of third
degree methods, such as torture, force, violence, threat and
intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2; and (2)
uncounselled statements given without the benefit of the Miranda
warning, which are the subject of paragraph 1 [People v. Vallejo, G.R.
No. 144656, May 02, 2002].
** Note that the alleged infringement of the constitutional rights of the
accused during custodial investigation is relevant and material only
where an extrajudicial confession or admission from the accused
becomes the basis of conviction [National Bureau of Investigation v.
Judge Ramon Reyes, A.M. -MTJ- 97-1120, February 21, 2000].
h. Exclusionary Rule. Confession or admission obtained in violation of Sec.
12 and Sec. 17, Art. Ill, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
*Fruit of the poisonous tree
** Waiver of the exclusionary rule

2022 Cases

• Corpus v. People, G.R. No. 256406, March 14, 2022

• People v. Barbo, G.R. No. 248784, July 6, 2022
• People v. Terado, G.R. No. 231387, August 10, 2022
• Hermoso v. People, G.R. No. 232944, September 28, 2022

2023 Case
• People v. Argayan, G.R. No. 255750, January 30, 2023

3. Administrative Investigations - What are the rights of a person under

administrative investigation?
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316 (1997)
• People v. Uy, G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005

17
 4. Police Lineup - Is the right to counsel available in police lineup?
• Gamboa v. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (19880
• People v. Escordial, G.R. No. 138934, January 16, 2002
• People v. Piedad, et al., G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002
• Remolona v. CSC, G.R. No. 137473, August 2, 2001
• Magtoto v. Manguera, 63 SCRA 3 (1975)

5. Investigations not considered custodial interrogation

• Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 175
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316
• Manuel v. N.C. Construction Supply, G.R. No. 127553, November 28,
1997
• Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 137473, August 02,
2001]
• People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001
• Ladiana v. People, G.R. No. 144293, December 24, 2002
• People v. Endino, G.R. No. 133026, February 20, 2001
• People v. Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004]
• People v. Paynor, 261 SCRA 615]

6. Confession to Newsmen - Would confession to media practitioners

admissible in evidence?
• People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997)
• People v. Endino, G.R. No. 133026, February 20, 2001
• People v. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
• People v. Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004

7. Other Confessions
• People v. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006
• People v. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997)
• Illimois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)
• People v. Lugod, G.R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001
• People v. Rossano Samson, G.R. No. 262579, February 28, 2024

8. Re-enactment - Is the presence of a counsel required in the re-enactment

of a crime?
• People v. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992)

C. Right to Bail
Art. III, Section 13
1. Bail Defined
• Rule 114, Section 1, ROC
• Kinds of Bail
• Rule 114, Sections 10, 11, 14 & 15
• When right may be invoked; by whom
• The right to bail emanates from the right to be presumed innocent. It
is accorded to a person in custody of the law who may by reason of
the presumption of innocence he enjoys, be allowed provisional
liberty upon filing a security to guarantee his appearance before any
court, as required under specific circumstances [People v. Fitzgerald,
G.R. No. 149723, October 27, 2006]. Any person under detention, even
if no formal charges have yet been filed, can invoke the right to bail
• Exceptions:
a. When charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
for
higher) and evidence of guilt is strong.
b. Traditionally, the right to bail is not available to the military.

18
 4. Bail is either a matter of right, or at the judge’s discretion, or it may be
denied [Rule 114, Rules of Court],
• People v. Napoles, G.R. No. 247611, January 13, 2021
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Flor, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2503, July 28,
2020, Per Curiam
• Padua and Pimentel v. People, G.R. No. 220913, February 4, 2019, J.
Peralta
• People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019, J. Caguioa
• Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634 (1945)
• People v. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1968)
• Cortes v. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997
• Lavides v. CA, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000
• Government v. Judge Puruganan, G.R. No. 148571, December 17,
2002

5. Procedure to Bail
• Paderanga v. Drilon, 241 SCRA 741 (1995)
• Go v. Bongolan, A.M. 99-1464, July 26, 1999
• People v. Gako, G.R. No. 114045, January 16, 1997

6. Bail on Appeal - Is bail on appeal available?

• People v. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619 (1992)
• Maguddatu v. CA, G.R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000
• Obosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114350, January 16, 1997

7. Standards for fixing bail - What are the standards for fixing bail?
Rule 114, Section 9
• Villasenor v. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)
• De la Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
• Almeda v. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975)
• Yap v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
• Cabañero v. Cañon, A.M. No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 2001
• Victory Liner v. Belosillo, G.R. No. 425 SCRA 79 (2004)

8. Right to bail and right to travel abroad

• Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, supra
• Silverio v. Court of Appeals, supra
• Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, supra

9. Right to bail and extradition

• Government of the U.S. v. Judge Puruganan and Mark Jimenez, G.R.
No. 148571, December 17, 2002
• Government of HongKong v. Hon. Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No.
153675, April 19, 2007
• Mejoff v. Director of Prisons

10. Waiver of the right to bail.

• People v. Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130
• People v. Manes, G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999

11. Bail and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
• The right to bail is not impaired by the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus [Sec. 13, Art. III].

2022 Cases
• People v. Argosino, G.R. No. 257046, February 15, 2022

19
 • Moreno v. Sandiganbayan [First Division], G.R. No. 256070, September
19, 2022

D. Rights of the Accused During Trial

Art. III, Sec. 14

1. Criminal Due Process

a. In Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457, the Supreme Court enumerated
the ingredients of due process as applied to criminal proceedings, as
follows: (i) The accused has been heard in a court of competent
jurisdiction; (ii) The accused is proceeded against under the orderly
processes of law; (iii) The accused has been given notice and the
opportunity to be heard; and (iv) The judgment rendered was within
the authority of a constitutional law.
b. Unreasonable delay in resolving complaint
• Roque v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 129978, May 12, 1999,
c. Impartial court or tribunal.
d. Right to a hearing.
e. Plea of guilt to a capital offense.
f. The State and the offended party are entitled to due process.

2. Presumption of Innocence
• People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 242021, January 11, 2021
• People v. Maamor y Sultan, G.R. No. 224625, January 12, 2021
• Lopez y Atanacio v. People, G.R. No. 249196, April 28, 2021
• Bartolome y Ilagan v. People, G.R. No. 227951, June 28, 2021
• Martel v. People, G.R. Nos. 224720-23 & 224765-68, February 2, 2021
• Balina y Lanuzo v. People, G.R. No. 205950, January 12, 2021
• Fuertes v. The Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 208162, January 7,
2020, J. Leonen
• People v. Suating, G.R. No. 220142, January 29, 2020, J. Leonen
• People v. Briones, G.R. No. 239077, March 20, 2019, J. Caguio
• Constantino v. People, G.R. No. 225696, April 8, 2019, J. Leonen
• People v. Padilla, G.R. No. 234947, June 19, 2019, J. Caguio
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt
• People v. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971)
• Presumption of Guilt
• Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
• People v. Mingoa, 92 Phil. 857 (1953)
• Applicability to Juridical Persons
• Feeder Int’l Line v. CA, CR 94262, May 31, 1991

3. Right to be heard personally or by counsel

• Latogan v. People, G.R. No. 238298, January 22, 2020, J. Inting
*Importance of Counsel
• People v. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752 (1950)
• Delgado v. CA, 145 SCRA 357 (1986) I
*Improvident Plea of guilt
• People v. Baluyot, 75 SCRA 148 (1977)
*Right to Lawyer of Choice
• Libuit v. People, G.R. No. 154363, September 13, 2005
*Deprivation of Right to be Heard
• Moslares v. CA, 291 SCRA 440 (1998)
• Conche v. People, G.R. No. 253312, March 1, 2023

4. Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation

a. Rationale
b. Requisites

20
c. Void for Vagueness Rule: The accused is also denied the right to be
informed of the charge against him, and to due process as well, where
the statute itself is couched in such indefinite language that it is not
possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what
acts or omissions are punished. In such a case, the law is deemed void.
See Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001.

• Bustillo v. People, G.R. No. 216933, March 15, 2021

• Jalandoni v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 211751, 217212-80,
244467-535 & 245546-614, May 10, 2021
• Santos y Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 256223 (Notice), June 21, 2021
• Lee v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 234664-67, January 12, 2021
• Locsin, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 221787 & 221800-02, January 13, 2021
• People v. Toro y Diano, G.R. No. 245922, January 25, 2021
• People v. Bajar y Laguda, G.R. No. 252019 (Notice), February 10, 2021
• People v. Lira y Dulfo, G.R. No. 235991, March 18, 2021
• Loveriza y Marmol, G.R. No. 251881 (Notice), June 16, 2021
• Spouses Tayamen v. People, G.R. No. 246986, April 28, 2021
• People v. Palaña, G.R. Nos. 243547-48 (Notice), June 16, 2021
• People v. XXX, G.R. No. 250858, January 25, 2021
• Collao v. People, G.R. No. 242539, February 1, 2021
• People v. Vicente, G.R. No. 249546 (Notice), February 3, 2021
• Miraflores v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 238103 & 238223, J.
Lazaro-Javier
• Quiambao v. People, G.R. No. 195957, January 15, 2020, J. Reyes, A
• People v. Pigar, G.R. No. 247658, February 17, 2020, J. Lazaro-Javier
• People v. Dela Peña, G.R. No. 238120, February 12, 2020, J. Inting)
• Benito Keh v. People, G.R. Nos. 217592-93, July 13, 2020, CJ Peralta)
• People v. Silvederio III, G.R. No. 239777, July 8, 2020, J. Inting
• Escador v. People, G.R. No. 211962, July 6, 2020, J. Leonen
• People of the Philippines v. XYZ, G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020, J.
Gesmundo
• People of the Philippines v. HHH, G.R. No. 248245, August 26, 2020, J.
Carandang
• BBB v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 249307, August 27, 2020,
J. Lazaro-Javier
• Capueta v. People, G.R. No. 240145, September 14, 2020
• People v. Adajar, G.R. No. 231306, June 17, 2019
• Posadas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 228223, June 10, 2019, J. Peralta
• Universal Robina Corporation v. DTI, G.R. No. 203353, February 14, 2023
• Ismael and Ajijon v. People, G.R. No. 234435-36, February 6, 2023
• Pineda v. People, G.R. No. 228232, March 27, 2023
• Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 204568-83, April 26, 2023
• People v. Yap, G.R. No. 255087, October 4, 2023

d. Preliminary Investigation
• People v. Goyala, G.R. No. 224650, July 15, 2020, J. Gesmundo
• Ampatuan v. SOJ, G.R. No. 200106, February 22, 2023

e. Waiver

*Lack of Arraignment
• People v. Dy, G.R. No. 115236, January 29, 2002

*Sufficiency of the Information

• People v. Valdesancho, G.R. No. 137051, May 30, 2001
• People v. Alcaide, G.R. Nos. 139225-28, May 29, 2002

21
 • People v. Ostia, G.R. No. 131804, February 26, 2003
• People v. Cacahpero, G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004

5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

*Speedy trial
• Conde v. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650 (1924)
• Dacanay v. People, 240 SCRA 490 (1995)
•

*Public trial
• Garcia v. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)

*Impartial trial
• Soriano v. Angeles, G.R. No. 109920, August 30, 2000

6. Right to confront witness

• Right to meet witnesses face to face. Right to cross-examine
complainant and witnesses.
• U.S. v. Javier, 37 Phil. 449 (1918)

7. Right to secure attendance of witnesses

• Right to compulsory processes
• People v. De Luna, 174 SCRA 204 (1989)

8. Trial in absentia
Rule 120, Sec. 6.
• People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140285, September 27, 2006

*When presence of the accused is a duty:

a. Arraignment and plea
Rule 116, Sec. 1 (b)
b. During trial for identification
• Aquino v. Military Commision No. 63 SCRA 546 (1975)
• People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)
c. Promulgation of sentence
Rule 120, Sec. 6
• Exception: Light offenses

E. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases

Art. III, Sec. 16
• Lee v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 234664-67, January 12, 2021
• Leonardo v. People, G.R. No. 246451, February 3, 2021
• Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. Nos. 236177-210, February 3,
2021
• People v. Pante, G.R. No. 223166 (Notice), March 3, 2021
• Cojuangco, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 247982, April 28, 2021
• People v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. No. 227450 (Notice), June 16,
2021
• Rosario v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 253686, June 29, 2021
• Baterina v. Sandiganbayan, Second Division, G.R. Nos. 236408 & 236531-36,
July 7, 2021
• Campa, Jr. v. Paras, G.R. No. 250504, July 12, 2021
• Baya v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 204978-83, July 6, 2020, J. Leonen
• Jessica Lucila G. Reyes v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan Third Division and
the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 243411, August 19, 2020, J. Reyes Jr., J.
• Imingan v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 226420, March 4, 2020, J.
Inting

22
 • People v. 4th Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 233061-62, July 28, 2020, J.
Lazaro-Javier; see Catamco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 243560-62, July 28,
2020, J. Caguioa
• Catamco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 243560-62, July 28, 2020, J. Caguioa
• Magdaet v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 230869-70, September 16, 2020, J.
Reyes Jr., J.
• Salcedo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 223869-960, February 13, 2019, J.
Peralta)
• People v. Sandiganbayan [5th Division], G.R. No. 233063, February 11, 2019, J.
Peralta
• Park v. Choi, G.R. No. 220826, March 27, 2019, J. Caguioa
• Revuelta v. People, G.R. No. 237039, June 10, 2019, J. Peralta
• People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 233557-67, June 19, 2019, J. A. Reyes
• Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721 (1998)
• Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70 (1988)
• Flores v. People, 61SCRA331
• In re Petition for Coverage of the Ampatuan Cases, AM No. 10-5-5-SC/AM
No. 10-11-1-SC/AM No. 10-11-7-SC, 14 June 2011

2022 Cases

• People v. Sandiganbayan [Fifth Division], G.R. No. 239878, February 28, 2022
• Peňas v. Commission on Elections, UDK-16915. February 15, 2022
• Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 225568-70, February 15, 2022
• Figueroa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 235965-66, February 15, 2022
• Lorenzo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 242506-10 & 242590-94, September 14, 2022
• Alarilla v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 240124, August 31, 2022
• Malones v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 226887-88, July 20, 2022
• Mamba, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 249343 & 249382, July 6, 2022
• Pacuribot v. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), G.R. Nos. 247414-18, July 6, 2022
• Camsol v. Seventh Division of the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 242892, July 6, 2022
• Gonzalbo-Macatangay v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 239995, June 15,
2022
• Lerias v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 241776, March 23, 2022)

2023 Cases:

• Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 229394, January 23, 2023

• Yap v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 246318-9, January 18, 2023
• Republic v. Desierto, G.R. No. 136506, January 16, 2023
• Ecleo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 263061, January 10, 2023
• Ismael and Ajijon v. People,Supra
• Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 238877, March 22, 2023

2024 Case: Arriola vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 261107, January 30, 2024

F. Privilege against Self-Incrimination

Art. III, Section 17

*Compulsory testimonial incrimination

• United States v. Tan The, 23 Phil. 145 (1912)
• United States v. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 (1917)
• People v. Otadura, 86 Phil. 244 (1950)
• Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)
• Bermudez v. Castillo, 64 Phil. 570 (1929)
• People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994)

23
 • People v. Rondero, G.R. No. 125687, December 9, 1999
• People v. Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000

*In what proceedings available

• Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)
• Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)

*Waiver

2022 Cases

• People v. Aguillon, G.R. No. 205415, March 9, 2022

• People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 250336, November 29, 2022
• People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 247522. February 28, 2022
• People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 252505, October 3, 2022
• People v. Maglinas, G.R. No. 255496, August 10, 2022
• Lorenzo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 242506-10 & 242590-94, September 14, 2022
• People v. XXX, G.R. No. 257441, July 27, 2022
• Cambil v. Kabalikat para sa Maunlad na Buhay, Inc., G.R. No. 245938, April 5,
2022
• People v. Ampatuan, G.R. Nos. 250202 & 250222-85, August 17, 2022

G. Double Jeopardy
Art. III, Section 21

1. Availability
2. Scope
3. Requisites
a. Valid complaint or information
b. Filed before a competent court
c. To which defendant had pleaded
d. Defendant had previously been acquitted or convicted, or the case
dismissed, or otherwise terminated, without his express consent
e. Dismissal of action
f. Revival of the criminal cases previously dismissed
g. Appeal by the prosecution

• People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 228281, June 14,

2021
• Radaza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021
• Encinares v. People, G.R. No. 252267, January 11, 2021
• People v. Maamor y Sultan, G.R. No. 224625, January 12, 2021
• People v. Siat y Evanchez, G.R. No. 233529 (Notice), October 4, 2021
• People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 233437, April 26,
2021
• Sy v. People, G.R. No. 243617 (Notice), May 5, 2021
• People v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. No. 227450 (Notice),
June 16, 2021
• Casilac v. People, G.R. No. 238436, February 17, 2020, CJ Peralta; see
also Lina Talocod v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 250671,
October 7, 2020, J. Perlas-Bernabe
• People v. Espiritu and Mabborang, G.R. No. 226140, February 26, 2020,
J. Caguioa)
• AA Total Learning Center for Young Achievers, Inc. v. Atty. Caronan,
AC. No. 12418, March 10, 2020, J. Hernando
• People of the Philippines v. Domingo Arcega y Siguenza, G.R. No.
237489, August 27, 2020, CJ Peralta

24
 • JCLV Realty Development Corporation v. Phil Galicia Mangali, G.R.
No. 236618, August 27, 2020
• People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019, J. Perlas-Bernabe
• Trinidad v. People, G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019, Perlas-Bernabe
• Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766 (1959)
• Argel v. Judge Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131, August 20, 2001
• Galman vs Sandiganbayan,144 SCRA 43 (1986)
• People vs. Relova,148 SCRA 292 (1987)

4. Crimes covered:
• With the presence of the requisites, the accused cannot be
prosecuted anew for an identical offense, or for any attempt to
commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged
in the original complaint or information
• People v. Sarabia, G.R. No. 142024, July 20, 2001
• Perez v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 236
• Mallari v. People, 168 SCRA 422
• People v. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 (1968)

5, Identity of Acts
• People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)

6. Identity of Offenses
• People v. City Court, 154 SCRA 175 (1987)
• Nierras v. Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 1 (1990)

7. Plea of Guilt to Lesser Offense

• People v. Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246 (1992)

8. Subsequent prosecution barred; Exceptions

• Melo v. People, 85 Phil. 766 (1959)
• PSB v. Bermoy, G.R. No. 151912, September 26, 2005
• Heirs of Rillorta v. Firme, 157 SCRA 518 (1988)
• People v. Judge Vergara, 221 SCRA 560 (1993)
• Tupaz v. Ulep, G.R. No. 127777, October 1, 1999
• Argel v. Judge Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131. August 20, 2001

9. Jurisdiction of Courts
• People v. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166 (1985)
• Galman v. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 (1986)
• People v. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154 (1988)
• People v. Judge Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 (1989)
10. Doctrine of Supervening Event. The accused may still be prosecuted for
another offense if a subsequent development changes the character of
the first indictment under which he may have already been charged or
convicted. Thus, under Section 7, Rule 117, Rules of Court, the conviction of
the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which
necessarily includes the offense charged in the original complaint or
information when: (a) the graver offense developed due to supervening
facts arising from the same act or omission; (b) the facts constituting the
graver offense arose or were discovered only after the filing of the former
complaint or information; or (c) the plea of guilty to a lesser offense was
made without the consent of the fiscal or the offended party. See People
v. Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246.

2022 Cases

25
 • Braganza v. People, G.R. No. 249891, June 20, 2022
• Morales v. People, G.R. No. 240337. January 4, 2022
• People v. Sandiganbayan [Fifth Division], G.R. No. 239878. February 28, 2022
• People v. Cacho, G.R. No. 254259, February 14, 2022
• CICL XXX v. People, G.R. No. 230964, March 2, 2022
• People v. Leng Haiyun, G.R. No. 242889, March 14, 2022
• Estate of Williams v. Percy, G.R. No. 249681, August 31, 2022
• People v. Alcira, G.R. No. 242831, June 22, 2022)

F. CRUEL, INHUMAN, DEGRADING PUNISHMENT

Art. III, Sec. 19
• Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 267 SCRA 652; 297 SCRA 754
• Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, 24 April 2014

G. PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Art. III, Sec. 15; Art VII, Sec. 18
• Miguel v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, UDK-15368, September 15, 2021
• In Re: In the Matter of the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Inmates
Raymundo Reyes and Vincent B. Evangelista, G.R. No. 251954, June 10, 2020,
J. Zalameda
• In the Matter of the Petition for Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Favor of Alicia Jasper S. Lucena v. Sarah Elago et al., G.R. No. 252120,
September 15, 2020, CJ Peralta
• Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Phil. 87
• Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448
• Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420
• Velasco v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 677
• Sombong v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 663
• Manalo v. Calderon, G.R. No. 178920, 15 October 2007
• In the Matter of the Petition of Habeas Corpus of Eufemia E. Rodriguez, filed
by Edgardo E. Veluz, G.R. No. 169482, 29 January 2008
• Tapuz v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 182482, 17 June 2008
• Ampatuan v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 18297, 29 June 2010
• Salcedo v. Bollozos, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2236, 5 July 2010
• Rule on the Writ of Amparo
• Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 7 October 2008
Roxas v.
• Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 189155, 7 September 2010
• Burgos v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 183711, 22 June 2010
• Boac v. Cadapan, G.R. No. 184461, 31 May 2011
• So v. Racla, G.R. No. 190108, 19 October 2010
• Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805, 15 November 2011

2022 Case
• Re: Rommel Lachica y Ventura v. Schwarzkopf, Jr., G.R. No. 237968, February
14, 2022

Topic VII: Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

Art. III, Sec 3 (1)

• Sanchez v. Darroca, G.R. No. 242257 (Resolution), June 15, 2021)

• Gaanan v. IAC, 145 SCRA 113 (1986)
• Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995
• Alejano v. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005
• Belo v. Guevarra, December 1, 2016
• Vivarez v. St. Theresa’s College, September 29, 2014

26
• Hiling v. Choachuy, June 26, 2013
• Pollo v. Constantino David, October 18, 2011
• People vs. Enojas, March 10, 2014

Exclusionary Rule
Art. III, Sec (2)

• Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA – 235 SCRA 111 (wiretap)

• Zulueta v. CA - 253 SCRA 699 (husband and wife privacy)
• In Re Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987)
• Gutang v. People, G.R. No. 135406, July 11, 2000
• KMU v. Dir. – Gen. of NEDA, 487 SCRA 623

Relevant laws and issuances:

• Republic Act No. 10173, Data Privacy Act of 2012
• Republic Act No. 9995, Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
• Republic Act 9372, Human Security Act of 2007
• A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data

TOPIC VIII: Freedom of Expression, Peaceably to Assemble and to Petition Government

for Redress of Grievances
Art. III, Section 4
• Tulfo v. People, G.R. Nos. 187113 & 187230, January 11, 2021
• Velasco v. Causing, A.C. No. 12883, March 2, 2021
• Guy v. Tulfo, G.R. No. 213023, April 10, 2019, J. Leonen

A. The Evolution of the “Tests” of Free Speech

• A War Time Product – The “Clear and Present Danger” Test
• Do NOT ever make the common mistake of citing Clear and Present
Danger outside the specific context it was created for by Holmes. ie War
time, Bomb Joke, Fire in a Crowded Theater.
• Schenkv.US, 249 US 47– A matter of “proximity ”and “degree”
• Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
• Pilipinas Shell v. Morales, G.R. No. 203867, April 26, 2023

1. Leaflets and Flyers– Why Protect Political Protests

• Silly Leaflets of an Unknown Man-Abrams v. US, 250 US 616
• Read Holmes 'dissent in the Marketplace
• Leaflets by a Well-known man- Debsv.US,249US21-
• For the BAR :The Current Paradigm- The “Imminent Lawless Action” Test
• “Revengeance” and the KKK-Brandenburg v.Ohio,395 US 444
• Inciting per se vs .Inciting Plus Likelihood
• In re UP Law Faculty, AM No.10-10-4-SC, 07 June 2011

2. Prior Restraint – When is there freedom from censorship?

• Near v. Minnesota, 238 US 697
• Freedman v. Maryland, 380 US 51
• New York Times Co v. US, 403 US 713
• Alexander v. US, 113 S. Ct. 2766, 125 L. Ed. 2d. 441
• INC v. CA, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996
• David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160
• Miriam College Foundation v. CA, G.R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000

3. Subsequent punishment- When is there freedom from subsequent

punishment?
• People v. Perez, 45 Phil. 599
• Dennis v. US, 341 US 494
• Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835

27
 • Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr., 137 SCRA 865
• Roxas v. De Zuzuaeewgui, 527 SCRA 446
• United States v. O’Brien, 391 US 367

4. Speech and the Electoral Process

• Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529
• National Press Club v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1
• Adiong v. COMELEC, March 31, 1992
• Osmeña v. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447
• ABS CBN v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811
• SWS v. COMELEC, G.R. No.147571, May 5, 2001
• Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
• GMA Network v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014

5. Commercial Speech
• Rubin v. Coors Brewing, 131 L. Ed. 2d. (1995)
• Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council,
Inc., 425 US 748
• Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association v. Duque, G.R. No.
173034, October 9, 2007

6. Unprotected Speech

b. Subversive speech
• Schenk, supra; Abrams, supra ;Brandenburg, supra

c. Hate Speech
• R.A.V. vs. City of St. Paul
• Virginia v. Black
• Note carved-out circumstances where speech will be punishable.
• Distinguish between Cross-Burning and Flag Burning (Texas v.
Johnson)

d. Libel
• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 US 46
• Note “intentional infliction of emotional distress”
• Policarpio v. Manila Times, 5 SCRA 148
• Lopez v. Ca, 34 SCRA 116
• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254
• Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 US 29
• Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 US 323
• In Re Jurado, 243 SCRA 299
• Borjal v. CA, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999
• Arafiles v. Philippine Journalists, Inc., 426 SCRA 336
• Baguio Midland Courier v. CA, 444 SCRA 38
• Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014
• US v. Bustos ,37 Phil .731(1981)
• MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da'wah, GR 135306, 2003

d. Fighting Words
• Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
• BUT, see: Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1 (1949)
• Cohen v. California–compare with Chaplinsky

e. Hostile Audiences– Feiner v. New York, 340 US 315

• What is the Heckler's Veto?

f. True Threats

28
 • Watts v. United States 394 US 705 (1969)
• Note RPC provisions on Threats - distinguish
g. Sexually Explicit Expression (not just Obscenity)

• Miller v. California, 413 US 15

• Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
• Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362
• Barnes v. Glen Theater, 498 US 439
• F.C.C. v. Pacific Foundation, 438 US 726
• Renton v. Playtime Theater, 475 US 41
• Bethel School Dist. v. Fraser, 478 US 675
• Hazelwood School Dist. v. KUHLMEIER, 484 US 260
• Fernando v. CA,510 SCRA 351
• Re: Column of Ramon Tulfo, A.M. No. 92-7-360-0, April 17, 1990
• Cagas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 209185, February 25, 2014
• Roth v. United States
• Pita v.CA,178 SCRA 362
• Child Pornography– For this, accept that Child Pornography, along
with Speech advocating Illegal Drug Use are 2 classes of speech that
are by their very content, agreed to be repugnant and laws about
regulating them are deemed constitutional. But, as a matter of an
intellectual exercise, you may ask that by these standards, they are
no different from the advocacy of other “dangerous” or “unpopular”
ideas. Yes. But our Society has made the value choice that these 2
ideas are too dangerous to even be advocated.
• New York v. Ferber
• Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition – Virtual Child Pornography

2022 Cases
• Espejon v. Lorredo, A.M. No. MTJ-22-007, March 9, 2022
• Movie and Television Review and Classification Board v. ABC
Development Corp., G.R. No. 212670, July 6, 2022

2023 Case
 In Re: Atty. Gadon, A.C. No. 13521, June 27, 2023

B. Assembly and petition

Read: BP 880 (Public Assembly Act)
• Slord Development Corporation v. Noya, G.R. No. 232687, February 4, 2019, J.
Perlas-Bernabe
• NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958)
• Shelton v. Tucker 364 US 479 (1960) – disclosure of past organizations
• The Right Not To Associate – this is similar to the “not to speak” concept
• Roberts v. United States Jaycees
• Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
• JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
• Malabanan v. Ramento,129 SCRA 359
• MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr., 200 SCRA 323
• Navarro v. Villegas, 21 SCRA 73
• PBM Employees v. PBM, 51 SCRA 189
• Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 29, 2006

TOPIC IX: Right to Information and access to official records

Art. III, Section 7

• Biraogo v. Martires, G.R. No. 254516, February 2, 2021

29
• Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr. Vs. Maria Leonor “Leni Daang Matuwid” G.
Robredo, PET Case No. 005, November 17, 2020, CJ Peralta
• Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530
• Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256
• Aquinio-Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 SCRA 515
• Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No.130716, December 9, 1988
• Neri v. Senate, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008-09-23 and MR
• Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
• Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383
• Gonzales v. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835, 14 August 2000
• Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14
• Garcia v. Board of Investments, 191 SCRA 288
• Sabio v . Gordon, supra
• IDEALS v. PSALM Corp., G.R. No. 192088, 9 October 2012
• Bantay Republic Act v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177271, 4 May 2007
• The Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, 14 October 2008
• Antolin v. Domondon, G.R. No. 165036, 5 July 2010
• Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148334, 21 January 2005 (see Dissenting Opinion of
C.J. Puno)
• Syjuco v. Abaya, G.R. No. 215650, March 28, 2023

TOPIC X: Right to Form Unions/Association

Art. III, Section 8

• SSS Employee v. CA, 175 SCRA 686

• Manila Public School Teachers v. Laguio Jr., 200 SCRA 323
• UPCSU v. Laguesma, 288 SCRA 15

TOPIC XI: Freedom of Religion

Art. III, Section 5

A. Non-establishment of religion
• Bishop Amari v. Villaflor, G.R. No. 224521, February 17, 2020, J. Gesmundo
• Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201
• Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
• School District v. Schempp, 10 L 2d 844
• Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1
• 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 501
• Zobrest v. Catalina, No. 92-94, June 18, 1993
• Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette & Ku Klux Plan – U.S. No. 94-780, June
29, 1995
• Islamic Da’wag v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003
• Taruc v. de la Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 G.R. No. 144802, March 10, 2005
• Letter of Tony Valenciano, March 7, 2017

B. Free exercise of religion

C. Scope and Purpose

• Revisit Minersville v .Gobitis ,supra and West Virginia v. Barnette, supra
• Gerona v. Secretary of Education, GRL-13954
• Sherbert v. Verner, supra
• Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 US 503– military head gear
• Bowen v. Roy 476 US 693 – Social Security Numbers

30
 *Drawing the line between Illegitimate and Legitimate Beliefs
*Do we allow government to “test” which belief is legitimate vs those which are
not?
• Reynolds v. US( 1978)
• Church of Lukumi Babalu v. Hialeah (1993)
• US v. Ballard 322 US 78

*Can government test how “sincere” are your beliefs?

• Estradav.Escritor,AMNo.P-02-1651,22 June 2006 Note the Dispostive Portion
• Ebralinag v. Div. Of City Schools ,219 SCRA 256
• In re Request of Muslim Employees, 477 SCRA 648
• 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
• Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 205
• Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413
• McDaniel v. Paty, 435 US 618
• Goldman v. Weinberger, 54 LW 4298
• Lee v. Weisman, U.S. No. 90-1014, June 24, 1992
• Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeach – No. 91-948, June 11, 1993
• Lamb’s Chapel v. School District, No. 91-2024, June 7, 1993
• INC v. CA, 259 SCRA 529
• Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 205819, April 8, 2014

TOPIC XII: Liberty of abode and of travel

Art. III, Section 6

● Pichay, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. Nos. 241742 & 241753-59, May
12, 2021
• Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019, J. del Castillo
• Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778
● Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668
● Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633
● Yap v. C.A., G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
● Leave Division v. Heusdens, AM No. P-11-2927, 13 December 2011
• Kwong v. PCGG, 156 SCRA 22
• SPARK v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, August 8, 2017

TOPIC XIII: Contract Clause

Art. III, Section 10

• Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc. v. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, G.R.
No. 232797 (Notice), June 14, 2021
• Joint Ship Manning Group, Inc. v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 247471, July 7,
2020, J. Gesmundo
• Rutter v. Esteban, 93 Phil. 68 (1953)
• Ortigas & Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000
• Tiro v. Hontanosas, 125 SCRA 697 (1983)
• Presley v. Bel-Air Village Association, 201 SCRA 13
• Caleon v. Agus Development Corp., 207 SCRA 748 (1992)
• Meralco v. Province of Laguna, 306 SCRA 750 (1999)
• Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540, March 13,
2013
• Republic v. Pagadian City Timber Co., Inc., G.R. No. 159308, 16 September 2008
• Land Bank of the Philippines v. Republic, G.R. No. 150824, 4 February 2008
• BANAT v.COMELEC, G.R. No. 177508, 7 August 2009
• Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., supra

31
• PAGCOR v. BIR, G.R. No. 172087, 15 March 2011
• Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. ERC, G.R. No. 183626, 4 October 2010
• The Learning Child, Inc. v. Ayala Alabang Village Association, G.R. No. 134269, 7
July 2010

TOPIC XIV: Involuntary Servitude

Art. III, Section 18
• Aclaracion v. Gamaitan, 64 SCRA 131 (1979)

TOPIC XV: Non-Imprisonment for Debt

Art. III, Section 20
• Cabral v. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019, J. Peralta
• Sura v. Martin, 26 SCRA 286 (1969)
• People v. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 726 (1992)
• In Re: Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara, G.R. No. 154037, April 30, 2003
• Ganaway v. Guillen, 42 Phil. 805
• Serafin v. Lindayag, 87 SCRA 166
• U.S. v. Cara, 41 Phil. 826
• Ajeno v. Inserto, 71 SCRA 166
• Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323
• U.S. v. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245
• Caunca v. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851

TOPIC XVI: Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder

Art. III, Section 22
• Fuertes v. The Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 208162, January 7, 2020, J. Leonen
• Alemar A. Bansilan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 239518, November 3, 2020,
CJ Peralta)
• Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. de Lima, G.R. No. 212719, June 25, 2019, J.
Peralta
• Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
• People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
• Wright v. CA, 235 SCRA 341 (1994)

What is a bill of attainder?

Characteristics?

Other 2022 Cases in Various Topics:

Right to Information

* Colmenares v. Duterte, G.R. Nos. 245981 & 246594, August 9, 2022

Freedom of Association

* Purok Pagkakaisa Association, Inc. v. AFP Officers Village Association, Inc., G.R.
No. 250737, March 30, 2022)

Freedom of Religion

* Espejon v. Lorredo, A.M. No. MTJ-22-007, March 9, 2022

Non-Impairment Clause

* Light Rail Transit Authority v. Joy Mart Consolidated, Inc. G.R. No. 211281.
February 15, 2022

32
UPDATED BY: DATE OF SUBMISSION:
August 8, 2024

ATTY. MELCHOR CARLOS R. RABANES

APPROVED BY: DATE OF APPROVAL:

ATTY. MARIE MAE BULIYAT 08/08/2024

Department Coordinator

QA CHECKED BY: DATE OF QA CHECK:

8 August 2024
YASMINE LEE R. TADEO
DEAN

33