ATENEO DE ZAMBOANGA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PART II
Syllabus, A.Y. 2019-2020

Professor: Judge Edilwasif T. Baddiri, MPA

Reference materials:
 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 (2015) Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Quezon City: VJ Graphil
Arts, Inc.

ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS

I. 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.

A. Purpose of the Bill of Rights

B. Three Great Powers of Government

C. Police Power

Cases
Lozano v. Martinez, GR No. L-63419, December 18, 1986
DOH v. Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., G.R. No. 202943, March 25, 201
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

D. The Seat of Police Power

Case
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000

E. Primacy of Human Rights

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

F. Hierarchy of Rights: Of Life, Liberty, and Property

Cases
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

G. Due Process: In General

Cases
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)

a. 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

b. Procedural due process; aspects of the proceedings

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

c. 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

JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

I. Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Courts

a. Sections 32, 35, BP 129, as amended
b. AM No. 00-01-SC, 25 March 2003
c. Section 1 (b), Rules on Summary Procedure

II. Regional Trial Courts

a. Sections 20, 22, 23, BP 129, as amended
b. Section 90, RA 9165
c. Section 5, RA 8369
d. AM No. 03-03-03-SC, 1 July 2003

III. Sandiganbayan
A. Section 4, Sandiganbayan Law, as amended by RA 10660

IV. Court of Tax Appeals

V. Supreme Court

H. Administrative; Quasi-Judicial Proceedings; Arbitration

a. Due process in administrative proceedings; in general

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

b. Judges and the disciplinary process

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

c. 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
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

d. Extradition proceedings
Secretary 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

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

I. Academic Discipline

a. 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

J. Deportation Proceeding

a. In general
Lao Gi v. CA 180 SCRA 756
Domingo v Scheer, 421 SCRA 468

K. Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession

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

b. Profession
Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31

L. Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement

a. 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

b. 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

c. 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

d. Ordinance/status/memorandum circulars/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

e. Motion for reconsideration

Mendenilla v. CSC 194 SCRA 278
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

M. Suretyship

Case
Stronghold Insurance v. CA 205 SCRA 605

N. Tariff and Customs Code

Case
Feeder v. CA 197 SCRA 842

O. Appeal

Cases
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

P. Closure Proceedings

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

Q. Biddings

Case
Concerned Officials v. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502

R. The Urban Development and Housing Act – Republic Act No. 7279

Case
Perez v. Madrona, 668 SCRA 696

S. Cancellation of Property Rights and Privileges

Cases
 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

T. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation; Ombudsman

Cases
Roxas v. Vasquez GR 114944 June 19, 2001
Ocampo v. Ombudsman 322 SCRA 17
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan GR 148468 Jan. 28, 2003

U. Substantive Due Process

Cases
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

V. The Equal Protection of the Laws

Note: The following are the 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.

The Standards of Judicial Review

 Rational Basis Test – it is 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.
 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.
 Intermediate Scrutiny Test – the 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.

Cases
People v. Cayat – 68 PHIL. 12, 18
Ichong v. Hernandez – 101 PHIL. 1155
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho – 86 SCRA 270
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
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

II. 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.

A. The Purpose of Section 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution

B. Scope of the Protection

Cases
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

C. Requisites for a Valid Warrant

a. Probable cause
a. Definition

Case
Henry v. US, 361 US 98

1. For arrest

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

2. For search

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

b. Who determines probable cause?

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

c. Kind of evidence needed to establish probable cause

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

d. In general
 Cases
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 of 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
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

e. 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

Note: The 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. This is an exception to the rule that only a judge may
issue a warrant.
 D. “Of whatever nature and for any purpose”

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

E. Warrantless Searches and Seizures

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

People v. Sevilla, 229 SCRA 625

i. Incidental to a lawful arrest

See also: Sec. 12, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court

Note: The requisites for a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest are as follows:
 Item to be searched was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control.
 The 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

Note: The following are the requisites for a valid plain view search and seizure
 Prior valid intrusion;
 Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police;
 Illegality of the evidence is immediately apparent; and
 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 (Note: 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
People v. Lacerna – 278 SCRA 561

iv. Consent or waiver

Note: The following are the requisites of consent or waiver:

 It must appear that the right exists;
 The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of the
right.
 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.”

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)

Note: The following are the requisites for valid drug, alcohol, and blood tests:
 It must be random; and
 It must be without suspicion.

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.

F. Warrantless Arrests

See also: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or attempting to commit an offense;
 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
 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
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
Requisites for an arrest in hot pursuit:
 An offense had just been committed.
 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

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

ARREST

I. RULE 113 – ARREST

Additional readings:
- Section 2, Article III, Constitution
- RA 7438

Cases:
 AAA v. Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465, 8 June 2007, 524 SCRA 496
  People v. Alunday, G.R. No. 181546, 3 September 2008, 564 SCRA 135
 People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, 14 April 1999, 305 SCRA 740
 People v. Jayson, G.R. No. 120330, 18 November 1997, 282 SCRA 166
 People v. Edaño, G.R. No. 188133, 7 July 2014, 729 SCRA 255
 Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, 10 November 2014, 739 SCRA 337

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

II. RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Additional reading: Sec. 2, Article III, Constitution

Cases:
 World Wide Web Corp. v. People, G.R. No. 161106-266, 13 January 2014,
713 SCRA 18
 People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, 30 July 2014, 731 SCRA 427
 People v. Calantiao, G.R. No. 203984, 18 June 2014, 727 SCRA 20
 Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, 29 February 212, 667 SCRA 421

III. 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. x x x (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.

See also: 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).

See also:
 Riley v. California, June 25, 2014
  U.S. v. Graham, August 05, 2015

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.

See also:
 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.

A. Not covered

Cases
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

B. Exclusionary Rule

Cases
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

IV. 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.

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

 Clear and Present Danger Test
 Dangerous Tendency Test
 Balancing of Interest Test

State Regulation of Different Types of Mass Media

 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)
 Print Media

Note: 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)

Other matters to note:

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

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

Cases
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

A. Subsequent Punishment

Cases
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

B. Speech and the Electoral Process

Cases
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

C. Commercial Speech

Cases
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

D. Libel as Unprotected Speech

Cases
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

E. Obscenity as Unprotected Speech

Cases
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

F. Assembly and Petition

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

V. 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.
 A. The Purpose

B. Non-Establishment Clause

Cases
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

C. The Free Exercise of Religion

Tests
 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.
 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:
o Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise of
religion?
o Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of
religious liberty?
o 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)
 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.

Cases
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

D. No Religious Test

Cases
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

E. Ecclesiastical Matters

Cases
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

VI. 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.

See also:
 Article 13 (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 Article 12 (4) Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

A. Watch-list, Hold Departure, and Lookout Order

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

B. Return to One’s Country

Case
Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668

C. Liberty of Abode and the Right to Travel

Cases
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.

VII. 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.

Freedom of Information: 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.”

A. Right to Information

B. Scope of the Right

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

C. Limitation on the Right

Case
Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1988
In Re: Production of Court Records, 14 February 2012

Note: There is no right to information in the following

 National security matters and intelligence information
 Trade secrets and banking transactions
 Criminal matters
 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.

D. In General: Access to Court Records, Government Contract Negotiations, Diplomatic

Negotiations, and others

Cases
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

VIII. 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.

A. Scope

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

B. Right to Association

Cases
Occena v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404
UPCSU v. Laguesma – 286 SCRA 15
Bel-Air Village Association v. Dionisio, 174 SCRA 589
Padcom Condominium Association v. Ortigas Center Association, Inc, 382 SCRA 222

C. Government Employees and the Right to Strike

Cases
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

D. Membership in the Philippine Bar

In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 554

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

A. Expropriation in General

Cases
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)

B. Power to Undertake Expropriation Case

Cases
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
C. Rights of Owner Before Expropriation

Cases
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)

D. Elements of “Taking”

Cases
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
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

a. 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

b. 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
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

E. Judicial Review

Cases
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

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

Cases
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
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

XI. 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

 RA 6035: stenographers are required to give free transcript of stenographic notes to
indigent and low-income litigants.
 Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21
 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.
 Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Section 4: No docket or other lawful fees shall be required
for the filing of the petition.
 Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 4: No docket and other lawful fees are required
from indigent petitioner.

XII. 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. x x x (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. x x x (3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. x
x x (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

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

Cases
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

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

i. When to invoke
 Cases
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

ii. When presence of counsel is required

Cases
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

iii. Effective and vigilant counsel defined

Cases
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
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

iv. Independence

Case
People v. Porio, 376 SCRA 596

v. Competence

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

vi. Assistance after start of custodial investigation

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

vii. Valid confession with counsel

Cases
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

viii. Confession without counsel

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

ix. Failure to object to confession made without counsel

Cases
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

x. Right to be informed

Cases
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

i. Must Be in Writing and in the Presence of Counsel

Cases
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

ii. Must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent

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

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
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

VI. When Custodial Investigations May Not Apply

a. Preliminary investigation
People v. Judge Ayson - 175 SCRA 216
 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
III. RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Additional readings:
- Section 2(b)(i)(ii)(iii), AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Cases:
 Santos-Concio et al. v. DOJ Sec, G.R. No. 175057, 29 January 2008, 543
SCRA 70
 Borlongan v. Pena, G.R. No. 143591, 23 November 2007, 538 SCRA 221
 Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41, 21 January 2015, 748 SCRA 1
 Racho v. Miro, G.R. No. 168578, 30 September 2008, 567 SCRA 213
 Tolentino v. Paqueo, G.R. No. 150606, 7 June 2007, 523 SCRA 377
 Crespo v. Mogul, L-53373, 30 June 1987, 151 SCRA 462
 Baltazar v. People, G.R. No. 174016, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 278
 Chan v. DOJ Sec, G.R. No. 147065, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 337
 Villaflor v. Vivar, G.R. No. 134744, 16 January 2001, 349 SCRA 194
 San Agustin v. People, G.R. No. 158211, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 392
 Ladlad v. Velasco, G.R. No. 172070-72, 172074-76, 175013, 1 June 2007,
523 SCRA 318

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
OCA v. Sumulong, 271 SCRA 316

f. Police line-up

i. General rule

Cases
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)

ii. 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

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)

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

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

A. The Right to Bail

Cases
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
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

B. Waiver of the Right

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

C. Excessive Bail

Cases
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

D. Right to Bail of Military Personnel

Case
Commendador v. Gen. de Villa - 200 SCRA 80

E. Aspects of the Right to Bail

Cases
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

THE RIGHT TO BAIL

IV. RULE 114 – BAIL

 Additional readings:
- Sec. 13, Article III, Constitution
- Sec. 1-7, AM No. 12-11-2-SC, 1 May 2014
- Sec. 5, RA 10389 (“Recognizance Act”)
- RA 6036
- Sec. 10, AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Cases:
 San Miguel v. Maceda, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1749, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 205
 Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, 1 February 2000, 324 SCRA
321
 Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 179817, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 471
 Andres v. Beltran, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597, 20 August 2001, 363 SCRA 371
 Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010, 615 SCRA
619
 People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, 23 October 2006, 505 SCRA 573
 Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, 18 August 2015, 767 SCRA 282
 Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140842, 12 April 2007, 520 SCRA 729
 Esteban v. Alhambra, G.R. No. 135012, 7 September 2004, 437 SCRA 560

XIV. Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law. x x x (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.

A. Due Process

Cases
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

B. Military Tribunal

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

C. Presumption of Innocence

Cases
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

D. Right to Be Heard and to Production of Evidence

Cases
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

E. Right to Counsel

Cases
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
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

F. Absence of Violation

Cases
People v. Aquino, GR 129288, March 30, 2000
Villanueva v. People, GR 135098, April 12, 2000

G. Presence of Violation

Cases
People v. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490
Callangan v. People 493 SCRA 269

H. Right to Be Informed

Cases
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
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
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
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

I. Relationship

Cases
 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

J. Nature of Offense: Different Offense; Same Offense

Cases
People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97
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

K. Absence of Qualifying Circumstance

Cases
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
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

L. Difference of Commission of Crime

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

M. Number of Offenses

Cases
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

N. Date of Commission of Crime

Cases
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

O. No Violation

Cases
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
Torres v. People – 655 SCRA 720

P. Right to Speedy Trial

Cases
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

Q. Right to Impartial Trial

Cases
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

R. Impartiality of a Judge

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

S. Right to a Public Trial

Cases
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

T. Compulsory Process

Cases
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

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

 Cases
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

V. Trial in Absentia; Right to Be Present

Cases
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)

W. Admissibility of Evidence

Cases
People v. Morial, G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001
People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES AND CIVIL ACTION

V. RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

A. Institution of Criminal Actions (Section 1)

 People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 168641, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 742
 Panaguiton, Jr. v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, 25 November 2008, 571 SCRA 549
 Jadewell Parking Systems v. Lidua, G.R. No. 169588, 7 October 2013, 706
SCRA 724

B. Who must prosecute (Sections 5, 16)

 Piñote v. Ayco, AM No. RTJ-05-1944, 13 December 2005, 477 SCRA 409
 People v. Piccio, G.R. No. 193681, 6 August 2014, 732 SCRA 254
 People v. dela Cerna, G.R. No. 136899-904, 9 October 2002, 390 SCRA 538
 People v. Go, G.R. No. 201644, 24 September 2014, 736 SCRA 501

C. Complaint and Information (Sections 2-4, 6-13)

 People v. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222, 18 February 2015, 750 SCRA 677
 Lasoy, et al. v. Zeñarosa, G.R. No. 129472, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 360
 People v. Puig, G.R. No. 173654-765, 28 August 2008, 563 SCRA 564
 People v. Cederon, G.R. No. 167179, 28 January 2008, 542 SCRA 550
 People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 178325, 22 February 2008, 546 SCRA 514
 Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, 9 February 2007, 515 SCRA
302
 Senador v. People, G.R. No. 201620, 6 March 2013, 692 SCRA 669
 People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 160619, 9 September 2015, 770 SCRA
 162

D. Amendment/Substitution (Section 14)

 Buhat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119601, 17 December 1996, 265 SCRA
701
 Fronda-Baggao v. People, G.R. No. 151785, 10 December 2007, 539 SCRA
531
 Pacoy v. Hon. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 28 September 2007, 534 SCRA 338
 Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, 9 February 22007, 515 SCRA
302
 Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, 26 February 2009, 580 SCRA 279

E. Venue (Section 15)

 Macasaet v. People, G.R. No. 156747, 23 February 2005, 452 SCRA 255
 Bonifacio v. RTC, G.R. No. 184800, 5 May 2010, 620 SCRA 268
 Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, 17 November 2004, 442 SCRA 450
 Unionbank v. People, G.R. No. 192565, 28 February 2012, 667 SCRA 113
 Treñas v. People, G.R. No. 195002, 25 January 2012, 664 SCRA 355

VI. RULE 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

A. Sections 1-3; 5

B. Section 4, AM No. 15-06-10-SC

 Lee v. Chua, G.R. No. 181658, 7 August 2013, 703 SCRA 240
 Cancio v. Isip, G.R. No. 133978, 12 November 2002, 391 SCRA 393
 Ferrer v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161067, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 460
 Corpuz v. Siapno, AM MTJ-96-1106, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 83
 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, 29 August 2002, 388 SCRA 72
 Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, 28 January 2008, 542 SCRA 504
 Co v. Muñoz, G.R. No. 181986, 4 December 2013, 711 SCRA 508
 Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002, 388 SCRA 28

C. Prejudicial question – Sections 6-7

 Dreamwork v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, 30 June 2009, 591 SCRA 466
 First Producers Holdings Corp. v. Co, G.R. No. 139655, 27 July 2000, 336
SCRA 551
 San Miguel v. Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 4 September 2013, 705 SCRA 38
 Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, 13 September 2010, 630 SCRA 436
 Gaditano v. San Miguel Corp., G.R. No. 188767, 24 July 2013, 702 SCRA
191
 Reyes v. Rossi, G.R. No. 159823, 18 February 2013, 691 SCRA 57

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED, ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA, AND MOTION TO

QUASH

VII. RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Cases:
 Perez v. People, G.R. No. 164763, 12 February 2008, 544 SCRA 532
 Benares v. Lim, G.R. No. 173421, 14 December 2006, 511 SCRA 100
 People v. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, 12 April 2002, 381 SCRA 31
 People v. Teves, G.R. No. 141767, 2 April 2001, 356 SCRA 14
 People v. Musa, G.R. No. 170472, 3 July 2009, 591 SCRA 619
 Aquino v. Paiste, G.R. No. 147782, 25 June 2008, 555 SCRA 255
  People v. Serzo, G.R. No. 118435, 20 June 1997, 274 SCRA 553
 Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748, 23 July 2014, 730 SCRA 655

VIII. RULE 116 – ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

Additional reading:
- Sec. 8 (a)-(e), AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Cases:
 People v. Magat, G.R. No. 130026, 31 May 2000, 332 SCRA 517
 People v. Ulit, G.R. No. 131799-901, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 374
 Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 163972-77, 28 March 2008, 550 SCRA 233

IX. RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH

Cases:

 Antone v. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, 8 December 2010, 637 SCRA 615
 People v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 166510, 23 July 2008, 559 SCRA 492
 Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166062, 26 September 2006, 503 SCRA
252
 People v. Laggui, G.R. No. 76262-63, 16 March 1989, 171 SCRA 305
 People v. Honrales, G.R. No. 182651, 182657, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA
423
 Villalon v. Chan, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
 People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
 Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 350
 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, 22 September 2014, 735 SCRA 687
 Torres v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 164268, 28 June 2005, 461 SCRA 599
 Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, G.R. No. 183994, 30 June 2014, 727
SCRA 503
 Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010, 635 SCRA 191
 Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, 22 April 2009, 586 SCRA 303

PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL

X. RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH

Cases:

 Antone v. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, 8 December 2010, 637 SCRA 615
 People v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 166510, 23 July 2008, 559 SCRA 492
 Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166062, 26 September 2006, 503 SCRA
252
 People v. Laggui, G.R. No. 76262-63, 16 March 1989, 171 SCRA 305
 People v. Honrales, G.R. No. 182651, 182657, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA
423
 Villalon v. Chan, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
 People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
 Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 350
 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, 22 September 2014, 735 SCRA 687
 Torres v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 164268, 28 June 2005, 461 SCRA 599
 Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, G.R. No. 183994, 30 June 2014, 727
SCRA 503
 Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010, 635 SCRA 191
  Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, 22 April 2009, 586 SCRA 303

XI. RULE 118 – PRE-TRIAL

Additional reading:
- Sec. 8(f), AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Case:
 Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143689-91, 12 November 2002, 391
SCRA 415

XII. RULE 119 – TRIAL

Additional readings:
- Judicial Affidavit Rule
- Secs. 2(c), 2(d), 11-15, AM No. 15-06-10-SC
- Sec. 8-15, AM 12-11-2-SC, 1 May 2014
- Sec. 11-17, Rules on Summary Procedure

Cases:
1. Visbal v. Vanilla, AM No. MTJ-06-1651, 7 April 2009, 584 SCRA 11
2. People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
3. Cabador v. People, G.R. No. 186001, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 760
4. Salazar v. People, G.R. No. 151931, 23 September 2003, 411 SCRA 598
5. Cabarles v. Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, 20 February 2007, 516 SCRA 303
6. Go v. People, G.R. No. 185527, 18 July 2012, 677 SCRA 213
7. Ampatuan v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, 3 April 2013, 695 SCRA 159
8. Jimenez v. People, G.R. No. 209195, 17 September 2014, 735 SCRA 596

XV. 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.

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

A. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases

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

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

A. Right Against Self-Incrimination

Cases
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)
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
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

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

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

XIX. 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. x x x (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.

A. Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Punishment; Excessive Fines

Cases
 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

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

A. Imprisonment for Debt

Cases
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)

XXI. 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.

I. Dismissal at Preliminary Investigation; No Jeopardy

II. Attachment of jeopardy

Cases
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
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

III.Termination of Jeopardy; Existence; Non-Termination

Cases
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
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

IV. Rule on “Supervening Facts”

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

V. Same Offenses

Cases
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
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
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)

VI. No Appeal from Acquittal; Instances of Void Acquittal

Cases
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)

VII. Parties

Cases
Metrobank v. Meridiano, G.R. No. 118251, June 29, 2001
Ordinance and Statute
People v. Relova - 148 SCRA 292
VIII. Applied to Impeachment

Cases
Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001; See also Resolution
for Motion for Reconsideration at GR 146710-15 and 146738, April 3, 2001
People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.

JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES

XIII. RULE 120 – JUDGMENT

Additional reading:
Sec. 16, AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Cases:
 People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
 Rimando v. Aldaba, G.R. No. 203583, 13 October 2014, 738 SCRA 232
 Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 350
 Sevilla v. People, G.R. No. 194390, 13 August 2014, 732 SCRA 687

XIV. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES

- Rules 121-125; 127

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

A. Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder

Cases
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 [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
I. 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 (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Cases
Valles v. COMELEC, GR 137000, August 9, 2000
Ong Chia v. Republic, GR 127240, March 27, 2000

A. Children of Filipino fathers or mothers

Cases
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

B. Those Born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers

Cases
Co. v. Electoral Tribunal - 199 SCRA 692
Republic v. Sagun – 666 SCRA 321

C. Those Naturalized in Accordance with Law

Cases
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

D. Loss of Citizenship

Cases
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

E. No Collateral Attack

Case
Vilando v. HRET – 656 SCRA 17

II. 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.
 Cases
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

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

IV. 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.

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

See also: RA 9225 “An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizen who Acquire
Foreign Citizenship Permanent”

Case
AASJS-Calilung v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007

ARTICLE V – SUFFRAGE

I. 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.

II. 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. x x
x 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.

Cases
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

A. Special Registration Before General Elections

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

ARTICLE XIII – SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

I. 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. x x x To this end, the
 State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its
increments.

A. Policy to Remove Inequities

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

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

LABOR

III. 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. x x x 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. x x x 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. x x x 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.

Cases
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

IV. 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.

V. 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 support services.

VI. 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. x x x 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.

VII. 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.

VIII. 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.

Cases
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

IX. 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.

Cases
Dee v. CA, GR 108205, February 15, 2000
Reyes v. NHA, GR 147511, Jan. 20, 2003

X. 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. x x x
 No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate
consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.

Cases
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

XI. Section 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission
on Human Rights. x x x (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. x x x (3) Until
this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights
shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers. x x x (4) The approved
annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly
released.

Case
CHR Employees v. CHR 496 SCRA 226

XII. 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 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.

XIII. 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.

A. Powers of the Commission on Human Rights

Cases
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

I. 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.

A. Natural and Primary Right of Parents

Cases
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

B. Quality and accessibility of educational system

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

II. 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.

A. Duty of Institutions

Case
Miriam College v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000

III. Section 5. (1) the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and
conditions and shall encourage local planning in the development of educational
policies and programs. (2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of
higher learning. (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.

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

A. Academic freedom of “institutions of higher learning".

 Cases
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

IV. 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. x x x The
regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve
as auxiliary media of instruction therein. x x x Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted
on a voluntary and optional basis.

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

VI. 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

VII. 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.

VIII. 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.

IX. 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.

X. 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

XI. 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.

XII. 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.

XIII. 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.

XIV. 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.

XV. 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. x x x (2)
The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the arts and culture.

SPORTS

XVI. Section 19. (1) The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports
programs, 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. x x x (2) All educational institutions
shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in cooperation with
athletic clubs and other sectors.

ARTICLE XV – THE FAMILY

I. 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.

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

Case
Ronulo v. People GR No. 182483

III. 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.

IV. 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.