CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PART II

Syllabus, A.Y. 2021-2022

Professor: Atty. Alman-Najar L. Namla

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
1. Lozano v. Martinez, GR No. L-63419, December 18, 1986
2. DOH v. Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., G.R. No. 202943, March
25, 201
3. Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 221318, December
16, 2015
4. Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, 737 SCRA 145 (2014)
5. Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015
6. South Luzon Drug Corporation v. DSWD (including Dissent of Carpio and
Separate Opinion of Leonen)

D. The Seat of Police Power

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

E. Primacy of Human Rights

Cases
8. Republic v. Sandiganbayan GR 104768, July 21, 2003
9. Mijares v. Ranada, GR 139325, April 12, 2005
F. Hierarchy of Rights: Of Life, Liberty, and Property

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

G. Due Process: In General

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

a. Procedural due process; in general

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

b. Procedural due process; aspects of the proceedings

25. Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685
26. State Prosecutor v. Muros 236 SRCA 505
27. Martinez v. CA 237 SCRA 395
28. Espeleta v. Avelino 62 SCRA 395
29. Rabino v. Cruz 222 SCRA 493
30. Ysmael v. CA 273 SCRA 165
31. Carvajal v CA 280 SCRA 351
32. People v. Castillio 289 SCRA 213
33. Cosep v. PEO 290 SCRA 378
34. Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan GR 125498 Feb. 18, 1999
35. People v. Huli 338 SCRA 2000
36. People v. Cabiles 341 SCRA 2000
37. Gozum v. Liangco 339 SCRA 253
38. Soriano v. Angeles 339 SCRA 253
39. Villanueva v. Malaya 330 SCRA 278
40. Almendras v. Asis 330 SCRA 69
 41. Dayot v. Garcia 353 SCRA 280
42. People v. Hapa GR 125698 July 19, 2001
43. Aguirre v. people GR 144142 August 23, 2001
44. Puyat v. Zabarte 352 SCRA 738
45. Baritua v. Mercader 350 SCRA 86
46. Barbers v. Laguio 351 SCRA 606
47. People v. Herida 353 SCRA 650
48. People v. Medenilla GR 1311638 Mar. 26, 2001
49. People v. Rivera GR 139180 July. 31, 2001
50. People v. Basques GR 144035 Sept. 27, 2001
51. Cooperative Development v. DOLEFIL GR 137489 May 29, 2002
52. Garcia v. Pajaro GR 141149 July 5, 2002
53. Briaso v. Mariano, GR 137265, Jan. 31, 2003
54. Macias v. Macias GR 1461617, Sept. 3, 2003
55. Albior v. Auguis, AM P-01-1472, June 6, 2003
56. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR 152154, Nov. 18, 2003
57. Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 422 SCRA 649
58. People v. Larranaga, 412 SCRA 530
59. R. Transport v. Philhino 494 SCRA 630
60. Trans Middle East v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 308
61. Uy v. First Metro 503 SCRA 704
62. Deutsche Bank v. Chua 481 SCRA 672
63. People v. Santos 501 SCRA 325
64. Victoriano v. People 509 SCRA 483
65. Santos v. DOJ 543 SCRA 70
66. DBP v. Feston 545 SCRA 422
67. Ruivivar v. OMB 565 SCRA 324
68. Borromeo v. Garcia 546 SCRA 543
69. Cesar v. OMB 553 SCRA 357
70. DAR v. Samson 554 SCRA 500
71. Hilano v. People 551 SCRA 191
72. Pastona v. CA 559 SCRA 137
73. Bibas v. OMB 559 SCRA 591
74. Espina v. Cerujano 550 SCRA 107
75. Geronga v. Varela 546 SCRA 429
76. OMB v. Magno GR 178923, Nov. 27, 2008
77. Avenido v. CSC 553 SCRA 711
78. Romuladez v. COMELEC 553 SCRA 370
79. Multi-Trans Agency v. Oriental 590 SCRA 675
80. Siochi v. BPI 193872, October 18, 2011
81. Catacutan v. People 656 SCRA 524
82. Mortel v. Kerr 685 SCRA 1 (clear violation and errors of counsel)
83. Gravides v. COMELEC 685 SCRA 382 (error of counsel)
84. People v. Pagal, G.R. No. L-32040

c. Publicity and T.V. Coverage

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

JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

I. Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Courts

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

II. Regional Trial Courts

95. Sections 20, 22, 23, BP 129, as amended
96. Section 90, RA 9165
97. Section 5, RA 8369
98. AM No. 03-03-03-SC, 1 July 2003

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

IV. 100. Court of Tax Appeals

V. 101. Supreme Court

H. Administrative; Quasi-Judicial Proceedings; Arbitration

a. Due process in administrative proceedings; in general

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

a. Judges and the disciplinary process

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

b. Aspects of the proceedings

106. Lumiqued v. Exevea 282 SCRA 125
107. Fabella v. CA 282 SCRA 256
108. Joson v.Exec. Sec. 290 SCRA 279
 109. Busuego v. CA GR 95325 Mar. 11, 1999
110. CSC v. Lucas GR 127838 Jan. 21, 1999
111. NPC v. Bernabe 332 SCRA 74
112. Summary Dismissal v. Torcita 330 SCRA 153
113. Velayo v. Comelec 327 SCRA 713
114. Ramoran v. Jardine 326 SCRA 208
115. Immam v. Comelec 322 SCRA 866
116. Villarosa v. Comelec GR 133927 Nov. 29, 1999
117. Go v. Comelec GR 147741 May 10, 2001
118. Mollaneda v. Umacob R 140128 June 6, 2001
119. Cruz v. CSC GR 144469 Nov 27, 2001
120. Condilla v. De Venecia GR 150605 Dec 10, 2002
121. Associated Communication v. Dumlao GR 136762 Nov. 21, 2002
122. Velllarosa v. Pomperada, AdminCase No. 5310, Jan. 28, 2003
123. Alauya v. Comelec, GR 152151-52, Jan. 22, 2003
124. Spouses Casimiro v. CA 135911, Feb. 11, 2003
125. Sy v. CA, GR 147572, Feb. 27, 2003
126. Namil v. Comelec, GR 15040, Oct. 28, 2003
127. Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003
128. Office of OMB v. Coronel 493 SCRA 392
129. Erece v. Macalingay 552 SCRA 320
130. Marcelo v. Bungubung 552 SCRA 589
131. SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354
132. Calinisan v. Roaquin 630 456
133. IBP v. Atienza 613 SCRA 518
134. Domingo v. OMB 577 SCRA 476
135. Zambales v. Castellejos 581 SCRA 320
136. OMB v. Evangelista 581 SCRA 350
137. Phil Export v. Pearl City 608 SCRA 280
138. Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary 677 SCRA 408
139. Arroyo v. DOJ 681 SCRA 181

c. Extradition proceedings
140. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion 343 SCRA 377
141. Cuevas v. Munoz GR 140520 Dec. 18, 2000
142. Gov’t. of U.S.A v. Purganan GR 148571 Sept. 24, 2002
143. Rodriguez v. Presiding Judge, 483 SCRA 290
144. Gov’t. of Hong Kong v. Olalia, GR 153675 April 19, 2007

d. Arbitration
145. RCBC v. Banco de Oro 687 SCRA 583

I. Academic Discipline

a. In general
146. Angeles v. Sison 112 SCRA 26
 147. Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359
148. Guzman v. NU 142 SCRA 699
149. Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7
150. Non v. Judge Dames 185 SCRA 523
151. ADMU v. Capulong 222 SCRA 644
152. U.P. v. Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342
153. Go v. Colegio De San Juan de Letran 683 SCRA 358

J. Deportation Proceeding

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

K. Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession

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

b. Profession
160. Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31

L. Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement

a. Dismissals in government boards and commissions

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

b. Dismissals in private sector

171. Hellinic v. Siete 195 SCRA 179
172. Salaw v. NLRC 202 SCRA 7
173. Conti v. NLRC, GR 119253 April 10, 1997
174. Aparente v. NLRC, GR 117652
175. Lopez v. Alturas 647 SCRA 566
 c. Preventive suspension
176. Alonzo v. Capulong 244 SCRA 80
177. Castillio – Co v. Barbers 290 SCRA 717
178. Bacsasar v. CSC 576 SCRa 787
179. Carabeo v. CA 607 SCRA 390
180. Villasenor v. OMB, GR. No. 20230, 725 SCRA 230

d. Ordinance/status/memorandum circulars/rules
181. People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 136
182. Franscisco v. CA 199 SCRA 595
183. Misamis Or. V. DOF 238 SCRA 63
184. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan GR 148560 Nov. 19, 2001

e. Motion for reconsideration

185. Mendenilla v. CSC 194 SCRA 278
186. Mendenilla v. CSC 221 SCRA 295
187. Rodreguez v. Proj. 6 247 SCRA 528
188. Lazo v. CSC 236 SCRA 469
189. Salonga v. CA 269 SCRA 534
190. Bernardo v. CA 275 SCRA 413
191. Casuela v. Ombudsman 276 SCRA 635
192. Cordenillio v. Executive Secretary 276 SCRA 652
193. Chua v. CA 287 SCRA 33
194. De la Cruz v. Abelle 352 SCRA 691
195. Rodreguez v. CA GR 134275 August 7, 2002
196. Gonzales v. CSC 490 SCRA 741
197. Berboso v. CA 494 SCRA 583
198. Pontejos v. Desierto

M. Suretyship

Case
199. Stronghold Insurance v. CA 205 SCRA 605

N. Tariff and Customs Code

Case
200. Feeder v. CA 197 SCRA 842

O. Appeal

Cases
201. Alba v. Deputy Ombudsman 254 SCRA 753
202. Telan v. CA 202 SCRA 246
203. Rivera v. CSC 240 SCRA 43
204. Singson v. NLRC 274 SCRA 358
 205. Building Care v. Macaraeg 687 SCRA 643

P. Closure Proceedings

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

Q. Biddings

Case
209. Concerned Officials v. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502

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

Case
210. Perez v. Madrona, 668 SCRA 696

S. Cancellation of Property Rights and Privileges

Cases
211. American Inter-Fashion v. OP, 197 SCRA 409
212. Alliance of DFLO v. Laguesma, 254 SCRA 565
213. ABAKADA v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1
214. British American Tobacco v. Camacho 562 SCRA 511, 585 SCRA 36

T. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation; Ombudsman

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

U. Substantive Due Process

Cases
218. US v. Toribio – 15 Phil. 85
219. Churchill v. Rafferty – 32 Phil. 580
220. People v. Fajardo – 104 Phil. 443
221. Ermita-Malate Hotel & Operator v. City of Manila – 20 SCRA 849
222. Ynot v. Intermediate Court of Appeals – 148 SCRA 659
223. Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195
224. Balacuit v. CFI – 163 SCRA 182
225. National Development Co. and New Agrix v. Phil. Vet. Bank – 192 SCRA
257
 226. Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC – 238 SCRA 190
227. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties – 234 SCRA 255
228. Bennis v. Michigan – No. 94-8729 March 4, 1996
229. Cruzan v. Dir. Missouri – No. 88-1503 June 25 1990
230. JMM Promotion and Management Inc. v. CA – 260 SCRA 319
231. Corona v. United Harbor – 283 SCRA 31
232. Kelly v. Johnson – 425 US 238
233. Chavez v. Romulo – 431 SCRA 534 (2004)
234. Cruz v. Flavier, GR 135385, December 6, 2000
235. Smith Kline v. CA, GR 121267, October 23, 2001
236. Pareno v. COA 523 SCRA 390
237. Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag 529 SCRA 654
238. BF v. City Mayor 515 SCRA 1
239. St. Luke’s v. NLRC 517 SCRA 677
240. Carlos v. DSWD 526 SCRA 130
241. Perez v. LPG 531 SCRA 431
242. MMDA v. Viron 530 SCRA 341
243. Sec. of DND v. Manalo 568 SCRA 42 (Amparo)
244. SJS v. DDB 570 SCRA 410
245. SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92
246. SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354
247. People v. Siton 600 SCRA 476
248. White Light v. City of Manila 576 SCRA 416
249. CREBA v. Romulo 614 SCRA 605
250. Southern Hemisphere v. ATC 632 SCRA 146
251. Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo 630 SCRA 211
252. Meralco v. Lim 632 SCRA 195
253. Pollo v. Karina Constantino. GR 181881, October 8, 2011
254. 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
255. People v. Cayat – 68 PHIL. 12, 18
256. Ichong v. Hernandez – 101 PHIL. 1155
257. Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho – 86 SCRA 270
258. Dumlao v. COMELEC – 96 SCRA 392
259. Goesart v. Cleary - 335 US 464
260. Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City – Feb. 7, 1968
261. Sison, Jr. v. PAGCOR – May 14, 1991
262. Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 230 SCRA 711
263. Himagan v. People – 237 SCRA 538
264. Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286
265. Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337
266. Tiu v. CA – GR 127410 Jan. 20, 1999
267. Aguinaldo v. COMELEC – GR 132774 June 21, 1999
268. De Guzman v. COMELEC – 336 SCRA
269. People v. Mercado – GR 116239, Nov. 29, 2000
270. People v. Jalosjos – 324 SCRA 689
271. People v. Piedra – 350 SCRA 163
272. International School v. Quisumbing – June 1, 2000
273. Central Bank Employees Assn. v. BSP – 446 SCRA 299
274. Ycasuegi v. PAL 569 SCRA 467
275. SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92
276. Gobenciong v. CA 550 SCRA 302
277. MIAA v. Olongapo 543 SCRA 269
278. Nicolas v. Romulo 578 SCRA 438
279. League of Cities v. COMELEC 608 SCRA 636
280. Quinto v. COMELEC 613 SCRA 385
281. CREBA v. Romulo 614 SCRA 605 (supra)
282. NPC v. Pinatubo 616 SCRA 611
283. Biraogo v. PTC 637 SCRA 78
284. League v. COMELEC 643 SCRA 149
285. PAGCOR v. BIR 645 SCRA 338
286. Gancayco v. Quezon City 658 SCRA 853
287. Mendoza v. People, GR 183891, October 19, 2011
288. Bureau of Customs v. Teves, GR 181704, December 6, 2011
289. Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary (supra)
290. Alvez v. People 677 SCRA 673
291. Garcia v. People 677 SCRA 750
292. Arroyo v. DOJ
293. Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245
 294. 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
295. Moncada v. People’s Court, 80 PHIL 1
296. Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
297. People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57
298. Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC, GR 113271, Oct 16, 1997
299. People v. Mendoza, GR 109279, Jan 18, 1999
300. People v. Bongcarawan, GR 143944, July 11, 2002

C. Requisites for a Valid Warrant

a. Probable cause
a. Definition

Case
301. Henry v. US, 361 US 98

1. For arrest

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

2. For search

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

b. Who determines probable cause?

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

c. Kind of evidence needed to establish probable cause

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

d. In general

Cases
310. Nala v. Barroso, GR 153087 Aug. 7, 2003
311. Betoy v. Judge AM NO. MJJ-05-1108, Feb 26, 2006
312. 20th Century Fox v. CA, 162 SCRA 655
313. Columbia Pictures v. CA, 262 SCRA 219

b. Personally determined by the judge

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

c. Personal examination (after examination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce)
321. Bache & Co. v Ruiz – 37 SCRA 823
322. Soliven v. Makasiar, GR 8287, Nov. 14 1981
323. Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310
324. Kho v. Judge Makalintal, GR 94902-06, April 21, 1999
325. Alvarez v. Court, 64 Phil 33
326. Bache v. Cruz, 37 SCRA 823
327. Borlongan v. Pena, GR 143591, Nov. 23, 2007
328. People v. Mamaril, GR 147607, Jan 22 2004
329. Ortiz v. Palaypayon – 234 SCRA 391

d. Particularity of description
330. People v. Veloso 48 Phil 169
331. Alvarez v. CFI – 64 Phil. 33
332. Corro v. Lising – 137 SCRA 541
333. Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988)
334. Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)
335. People v. Martinez – 235 SCRA 171
336. Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp (2004)
337. Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP 133 SCRA 890
 338. Frank Uy v. BIR , 344 SCRA 36
339. Yousex Al-Ghoul v. CA GR 126859 Sept. 4 , 2001
340. People v. CA – 291 SCRA 400
341. Paper Industries v. Asuncion, GR 122092 May 19, 1998
342. Malalaon v. CA, 232 SCRA 249
343. People v. Estrada – GR 124461, June 26, 2000

e. Only a judge may issue a warrant

344. Salazar v. Achcoso, 183 SCRA 145
345. Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438
346. Morano v. Vivo, 80 SCRA 562
347. Sy v. Domingo
348. Tron Van Nyhia v. Liway, 175 SCRA 318
349. Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La Rosa, 197 SCRA 853
350. Harvey v. Santiago 162 SCRA 840
351. 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. 352. (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
353. Material Distributions v. Judge, 84 Phil 127 (1989)
354. Oklahoma Press v. Walling, 327 US 186
355. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 ( 1967)

E. Warrantless Searches and Seizures

a. General rule: get a search warrant

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

b. When is a search a “search”?

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

c. No presumption of regularity in search cases

362. People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003
363. Sony Music v. Judge Espanol, GR 156804, March 14, 2005
 d. Instances of warrantless searches and seizures
364. People v. Sevilla, 229 SCRA 625

i. Incidental to a lawful arrest

365. 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.

366. Padilla v. CA, GR 121917 March 12, 1997

367. Espano v. CA 288 SCRA 558 (1998)
368. People v. De Lara – 236 SCRA 291
369. People v. Leangsiri – 252 SCRA 213
370. People v. Cuenco – GR 128277, Nov. 16, 1998
371. People v. Che Chun Ting – 328 SCRA 592
372. 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

373. People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 413

374. People v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144 (1993)
375. Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
376. United Laboratories v. Isip – GR 163858 (June 28, 2005)
377. People v. Doria – GR 125299, Jan. 22, 1999
378. 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.)
379. Hizon v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517 (1996)
380. Bagalihog v. Fernandez – 198 SCRA 614
381. Aniag, Jr v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
382. People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402
383. People v. Malmstedt, GR 91107, June 19, 1991
384. People v. Lo Ho Wing, GR 88017, Jan 21, 1991
385. People v. Saycon – 236 SCRA 329
386. People v. CFI – 101 SCRA 86
387. People v. Barros – 231 SCRA 557
 388. Mustang Lumber v. CA – 257 SCRA 430
389. People v. Lacerna – 278 SCRA 561
389. -A Abenes v. CA, GR 156320, 14 Feb 2007 (Checkpoints)

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.

390. De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 PHIL 689

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

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

vi. Stop and frisk situation

409. 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.”
 410. 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.”

411. Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1

412. Posadas v. CA, GR NO. 89139, August 2, 1990
413. People v. Solayao 202 SCRA 255 (1996)
414. Malacat v. CA 283 SCRA 159 (1997)
415. Manalili v. CA, GR 113447, October 7, 1997
416. People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)
417. People v. Sy Chua, GR 136066, February 4, 2003
418. People V. Victor Cogaed Y Romana, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014

vii. Exigent and emergency circumstances

419. 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.

420. 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.”

421. 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

422. 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
423. People v. De La Cruz, GR 83260, April 18, 1990
424. People v. Doria, GR 125299, January 22, 1999
425. Espiritu v. Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991
426. Umil v. Fidel Ramos, GR 81567, July 9, 1990
427. People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388
428. People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791
429. People v. Yap, 229 SCRA 787
430. People v. Alolod, 266 SCRA 154
431. People v. Mengote – 210 SCRA 174
432. People v. Elamparo – 329 SCRA
433. 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.

434. Go v. CA – 206 SCRA 138

435. People v. Manlulu, 231 SCRA 701 (1994)
436. People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992)
437. People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586
438. People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997)
439. People v. Del Rosario, GR 127755, April 14, 1999
440. People Samus, GR 135957, April 14, 1999
441. People v. Cubcubin, GR 136267, October 2, 2001
442. People v. Gorente, 219 SCRA 756
443. Padilla v. CA, GR 121917, March 12, 1997
444. People v. Burgos – 144 SCRA 1
445. People v. Sucro – 195 SCRA 388
446. People v. Briones – 202 SCRA 708
447. People v. Sequino – 264 SCRA 79
448. People v. Nazareno – 260 SCRA 256
 449. People v. Mahusay – 282 SCRA 80
450. People v. Alvario – 275 SCRA 529
451. Larranaga v. CA – 287 SCRA 521
452. People v. Olivarez – GR 77865, Dec. 4, 1998
453. Cadua v. CA – 312 SCRA 703
454. People v. Cubcubin – 360 SCRA
455. People v. Compacion – 361 SCRA 540
456. Posadas v. Ombudsman – 341 SCRA
457. People v. Acol – 232 SCRA 406

c. Escaped prisoner

d. Waiver

e. Procedural rules
458. People v. Rabang – 187 SCRA 682
459. People v. Lopez – 246 SCRA 95
460. Velasco v. CA – 245 SCRA 677
461. People v. Buluran – 325 SCRA 476

ARREST

I. 462. RULE 113 – ARREST

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

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

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

471. RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Additional reading: 472. Sec. 2, Article III, Constitution

Additional reading: NEW RULES ON SEARCH WARRANT (BODY-WORN
CAMERAS)

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

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.

478. See also: Disini v. The Secretary of Justice, GR No. 203335, February
11, 2014

Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects.

479. 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:
 480. Riley v. California, June 25, 2014
481. U.S. v. Graham, August 05, 2015

Factors to Determine Violation of the Right to Privacy

482. 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:
483. Briccio Pollo v. Chairperson Karina David, GR 181881, October 18,
2011
484. 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.
485. Synhumliong v. Rivera, GR 200841, June 4, 2014

RA No. 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Law

486. Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590: “Private communication” in Section 1
of RA 4200 is deemed to include “private conversations.”

487. 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
488. Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188
489. In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382
490. People v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123
491. Dr. Lee v. P/Supt. Ilagan, GR No. 203254, October 08, 2014
492. Gamboa v. P/Supt. Chan, GR No. 193636, July 24, 2012

B. Exclusionary Rule
 Cases
493. Gaanan v. IAC – 145 SCRA 112
494. Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA – 235 SCRA 111
495. Zulueta v. CA – 253 SCRA 699
496. Ople v. Torres – 293 SCRA 141
497. Waterous Drug Corp v. NLRC, GR 113271, October 16, 1997
498. People v. Marti – 193 SCRA 57
499. 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.

500. 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.
500. 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. (501. 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 (502. Chavez v. Gonzales)

A. Prior Restraint

503. Near v. Minnesota – 238 US 697

504. Freedman v. Maryland – 380 US 51
505. New York Times Co. v. US – 403 US 713
506. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – GR 115444, Oct. 30, 1995
507. Alexander v. US – 113 S. Ct. 2766, 125 L. Ed. 2d. 441
508. INC v. CA, 259 SCRA 529 (1996)
509. SWS v. COMELEC, GR 147571, May 5, 2001
510. Chavez v. Gonzales, GR 168338, February 15, 2008
511. Newsounds Broadcasting v. Dy, GR 170270 and 179411, April 2, 2009
512. MTRCB v. ABS-CBN, GR 155282, January 17, 2005
 513. Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, AM No. 01-4-
03-SC, June 29, 2001
514. Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785, April 29, 2009
515. The Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, GR No. 205728, 747 SCRA 1, Jan
21, 2015
516. GMA Network, Inc. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014
517. Davao City Water District v. Aranjuez, G.R. No. 194192, June 16, 2015
518. 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206020,
April 14, 2015
519. Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7,
2015

B. Subsequent Punishment

520. People v. Perez – 45 Phil. 599

521. Espiritu v. General Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991
522. Dennis v. US – 341 US 494
523. Gonzales v. COMELEC – 27 SCRA 835
524. Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr. – 137 SCRA 628
525. Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. V. Judge Capulong – 160 SCRA 865
526. Kelley v. Johnson – 425 US 238
527. Brandenburg v. Ohio – 395 US 444
528. Miriam College Foundation v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000

C. Speech and the Electoral Process

529. Sanidad v. COMELEC – 181 SCRA 529

530. National Press Club v. COMELEC – 207 SCRA 1
531. Adiong v. COMELEC – March 31, 1992
532. Osmena v. COMELEC – 288 SCRA 447
533. ABS-CBN v. COMELEC – 323 SCRA 811
534. SWS v. COMELEC – 357 SCRA 496
535. Penera v. COMELEC, GR 181613, November 25, 2009

D. Commercial Speech

536. Rubin v. Coors Brewing – 131 L. Ed. 2d 532

537. Cincinnati v. Discovery Network – 123 L. Ed. 2d 99
538. Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 US
557
539. Pharmaceutical v. Secretary of Health, GR 173034, October 9, 2007
540. City of Laduc v. Gilleo – 129 L. Ed. 2d 36
541. Disini v. Secretary of Justice, GR No. 203335, 2014

E. Libel as Unprotected Speech

 542. Policarpio v. Manila Times – 5 SCRA 148
543. Lopez v. CA – 34 SCRA 116
544. New York Times Co. c. Sullivan – 376 US 254
545. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. – 403 US 254
546. Gerts v. Robert Wlech – 418 US 323
547. Hustler v. Magazine – 485 US 46
548. In Re Jurado AM No. 90-5-2373, 4 LR 19 Aug’09
549. In Re Jurado – 243 SCRA 299
550. Vasquez v. CA – GR 118971 Sept. 15, 1999
551. Borjal v. CA – GR. 126466 Jan. 14, 1999
552. Vicario v. CA – GR 124491 June 1, 1999
553. Pader v. People – 325 SCRA 117
554. Fermin v. People, GR 157643, March 28, 2008
555. Jalandoni v. Drilon, 327 SCRA 107
556. Arafiles v. Philippine Journalists, Inc 426 SCRA 336
557. Baguio Midland Courier v CA 444 SCRA 38
558. Disini v. Secretary of Justice, GR No. 203335, 18 February 2014
559. People v. Santos, Maria Ressa, Rappler
560. Velasco v. Causing A.C. No. 12883

F. Obscenity as Unprotected Speech

561. Miller v California, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419

562. Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak 137 SCRA 717
563. Pita v CA, 178 SCRA 362
564. Barnes v Glen Theater, 498 US 439
565. FCC v Pacifica Foundation 438 SCRA 726
566. Renton v Playtime Theater 475 US 41
567. Bethel School District v Fraser 478 US 675
568. Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier 484 US 260
569. Fernando v CA 510 SCRA 351
570. Madrilejos v Gatdula GR 184389, 24 September 2019

G. Assembly and Petition

571. Navarro v. Villegas – 31 SCRA 73

572. PBM Employees v. PBM – 51 SCRA 189
573. JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing – 125 SCRA 553
574. PCIB v. Philnabank Employees, 105 SCRA 314
575. Malabanan v. Ramento – 129 SCRA 359
576. De la Cruz v. CA, GR 126183, March 25, 1999
577. Bangalisan v. CA, GR 124678, July 23, 1997
578. Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233
579. BAYAN v. Ermita – GR 169838, April 25, 2006
580. GSIS v. Kapisanan, GR 170132, December 6, 2006
581. In Re Valmonte, 296 SCRA
 582. In Re Petition to Annul 98-7-02 SC
583. Pader v People GR No. 139157, 8 February 2000
584. Davao City v Aranjuez 758 SCRA 235

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

585. Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201

586. Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
587. School District v. Schempp, 394 RS 203
588. Board of Education v. Allen, 392 US 236
589. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
590. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672
591. Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 57 LW 504
592. Zobrest v. Catalina, No. 92-94 June 18, 1993
593. Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinetter & Ku Klus Klan, US No. 94-780,
June 29, 1995
594. Lee v. Welsman, US No. 90-1014, June 24, 1992
595. Manosca v. CA, 252 SCRA 412
596. Islamic Dawah v. ES, GR 153888, July 9, 2003
597. Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
598. UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92
599. Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014
600. Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, 7 March 2017

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? 599. 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.

600. Victoriano v. Elizalde, 59 SCRA 94

601. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296
602. US v. Ballard – 322 US 78
603. American Bible Society v. City of Manila – 104 Phil. 386
604. Ebranilag v. Divison Superintendent – 219 SCRA 256; (MR) 251 SCRA
605. Wisconsin v. Yoder – 406 US 205
606. Goldman v. Weinberger – 54 LW 4298
607. German v. Baranganan – 135 SCRA 514
608. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – 249 SCRA 628
609. Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos – 236 SCRA 197
610. Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeach – No. 91-948, June 11, 1993
611. Lamb’s Chapel v. School Disctrict – No.91-2024, June 7, 1993
612. In re Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Court of Iligan City,
477 SCRA 648
613. Estrada v. Escritor – AM P-021651, August 4, 2003 (Compelling State
Interest Test)
614. Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014
615. Long v Basa, GR No. 134963-64, 27 September 2001
616. INC v CA, 259 SCRA 529
617. In re Request Muslim Employees, 477 SCRA 648
618. Iglesia Filipino Independiente v Heirs of Taezo, GR No. 179592, 3
February 2014
619. Romulo v People 728 SCRA 675
620. Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC GR No. 205728, 21 January 2015
621. Perfecto v Esidra, 763 SCRA 323

D. No Religious Test

622. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 SCRA 488

623. Pamil v. Teleron – 86 SCRA 413
624. McDaniel v. Paty – 435 US 618
625. Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010

E. Ecclesiastical Matters

626. Austria v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 293

627. Long and Almeria v. Basa, GR 134963, September 7, 2001
 628. Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
629. 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:
630. Article 13 (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights
631. Article 12 (4) Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

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

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

633. Garcia v Sandiganbayan, GR No. 205904-06, 17 October 2018
634. Genuino v De Lima, GR No. 197930, 17 April 2018

B. Return to One’s Country

635. Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668

C. Liberty of Abode and the Right to Travel

636. Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778

637. Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
638. Silverio v. CA – 195 SCRA 760
639. Santiago v. Vasquez – 217 SCRA 633
640. Marcos v. Sandiganbayan – 247 SCRA 127
641. Yap v. CA, GR 141529, June 6, 2001
642. Mirasol v DPWH, 490 SCRA 318
643. OAS v. Judge Macarine, 677 SCRA 1
644. Republic v. Roque GR No. 204603, 24 September 2013
645. Spark v Quezon City, GR No. 225442, 8 August 2017
646. Zabal v President Duterte, 12 February 2019

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

C. Limitation on the Right

Case
648. Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1988
649. 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
650. Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530
651. Bantay Republic Act v. COMELEC, GR 177271, May 4, 2007
652. Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256
653. Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 SCRA 515
654. Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, GR 132601, Oct. 12, 1988
655. Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR 140835, August 14, 2000
656. RE: Request for Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 248
657. RE: Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 62
658. Hilado v. Reyes, 496 SCRA 282 (Access to Court Records)
 659. Sabio v. Gordon, 504 SCRA 704
660. Bantay v. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 1
661. Berdin v. Mascarinas, 526 SCRA 592
662. Chang v. NHA, 530 SCRA 335
663. Senate v. Ermita – GR 169777, April 20, 2006
664. Suplico v. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008
665. Neri v. Senate – GR 180643, March 25, 2008; MR Sept. 4, 2008
666. Akbayan v. Aquino – GR 170516, July 16, 2008
667. Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, 568 SCRA 402
668. Guingona v. COMELEC, 620 SCRA 448
669. Antolin v. Domondon, 623 SCRA 163
670. Center for People v. COMELEC, 631 SCRA 41
671. Francisco v. TRB, 633 SCRA 470
672. Initiatives v. PSALM, 682 SCRA 602
673. Belgica v. Executive Secretary, GR 208566, November 19, 2013
674. 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
675. Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 137 SCRA 42

B. Right to Association

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

C. Government Employees and the Right to Strike

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

D. Membership in the Philippine Bar

685. 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
686. Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, March 14, 2000
687. NHA v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, GR 15441, June 19, 2003
688. Mactan v. Lozada, 613 SCRA 618 (Reversion)
689. Vda De Ouna v. Republic, 642 SCRA 384 (Reversion)
690. MORE v. PECO (include dissent of Javier on Bill of Attainder)

B. Power to Undertake Expropriation Case

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

C. Rights of Owner Before Expropriation

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

D. Elements of “Taking”

Cases
700. Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi – 58 SCRA 336
701. Garcia v. CA – 102 SCRA 597
702. City of Government v. Judge Ericta – 122 SCRA 759
703. US v. Causby – 328 US 256
704. People v. Fajardo – 104 Phil 443
705. Republic v. PLDT – 26 SCRA 620
706. NPC v. Jocson – 206 SCRA 520
707. Penn Central Transportation v. NY City 438 US 104
708. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto – 467 US 986
709. NPC v. Manubay – 437 SCRA 60
710. NPC v. San Pedro – 503 SCRA 333
711. NPC v. Tianco – 514 SCRA 674
712. LBP v. Imperial – 515 SCRA 449
 713. NCP v. Bongbong – 520 SCRA 290
714. Tan v. Republic - 423 SCRA 203
715. NPC v. Ibrahim – 526 SCRA 149
716. NPC v. Purefoods – 565 SCRa 17
717. NPC v. Capin – 569 SCRA 648
718. PNOC v. Maglasang – 570 SCRA 560 (lease not basis for taking)
719. NPC v. CO – 578 SCRa 243
720. NPC v. Villamor - 590 SCRA 11
721. NPC v. Maruhom – 609 SCRA 198
722. OSG v. Ayala – 600 SCRA 617 (free parking spaces in malls)
723. NPC v. Tuazon – 653 SCRA 84

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

b. Just Compensation
737. City of Manila v. Estrada – 25 Phil 208
738. Manila Railroad v. Paredes – 31 Phil. 118
739. Santos v. Land Bank – GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000
740. Municipality of Daet v. CA – 129 SCRA 665
741. NPC v. CA – 129 SCRA 665
742. EPZA v. Dulay – 149 SCRA 305
743. Maddumba v. GSIS – 182 SCRA 281
744. Berkenkotter v. CA – 216 SCRA 584
745. Meralco v. Pineda – 206 SCRA 196
746. NPC v. CA – 254 SCRA 577
747. Land Bank v. CA – 249 SCRA 149; (MR) 258 SCRA 404
748. Panes v. VISCA – 264 SCRA 708
749. Republic v. CA – 263 SCRA 758
750. NPC v. Henson – GR 129998, December 29 1998
751. Santos v. Landbank, GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000
752. Sigre v. Ca, GR 109568, Aug. 8 2002
753. NHA v. Heirs of Isidro, GR 154411, June 19 2001
 754. Mactan v. Urgello – 520 SCRA 515
755. San Roque v. Republic – 532 SCRA 493
756. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Peralta, G.R. No. 182704, April 23, 2014
757. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Eusebio, Jr., G.R. No. 160143, July 2,
2014
758. Department of Agrarian Reform v. Sta., G.R. No. 183290, July 9, 2014
759. Department of Agrarian Reform v. Beriña, G.R. Nos. 183901 & 183931
760. Department of Agrarian Reform v. Susie Irene Galle, G.R. No.
171836,August 11, 2014

E. Judicial Review

Cases
761. De Knecht v. Bautista – 100 SCRA 660
762. Manotoc v. NHA – 150 SCRA 89
763. Republic v. De Knecht – 182 SCRA 141
764. Militante v. CA, GR 107040, April 12, 2000
765. 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
766. Clemens v. Nolting, 42 Phil 702, 1922
767. Home Building and Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell – 290 US 398
768. Rutter v. Esteban – 93 Phil. 68
769. Del Rosario v. De los Santos – L-20589-90
770. Abella v. NLRC – 152 SCRA 140
771. Phil. Vet. Bank Employees v. Phil. Vet. Bank – 189 SCRA 14
772. Presley v. Bel-Air Village Association – 201 SCRA 13
773. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – 235 SCRA 630
774. Siska Development v. Office of the President – 231 SCRA 674
775. Miners Association v. Factoran – 240 SCRA 100
776. Juarez v. CA – 214 SCRA 475
777. FPIB v. CA – 252 SCRA 259
778. CMMA v. POEA – 243 SCRA 666
779. PNB v. O.P. – 252 SCRA 5
780. Eugenio v. Drilon – 252 SCRA 106
781. Meralco v. Province of Laguna – 306 SCRA 750
782. Lim v. Pacquing – 240 SCRA 649
783. Ortigas v. Feati Bank – 94 SCRA 533
784. Juarez v. CA – 214 SCRA 475
785. FPIB v. CA – 252 SCRA 259
786. CMMA v. POEA – 243 SCRA 106
787. JMM v. CA – (supra)
788. PNB v. OP – 252 SCRA 5
789. Eugenio v. Drilon – 252 SCRA 106
 790. JMM v. CA – (supra Substantive)
791. C & M Timber v. Alcala – 273 SCRA 402
792. Republic v. Agana – 2269 SCRA 1
793. Producers v. NLRC – GR 118069, November 16, 1998
794. Blaquera v. Alcala – GR109406, September 11, 1998
795. Philreca v. Sec. of DILG, GR 1543076, June 10, 2003
796. Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corp. 426 SCRA 517
797. Chavez v. COMELEC – 437 SCRA 415
798. Alvarez v. PICOP - 508 SCRA 498
799. Lepanto v. WMC – 507 SCRA 315
800. Republic v. Caguioa – 536 SCRA 193
801. Land Bank v. Republic – 543 SCRA 453
802. Serrano v. Gallant – 582 SCRA 254
803. Alvarez v. PICOP – 606 SCRA 444
804. Surigao v. ERC - 632 SCRA 96
805. 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.
 805. 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
806. People Pavillare, GR 129970, April 5, 2000
807. People v. Bandula - 232 SCRA 566
808. Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
809. Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000
810. OCA v. Sumulong, 271 SCRA 316
811. People v. Almanzor, GR 124918, July 11, 2002 (no need
for counsel)
812. People v. Valdez, GR 129296, September 25, 2000
813. People v. Marra - 236 SCRA 565
814. People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999
815. Manuel v. NC Construction – 282 SCRA 326
816. People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
817. *People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
818. People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611
819. People v. Andan – 269 SCRA 95
820. People v. Artellero, GR 129211, October 2, 2000
821. People v. De Jesus – 213 SCRA 345
822. People v. Legaspi, GR 117802, April 27, 2000

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

II. Instances of Custodial Investigations

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

III. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations

a. Procedural Requirements
831. Miranda v. Arizona- 384 US 436
832. People v. Mahinay – GR 122485 February 1, 1999
833. People v. Camat - 256 SCRA 52
b. Duty of an officer during custodial investigation
834. People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
835. People v. Salcedo – 273 SCRA 473

c. When the rights of custodial investigation may be invoked

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

d. The right to remain silent

839. People v. Bandin – 226 SCRA 299
840. People v. Lacbanes – 270 SCRA 193
841. People v. Morico – 246 SCRA 214
842. People v. Ang Chun Kit – 251 SCRA 660
843. People v. De Las Marinas – 196 SCRA 504
844. People v. Castro – 274 SCRA 115
845. People v. Enriquez – 204 SCRA 674
846. People v. De Castro, G.R. No. 171672

e. The right to counsel

i. When to invoke

Cases
847. People v. Sunga, GR 126029, Mar. 29, 2003
848. People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999
849. People v. Sapal, GR 124526, March 17, 2000
850. People v. Lamsing - 248 SCRA 471
851. People v. Maqueda - 242 SCRA 565
852. People v. Macam – 238 SCRA 306
853. People v. De Jesus – 213 SCRA 345
854. People v. Dimaano – 209 SCRA 819
855. People v. Compil - 244 SCRA 135
856. People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47

ii. When presence of counsel is required

Cases
857. People v. Rodriguez - 232 SCRA 227
858. Estacio v. Sandiganbayan – 183 SCRA 12
859. People v. Bandula - 232 SCRA 566
860. People v. Isla- 278 SCRA 47
861. People v. Jimenez - 204 SCRA 719
862. People v. Cortes, 323 SCRA 131
863. People v. Rous - 242 SCRA 732
864. People v. Espanola – 271 SCRA 689
865. People v.Zuela, 325 SCRA 589
866. People v. Macabalang 508 SCRA 282
867. Almendras, Jr. v. Almendras, GR No. 179491, 2015

iii. Effective and vigilant counsel defined

Cases
868. People v. Sunga, GR 126029, March 27, 2003
869. People v. Velarde, GR 139333, July 18, 2002
870. People v. Culala, GR 83466, October 13, 1999
871. People v. Gerolago – 263 SCRA 143
872. People v. Paule – 261 SCRA 649
873. People v. Delmo, GR 130078, Oct. 4, 2002
874. People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
875. People v. Lucero - 249 SCRA 425
876. People v. Espanola – 271 SCRA 689
877. People v. Bacor – GR 122895 April 30, 1999
878. People v. Sahagun – 274 SCRA 208
879. People v. Taliman, GR 109143, October 11, 2000
880. People v. Espiritu – GR 128287 February 2, 1999
881. People v. Barasina - 229 SCRA 450
882. People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122
883. People v. Suarez – 267 SCRA 119
884. People v. Parojinog - 203 SCRA 673
885. People v. Baello – 224 SCRA 218
886. Galman v. Pamaran – 138 SCRA 295
887. People v. Jerez – 285 SCRA 393
888. People v. Ranis, GR 129113, Sept. 17, 2002
889. People v. Dumalahay, 380 SCRA 37
890. People v. Pamon – 217 SCRA 501
891. People v. Cabiles – 284 SCRA 199
892. People v. Gallardo, 323 SCRA 318
893. People v. Base, GR 109773, March 30, 2000
894. People v. Obrero, GR 122142, May 17, 2000
895. Cariaga v. People – 626 SCRA 231

iv. Independence

Case
896. People v. Porio, 376 SCRA 596

v. Competence

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

vi. Assistance after start of custodial investigation

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

vii. Valid confession with counsel

Cases
901. People v. Tablon, 379 SCRA 280
902. People v. Principe, GR 135862, May 2, 2002
903. People v. Oranza, GR 127748, July 25, 2002
904. People v. Canicula, GR 131802, Aug. 6, 2002

viii. Confession without counsel

Cases
905. People v. Casimiro, GR 146277, June 20, 2002
906. People v. Ochate, GR 127154, July 30, 2002
907. People v. Mendez, GR 147671, Nov. 21, 2002 (reiterates P. v. Morada)
908. People v. Lauga – 615 SCRA 548
909. Lumanog v. People – 630 SCRA 42
910. People v. Tumaco – 610 SCRA 350l
911. People v. Bokingo – 655 SCRA 313
912. People v. Uy – 649 SCRA 236

ix. Failure to object to confession made without counsel

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

x. Right to be informed

Cases
918. People v. Manriquez, GR 122510-11, March 17, 2000
919. Magtoto v. Manguera - 63 SCRA 4
920. People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
921. People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122
922. People v. Sabban – 260 SCRA 630
923. People v. Barlis - 231 SCRA 426
 924. People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541
925. People v. Samolde, GR 128551, July 31, 2000
926. People v. Sevilla, GR 124077, September 5, 2000
927. People v. Muleta – GR 130189 June 25, 1999
928. People v. Tizon, GR 133228, July 30, 2002
929. People v. Llenaresas - 248 SCRA 629
930. People v. Cajara, GR 122498, September 27, 2000
931. People v. Manriquez, GR 122510-11, March 17, 2000
932. 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
933. People v. Taliman, GR 109143, October 11, 2000
934. People v. Gomez – 270 SCRA 432
935. People v. Cabintoy – 247 SCRA 442
936. People v. Corullo – 289 SCRA 481
937. People v. Olivarez – GR 77865 December 4, 1998
938. People v. Ruelan - 231 SCRA 650
939. People v. Simon - 234 SCRA 555
940. Malacat v. CA – (supra, Warrantless Arrests)
941. People v. Bacor, 306 SCRA 522
942. People v. Quidato – GR 117160 or 6 October 1, 1998

ii. Must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent

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

V. Extrajudicial Confessions

a. Difference between admission and confession

945. Ladiana v. People, GR 144293, Dec. 4, 2002
946. People v. Maqueda - 242 SCRA 565

b. Requisites for valid extrajudicial confession

947. People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000
948. People v. Pagaura – 267 SCRA 17
949. People v. Calvo – 269 SCRA 676
950. People v. Tan – 286 SCRA 207
951. People v. Olivarez – GR 77865 December 4
 952. People v. Base, GR 109773, March 30, 2000
953. People v. Continente, GR 100801-02, August 25, 2000
954. People v. Naag, 322 SCRA 710
955. People v. Fabro – 277 SCRA 19
956. People v. Sinoc – 275 SCRA 357
957. People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
958. People v. Maneng, GR 123147, October 13, 2000
959. People v. Llanes, GR 140268, September 18, 2000
960. People v. Deang, GR 128045, August 24, 2000
961. People v. Avendano, GR 137407, Jan. 28, 2003
962. People v. Espanola – 271 SCRA 689
963. People v. Nicolas, GR 135877, Aug. 22, 2002
964. People v. Sabalones – 294 SCRA 751
965. People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455
966. People v. Lising – 285 SCRA 595
967. People v. Obrero, GR 122142, May 17, 2000
968. People v. Capitle – 639 SCRA 373
969. Jesalva v. People – 640 SCRA 253
970. People v. Capitle – 639 SCRA 373

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

d. Presumptions
975. People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
976. People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
977. People v. Figueroa, GR 134056, July 6, 2000
978. People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000
979. People v. Maneng, GR 123147, October 13, 2000
980. People v. Vallejo, GR 144656, May 9, 2002
981. People v. Sahagun – 274 SCRA 208
982. People v. Sabban – 260 SCRA 630
983. People v. Ranis, GR 129113, Sept. 17, 2002
984. People v. Rous - 242 SCRA 732
985. People v. Parojinog - 203 SCRA 673
986. People v. Montiero – 246 SCRA 786
987. People v. Ruelan - 231 SCRA 650
988. People v. Aquino – GR 123550-51 July 19, 1999
989. People v. Tolentino, 423 SCRA 448
990. People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999
991. People v. Santos – 283 SCRA 443
992. Santos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 71523-25, December 8, 2000
993. People v. Magdamit – 279 SCRA 423
 994. People v. Aquino, GR 130742, July 18, 2000
995. People v. Hernandez – (supra, Warrantless Arrests)
996. People v. Sabalones – 294 SCRA 751
997. People v. Calvo – 269 SCRA 676
998. People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 131036, June 20, 2001

e. To whom such confession can be used against

999. People v. Lising – 285 SCRA 595
1000. Santos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 71523-25, December 8, 2000
1001. Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999

f. Lawyer given by police investigator; valid confession

1002. Aquino v. Paiste, 555 S 255

VI. When Custodial Investigations May Not Apply

a. Preliminary investigation
1003. People v. Judge Ayson - 175 SCRA 216

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
II. 1004. RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Additional readings:
1005. Section 2(b)(i)(ii)(iii), AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Cases:
1006. Santos-Concio et al. v. DOJ Sec, G.R. No. 175057, 29 January 2008, 543
SCRA 70
1007. Borlongan v. Pena, G.R. No. 143591, 23 November 2007, 538 SCRA 221
1008. Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41, 21 January 2015, 748
SCRA 1
1009. Racho v. Miro, G.R. No. 168578, 30 September 2008, 567 SCRA 213
1010. Tolentino v. Paqueo, G.R. No. 150606, 7 June 2007, 523 SCRA 377
1011. Crespo v. Mogul, L-53373, 30 June 1987, 151 SCRA 462
1012. Baltazar v. People, G.R. No. 174016, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 278
1013. Chan v. DOJ Sec, G.R. No. 147065, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 337
1014. Villaflor v. Vivar, G.R. No. 134744, 16 January 2001, 349 SCRA 194
1015. San Agustin v. People, G.R. No. 158211, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 392
1016. Ladlad v. Velasco, G.R. No. 172070-72, 172074-76, 175013, 1 June 2007,
523 SCRA 318

b. Voluntary surrender
1017. People v. Taylaran – 108 SCRA 373

c. Audit examination
 1018. Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
1019. Kimpo v. Sandiganbayan - 232 SCRA 53

d. Administrative investigation
1020. Manuel v. NC Construction – 282 SCRA 326
1021. Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.13747, August 2, 2001
1022. Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000
1023. Escleo v. Durado, AM no. P-99-1312, July 31, 2002

e. Not in police custody

1024. People v. Tobias – 266 SCRA 229
1025. OCA v. Sumulong, 271 SCRA 316

f. Police line-up

i. General rule

Cases
1026. People v. Piedad, GR 131923, Dec. 5, 2002 (no need for counsel)
1027. People v. Lamsing – 248 SCRA 471
1028. People v. Frago - 232 SCRA 653
1029. Gamboa v. Judge Cruz - 162 SCRA 675
1030. People v. Salvatierra – 276 SCRA 55 (supra, Warrantless Arrests)
1031. Dela Torre v. CA – 294 SCRA 196
1032. People Pavillare, GR 129970, April 5, 2000
1033. People v. Timple - 237 SCRA 52
1034. People v. Dimaano – 209 SCRA 819
1035. People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47
1036. People v. Tolentino, 423 SCRA 448
1037. People v. Martinez, 425 SCRA 525
1038. People v. Sultan, GR 130594, July 5, 2000
1039. People v. Escordial, 373 SCRA 585 (line- up after custodial investigation
starts,
1040. requires counsel)

ii. Exceptions
1041. People v. Hatton – 210 SCRA 1
1042. People v. Gamer, 326 SCRA 660
1043. People v. Teehankee, Jr. – 249 SCRA 54 (supra, Procedural)
1044. People v. Meneses – 288 SCRA 95

g. Spontaneous statements
1045. People v. Barrientos – 285 SCRA 221
1046. Arroyo v, CA - 203 SCRA 750
1047. People v. Andan – 269 SCRA 95
1048. People v. Dumantay, 307 SCRA 1
 1049. People v. Morada – GR 129723 May 19, 1999
1050. People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000
1051. People v. Ulit, 423 SCRA 374

h. Marked money
1052. People v. Linsangan – 195 SCRA 784

i. Booking sheets
1053. People v. Ang Chun Kit – 251 SCRA 660

j. Paraffin Test
1054. People v. Gamboa – 194 SCRA 372

k. When body of the accused is examined

1055. People v. Sinoc – 275 SCRA 357
1056. People v. Piedad, GR 131923, Dec. 5, 2002 (no need for counsel)
1057. Gutang v. People, GR 135406, July 11, 2000
1058. People v. Paynor – 256 SCRA 611

l. Taking of pictures
1059. People v. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835

m. Incident to a lawful arrest

1060. People v. Enriquez – 204 SCRA 674
1061. Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan – GR 109242 January 26, 1999

VII. The Exclusionary Rule

a. Violation of rights
1062. People v. Simon - 234 SCRA 555
1063. People v. Hermoso, GR 130590, October 18, 2000
1064. People v. Pinlac - 165 SCRA 675
1065. People v. Bacamante - 248 SCRA 47
1066. People v. Andan – 269 SCRA 95
1067. People v. Montes – GR 117166 December 13, 1998
1068. People v. Salcedo – 273 SCRA 473
1069. People v. Macoy – 275 SCRA 1
1070. People v. Arceo - 202 SCRA 170
1071. People v. Atrejenio – GR 120160 July 13, 1999
1072. Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999
1073. People v. Binamira – 277 SCRA 232
1074. People v. Turingan – 282 SCRA 424
1075. People v. Pagaura – 267 SCRA 17
1076. People v. Quidato – GR 117401 October 1, 1998
1077. People v. Sequino – 264 SCRA 79
1078. People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
 1079. People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541
1080. People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97
1081. People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122
1082. People v. Bravo, GR 13562
1083. People v. Bariquit, GR 122733, October 2, 2000
1084. People v. Malimit – 264 SCRA 167
1085. People v. Rivera – 245 SCRA 421
1086. People v. Meneses – 288 SCRA 95
1087. People v. Figueroa, GR 134056, July 6, 2000
1088. People v. Paburada, GR 137118, December 5, 2000
1089. People v. Lapitaje, GR 132042, Feb. 19, 2003

b. Immunity against self-incrimination

1090. Galman v. Pamaran – (supra, Custodial Investigation)

c. Re-enactments
1091. People v. Suarez – 267 SCRA 119

d. Applicability to aliens
1092. People v. Wong Chuen Ming - 256 SCRA 182

e. Verbal confessions
1093. People v. Deniego – 251 SCRA 626
1094. People v. Bonola – 274 SCRA 238
1095. People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (confession to private party)
1096. People v. Taboga, 376 SCRA 500 (confession to private party)
1097. People v. Baloloy, GE 140740, Apr. 12, 2002 (res gestae)
1098. People v. Guillermo, 420 S 326

f. Co-accused not bound

1099. People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52

g. Who may raise the question

1100. People v. Balisteros - 237 SCRA 499

h. When must the objection be raised

1101. People v. Samus, GR 135957, Sept. 17, 2002
1102. People v. Montilla – 285 SCRA 703
1103. People v. Salvatierra – 276 SCRA 55
1104. Gamboa v. Judge Cruz - 162 SCRA 675
1105. Macasiray v. People – 291 SCRA 154

i. Admissible evidence
1106. People v. Espiritu, 302 SCRA 533
1107. People v. Lumandong, 327 SCRA 650
VIII. Rights After Custodial Investigation

Cases
1108. People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
1109. 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
1110. Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321
1111. People v. Gako, GR 135045, December 15, 2000
1112. Yap v. CA, GR 141529, June 6, 2001
1113. Fortuna v. Sitaca, AM No. RTJ-01-1633, June 19, 2001
1114. Jinggoy Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002
1115. Gov’t of USA v. Hon Purganan, GR 148571, Sept. 24, 2002
1116. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan. 28, 2003
1117. *Gov’t of Hongkong v. Hon. Olalia, April 19, 2007
1118. People v. Sandiganbayan – 529 SCRA 764
1119. Juan Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015
1120. Jinggoy Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41,
January 21, 2015

B. Waiver of the Right

Cases
1121. People v. Judge Donato & Rodolfo Salas – 198 SCRA 130
1122. People v. Mapalao - 197 SCRA 79

C. Excessive Bail

Cases
1123. De La Camara.v. Enage - 41 SCRA 3
1124. Chu v. Dolalos – 260 SCRA 309
1125. Magsucang v. Judge Balgos, AM no. MTJ- 02- 142, Feb. 27, 2003

D. Right to Bail of Military Personnel

Case
1126. Commendador v. Gen. de Villa - 200 SCRA 80
E. Aspects of the Right to Bail

Cases
1127. Sule v. Biteng - AM MTJ-95-1018, 243 SCRA 524
1128. Paderanga v. CA – 247 SCRA 741
1129. Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Chin v. Judge Gustilo, et al. AM No- RTJ-94-
1243, 247 SCRA 175
1130. People v. Nitcha – 240 SCRA 283
1131. Padilla v. CA – 260 SCRA 155
1132. Parada v. Veneracion – 269 SCRA 371
1133. Obosa v. CA – 266 SCRA 281
1134. Moslares v. CA – 291 SCRA 440
1135. Catiis v. CA 482 SCRA 71

THE RIGHT TO BAIL

1136. RULE 114 – BAIL

Additional readings:
1137. Sec. 13, Article III, Constitution
1138. Sec. 1-7, AM No. 12-11-2-SC, 1 May 2014
1139. Sec. 5, RA 10389 (“Recognizance Act”)
1140. RA 6036
1141. Sec. 10, AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Cases:
1142. San Miguel v. Maceda, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1749, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA
205
1143. Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, 1 February 2000, 324
SCRA 321
1144. Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 179817, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 471
1145. Andres v. Beltran, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597, 20 August 2001, 363 SCRA
371
1146. Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010, 615 SCRA
619
1147. People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, 23 October 2006, 505 SCRA 573
1148. Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, 18 August 2015, 767 SCRA
282
1149. Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140842, 12 April 2007, 520 SCRA
729
1150. 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
1151. People v. Boras, GR 127495, December 22, 2000
1152. People v. Horio, GR 137842, August 23, 2001
1153. Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, July 21,
2016

B. Military Tribunal

Cases
1154. Olaguer v. Military - 150 SCRA 144
1155. Tan v. Barrios - 190 SCRA 685

C. Presumption of Innocence

Cases
1156. United States v. Luling - 324 PHIL. 725
1157. People v. Mingoa - 92 PHIL. 856
1158. Dumlao v. COMELEC - 95 SCRA 392
1159. Pamintuan v. People - 234 SCRA 63
1160. Marquez v. COMELEC – 243 SCRA 538
1161. Hizon v. CA – 265 SCRA 517
1162. People v. Caranguian, GR 124514, July 6, 2000
1163. People v. Aquino, GR 130742, July 18, 2000
1164. People v. Guillermo, GR 111292, July 20, 2000
1165. People v. Balacano, GR 127156, July 31, 2000
1166. People v. Mansueto, GR 135196, July 31, 2000
1167. Soriano v. Angeles, GR 109920, August 31, 2000
1168. People v. Fajardo, GR 128583, November 22, 2000
1169. Rueda v. Sandiganbayan, GR 129064, November 29, 2000
1170. People v. Baulite, G.R. No. 137599, October 8, 2001

D. Right to Be Heard and to Production of Evidence

 Cases
1171. Maliwat v. CA - 256 SCRA 718
1172. People v. Buemio – 265 SCRA 582
1173. People v. Ramilla – GR 127485 July 19, 1999
1174. Marquez v. Sandiganbayan – 641 SCRA 175
1175. Suyan v People, GR No. 189644, 729 SCRA, 1 July 2, 2014
1176. Ejercito v. Hon. Comelec, GR No. 212398, 742 SCRA 210, Nov. 25 2014
1177. Nacion v. COA, March 17, 2015

E. Right to Counsel

Cases
1178. People v. Holgado - 86 PHIL. 752
1179. United v. Ash - 413 U. S. 300
1180. People v. Rio – 201 SCRA 702
1181. Salaw v. NLRC - 202 SCRA 7
1182. Carillo v. People - 229 SCRA 386
1183. People v. Macagaling - 237 SCRA 299
1184. De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan - 256 SCRA 171
1185. People v. Cuizon - 256 SCRA 329
1186. People v. Cabodoc – 263 SCRA 187
1187. People v. Echegaray – 267 SCRA 682
1188. Reyes v. CA – 267 SCRA 543
1189. People v. Serzo – 274 SCRA 553
1190. Dans v. People – 285 SCRA 504
1191. Amion v. Chiongson – AM No. RTJ-97-1371 January 22, 1999
1192. People v. Ambray – GR 127177 February 25, 1999
1193. People v. Bolatete – GR 127570 February 25, 1999
1194. People v. dela Cuesta – GR 126134 March 2, 1999
1195. People v. Lakindanum – GR 127123 March 10, 1999
1196. People v. Cantos – GR 129298 April 14, 1999
1197. People v. Alba – GR 131858-59 April 14, 1999
1198. People v. Onabia – GR 128288 April 20, 1999
1199. People v. Bermas – GR 120420 April 21, 1999
1200. People v. Pedres – GR 129533 April 30, 1999
1201. People v. Acala – GR 127023-25 May 19, 1999
1202. People v. Puertollano – GR 122423 June 17, 1999
1203. People v. Bonghanoy – GR 124097 June 17, 1999
1204. People v. Larena – GR 121205-09 June 29, 1999
1205. People v. Nuñez – GR 128875 July 8, 1999
1206. People v. Ramilla – GR 127485 July 19, 1999
1207. People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 8, 1999
1208. People v. Santoclides, G.R. No. 109149, December 21, 1999
1209. People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001
1210. People v. Bagas, G.R. No. 104383, July 12, 2001
1211. People v. Liwanag, G.R. No. 120468, August 15, 2001
1212. People v. Bernas, 377 SCRA 391
 1213. People v. Caralipio, GR 137766, Nov. 27, 2002
1214. Sia v. People 504 SCRA 507
1215. Briones v. People – 588 SCRA 362
1216. Villanueva v. People – 64s4 SCRA 356

F. Absence of Violation

Cases
1217. People v. Aquino, GR 129288, March 30, 2000
1218. Villanueva v. People, GR 135098, April 12, 2000

G. Presence of Violation

Cases
1219. People v. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490
1220. Callangan v. People 493 SCRA 269

H. Right to Be Informed

Cases
1221. People v. Regala – 113 SCRA 613
1222. Enrile v. Salazar - 186 SCRA 217
1223. People v. Taguba - 229 SCRA 188
1224. People v. Barte - 230 SCRA 401
1225. People v. Vitor - 245 SCRA 392
1226. Sabiniano v. CA – 249 SCRA 24
1227. People v. Reyes - 242 SCRA 264
1228. People v. Legaspi - 246 SCRA 206
1229. People v. Ramos - 245 SCM 405
1230. People v. Namayan - 246 SCRA 646
1231. Pecho v. People – 262 SCRA 518
1232. People v. Laurente - 255 SCRA 543
1233. People v. Rosare – 264 SCRA 398
1234. People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611
1235. People v. Cruz – 259 SCRA 109
1236. People v. De Guzman – 265 SCRA 228
1237. Salud Imson-Souweha v. Rondez – 279 SCRA 258
1238. People v. Manansala – 273 SCRA 502
1239. People v. Palomar – 278 SCRA 114
1240. People v. Ortega – 276 SCRA 166
1241. People v. Antido – 278 SCRA 425
1242. People v. Sadiosa – 290 SCRA 92
1243. People v. Villamor – GR 12444 October 7, 1998
1244. People v. Rosare – 264 SCRA 398
1245. People v. Llaguno – 285 SCRA 124
1246. People v. Bugayong – GR 126518 December 2, 1998
1247. People v. Manalili – 294 SCRA 220
1248. People v. Dimapilis – GR 128619 December 17, 1998
1249. People v. de Guzman – 289 SCRA 470
1250. People v. Quitlong – 292 SCRA 360
1251. People v. Perez – GR 122764 September 24, 1998
1252. People v. Renido – 288 SCRA 369
1253. People v. Venerable – 290 SCRA 15
1254. People v. Lozano – GR 125080 September 25, 1998
1255. People v. Padilla – GR 126124 January 20, 1999
1256. People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 142726, October 17, 2001
1257. People v. de la Pena G.R. No. 138358-59 Nov. 19, 2001
1258. People v. Abino, G.R. No. 137288, December 11, 2001
1259. People v. Tan, GR 116200-02, June 21, 2001
1260. People v. Tagana, GR 137608-09, July 6, 2001
1261. People v. Alcalde, GR 139225, May 29, 2002
1262. People v. Mejeca, GR 146425, Nov. 21, 2002
1263. People v. Esurina, 374, SCRA 429
1264. People v. Togud, 375 SCRA 291
1265. People v. Espejon, 377 SCRA 412
1266. People v. Lavador, 377 SCRA 424
1267. People v. Hermanes, 379 SCRA 190
1268. People v. Portugal, 379 SCRA 212
1269. People v. Baluya, 380 SCRA 533
1270. People v. Arofo, 380 SCRA 663
1271. People v. Cana, GR 139229, June 6, 2002
1272. People v. Soriano, GR 135027, July 3, 2002
1273. People v. Radam, GR 138395, July 18, 2002
1274. People v. Abala, GR 135858, July, 23, 2002
1275. People v. Romero, GR 137037, Aug. 5, 2002
1276. People v. Magtibay, GR 142985, Aug. 6, 2002
1277. People v. Miclat, GR 137024, Aug. 7, 2002
1278. People v. Guardian, GR 142900, Aug. 7, 2002
1279. People v. Ocampo, GR 145303, Aug. 7, 2002
1280. People v. del Ayre, GR 139788, Oct. 3, 2002
1281. People v. Caliso, GR 131475, Oct. 14, 2002
1282. People v. Buado, GR 137341, Oct. 28, 2002
1283. People v. Alemania, GR 146221, Nov. 13, 2002
1284. People v. Terible, GR 140635, Nov. 18, 2002
1285. People v. Victor, GR 127904, Dec. 5, 2002
1286. People v. Velasquez, 377 SCRA 219
1287. People v. Lachica, GR 143677, May 9, 2002
1288. People v. Sajolga, GR 146684, Aug. 21, 2002
1289. People v. Ramos, GR 142577, Dec. 27, 2002
1290. People v. Mascarinas, GR 144034, May 28, 2002
1291. People v. Sanchez, 375 SCRA 355
1292. People v. Abayon, GR 142874, July, 31, 2002
 1293. People v. Gavina, GR 143237, Oct. 28, 2002
1294. People v. Orbita, GR GR 136591, July 11, 2002
1295. Dado v. People, GR 131421, Nov. 18, 2002
1296. Santos v. People, GR 14761, Jan. 20, 2002
1297. People v. Bon, GR 149199, Jan. 28, 2003
1298. People v. Llanto, GR 146458, Jan. 20, 2003
1299. People v. Migrante, GR 147606, Jan. 14, 2003
1300. People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003
1301. People v. Lapitaje, GR 132042, Feb. 19, 2003
1302. People v. Ostia, GR 131804, Feb. 26, 2003
1303. People v. Ganete, GR 142930, Mar. 28, 2003
1304. Garcia v. People, GR 144785, Sept. 11, 2003
1305. People v. Villanueva, GR 138364, Oct. 15, 2003
1306. Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 123144, Oct. 15, 2003
1307. People v. Rote, GR 146188, Dec. 11, 2003
1308. People v. Rata, GR 145523-24, Dec. 11, 2003
1309. Andaya v. People 493 SCRA 539
1310. People v. Estrada – 583 SCRA 302
1311. People v. Abella – 610 SCRA 19
1312. People v. Pangilinan – GR 183090, November 14, 2011

I. Relationship

Cases
1313. People v. Cepedon, 542 S 550
1314. People v. Talan, GR 177354, November 14, 2009
1315. People v. Estrada – 610 SCRA 222
1316. People v. Corpuz – 577 SCRA 465
1317. People v. Regino – 582 SCRA 189

J. Nature of Offense: Different Offense; Same Offense

Cases
1318. People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97
1319. People v. Paramil, GR 128056-57, March 31, 2000
1320. Evangelista v. People, GR 108135-36, August 14, 2000
1321. People v. Puzon, GR 123156-59, August 29, 2000
1322. People v. Valdesancho, G.R. NO. 137051-52, May 30, 2001
1323. People v. Dawisan, G.R. No. 122095, September 13, 2001
1324. Mapas v. People, 544 S 85
1325. Pactolin v. Sandiganbayan, 554 S 136
1326. People v. Hu, 567 S 697
K. Absence of Qualifying Circumstance

Cases
1327. People v. Ronato, G.R. No. 124298, October 11, 1999
1328. People v. Bayron, G.R. No. 122732, September 7, 1999
1329. People v. Abella, G.R. No. 131847, September 22, 1999
1330. People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, September 29, 1999
1331. People v. Panique, G.R. No. 125763, October 13, 1999
1332. People v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 130784, October 3, 1999
1333. People v. Tabion, G.R. No. 132715, October 20, 1999
1334. People v. Torio, G.R. No. 132216, November 7, 1999
1335. People v. Alfanta, G.R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999
1336. People v. Flores, G.R. No. 123599, December 13, 1999
1337. People v. Ramon, G.R. No. 130407, December 15, 1999
1338. People v. Villar., 322 SCRA 390
1339. People v. Bernaldez, 322 SCRA 762
1340. People v. Flores, 322 SCRA 779
1341. People v. Palanco, 322 SCRA 790
1342. People v. Bacule, 323 SCRA 734
1343. People v. Bartolome, 323 SCRA 836
1344. People v. Bayona, 327 SCRA 190
1345. People v. Siao, 327 SCRA 231
1346. People v. Bayzo, 327 SCRA 771
1347. People v. De los Santos, GR 121906, August 5, 2000
1348. People v. Fraga, GR 134130-33, April 12, 2000
1349. People v. Licanda, GR 134084, May 4, 2000
1350. People v. Sabredo, GR 126114, May 11, 2000
1351. People v. Alicante, GR 127026-27, May 31, 2000
1352. People v. Traya, GR 129052, May 31, 2000
1353. People v. Mamac, GR 130332, May 31, 2000
1354. People v. Decena, GR 131843, May 31, 2000
1355. People v. Lomibao, GR 135855, August 3, 2000
1356. People v. Canonigo, GR 133649, August 4, 2000
1357. People v. Cruz, GR 128346-48, August 14, 2000
1358. People v. Watimar, GR 121651-52, August 16, 2000
1359. People v. Gabiana, GR 123543, August 23, 2000
1360. People v. Banihit GR 132045, August 25, 2000
1361. People v. Gutierrez, GR 132772, August 31, 2000
1362. People v. Villanueva, GR 135330, August 31, 2000
1363. People v. Melendres, GR 133999-4001, August 31, 2000
1364. People v. Mendez, GR 132546, July 5, 2000
1365. People v. Alarcon, GR 133191-93, July 11, 2000
1366. People v. Baybado, GR 132136, July 14, 2000
1367. People v. Surilla, GR 129164, July 24, 2000
1368. People v. Campaner, GR 130500, July 26, 2000
1369. People v. Balacano, GR 127156, July 31, 2000
 1370. People v. Villaraza, GR 131848-50, September 5, 2000
1371. People v. Baniguid, GR 137714, September 8, 2000
1372. People v. Bali-Balita, GR 134266, September 15, 2000
1373. People v. Cajara, GR 122498, Sepember 27, 2000
1374. People v. Nogar, GR 133946, September 27, 2000
1375. People v. Magtrayo, GR 133480-82, October 4, 2000
1376. People v. Taguba, GR 112792-93, October 6, 2000
1377. People v. De la Cuesta, GR133904, October 5, 2000
1378. People v. Arves, GR 134628, October 13, 2000
1379. People v. Baldino, GR 137269, October 13, 2000
1380. People v. Baltazar, GR 130610, October 16, 2000
1381. People v. Francisco, GR 136252, October 20, 2000
1382. People v. Sarmiento, GR 134768, October 25, 2000
1383. People v. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835
1384. People v. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167
1385. People v. Paramil, GR 128056-57, March 31, 2000
1386. People v. Gallego, GR 130603, August 15, 2000
1387. People v. Tejada. G.R. No. 126166, July 10, 2001
1388. People v. Lalingjaman, G.R. No. 132714, September 6, 2001
1389. People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 139904, October 12, 2001
1390. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001
1391. People v. Marahay, GR 120625-29, Jan. 28, 2003
1392. People v. Montemayor, GR 124474, Jan. 28, 2003
1393. People v. Delim, GR 142773, Jan. 28, 2003
1394. People v. Acosta, GR 140402, Jan. 28, 2003
1395. People v. Caloza, GR 138404-06, Jan. 28, 2003
1396. People v. Layoso, GR 14773-76, Jan. 22, 2003
1397. People v. Baldogo, GR 128106-07, Jan. 24, 2003
1398. People v. De la Cruz, GR 175954, December 16, 2008
1399. People v. De la Cruz, GR 174371, December 11, 2008
1400. Andres v. People – 588 SCRA 830
1401. Sambilon v. People – 591 SCRA 405
1402. Valenzuela v. People – 596 SCRA 1
1403. People v. Solar G.R. No. 225595

L. Difference of Commission of Crime

Case
1404. People v. Capinpin, GR 118608, October 30, 2000

M. Number of Offenses

Cases
1405. People v. Tresballes, G.R. No. 126118, September 21, 1999
1406. People v. Gerona, G.R. No. 126169, December 21, 1999
1407. People v. Pambid, GR 124453, March 15, 2000
 1408. People v. Alvero, GR 134536, April 5, 2000
1409. People v. Guiwan GR 117324-8, April 27, 2000
1410. People v. Surilla, GR 129164, July 24, 2000
1411. People v. Rama, 379 SCRA 477
1412. People v. Cuyugan, GR 146641, Nov. 18, 2002
1413. People v. Montinola, 543 SCRA 412

N. Date of Commission of Crime

Cases
1414. People v. Narito, G.R. No. 132058, October 1, 1999
1415. People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 12888, December 3, 1999
1416. People v. Ladrillo, G.R. No. 124342, December 8, 1999
1417. People v. Ferolino, GR 131730-31, April 5, 2000
1418. People v. Gianan, GR 135288-93, September 15, 2000
1419. People v. Trelles, GR 137659, September 19, 2000
1420. Sumbang v. General Court Martial PRO- Region 6, GR 140188, August 3,
2000
1421. Arambulo v. Laqui, GR 138596, October 12, 2000
1422. People v. Tagana, G.R. Nos. 137608-09, July 6, 2001
1423. People v. Bidoc 506 SCRA 481
1424. People v. Ceredon, 542 SCRA 550
1425. People v. Pascual, 569 SCRA 534
1426. People v. Aure, 569 SCRA 836
1427. People v. Diocado, GR 170567, November 14, 2008
1428. People v. Canares – 579 SCRA 582
1429. People v. Aboganda – 585 SCRA 1
1430. People v. Jimenez – 586 SCRA 580
1431. People v. Lazaro – 596 SCRA 587

O. No Violation

Cases
1432. People v. Escoro, 376 SCRA 670
1433. People v. Pascual, 379 SCRA 235
1434. People v. Conde, 380 SCRA 159
1435. People v. Miranda, GR 142566, Aug. 8, 2002
1436. People v. Roque, GR 130569, Aug. 14, 2002
1437. People v. Segovia, GR 138974, Sept. 29, 2002
1438. People v. Caralipio, GR 137766, Nov. 27, 2002
1439. People v. Cantomayor, GR 145522, Dec. 5, 2002
1440. People v. sarazan, GR 123269-72, Jan. 22, 2003
1441. People v. Taperla, GR 142860, Jan. 16, 2003
1442. People v. Lizada, GR 143468-71, Jan. 24, 2003
1443. People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan.16, 2003
1444. Batulanan v. People 502 SCRA 35
 1445. People v. Corpuz 482 SCRA 435
1446. Soledad v. People – 644 SCRA 258
1447. Torres v. People – 655 SCRA 720

P. Right to Speedy Trial

Cases
1448. People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999
1449. Tai Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131483, October 26, 1999
1450. Conde v. Rivera - 45 PHIL. 650
1451. Nepomuceno v. Sec. of National Defense - 108 SCRA 658
1452. People v. Gines - 197 SCRA 481
1453. Abadia v. CA - 236 SCRA 676
1454. Gonzales v. CA - 232 SCRA 667
1455. Cadalin v. POEA – 238 SCRA 721
1456. People v. Tampal – 244 SCRA 202
1457. Dacanay v. People - 240 SCRA 490
1458. Guerrero v. CA - 257 SCRA 703
1459. Dizon v. Lopez – 278 SCRA 483
1460. Luzarraga v. Meteoro, AM 00-1572, August 3, 2000
1461. Solar Entertainment and People v. Hon. How, GR 140863, August 22,
2000
1462. De Zuzurregui v. Rosete, GR AM no. MTJ-02-1426
1463. People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003
1464. Lumanlaw v. Peralta 482 SCRA 396
1465. Padilla v. Apas 487 SCRA 29
1466. People v. Hernandez 499 SCRA 688
1467. Uy v. Adriano 505 SCRA 625
1468. Benares v. Lim 511 SCRA 100
1469. Gaas v. Mitmug, 553 SCRA 535
1470. Albert v. Sandiganbayan – 580 SCRA 279
1471. Tan v. People – 586 SCRA 139
1472. Tallo v. People – 588 SCRA 520
1473. Olbes v. Buemio – 607 SCRA 336
1474. Jacob v. Sandiganbayan – 635 SCRA 94
1475. Barcelona v. Lim, G.R. No. 189171, June 3, 2014

1476. Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, July 31, 2018
1477. Campa v. Paras, G.R. No. 250504. July 12, 2021

Q. Right to Impartial Trial

Cases
1478. Mateo. Jr, v. Villaluz - 50 SCRA 18
1479. People v. CA – 262 SCRA 452
1480. Maliwat v. CA – 256 SCRA 718
1481. Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan – 268 SCRA 332
 1482. People v. Adora – 275 SCRA 441
1483. Cosep v. People – 290 SCRA 378
1484. People v. Castillo – 289 SCRA 213
1485. People v. Vaynaco – GR 126286 March 22, 1999
1486. People v. Estrada, GR 130487, June 19, 2000

R. Impartiality of a Judge

Cases
1487. Soriano v. Angeles, GR 109920, August 31, 2000
1488. Almendra v. Asis, AM RTJ-1550, April 6, 2000
1489. People v. Zheng Bai Hui, GR 127580, August 22, 2000
1490. People v. Genosa, GR 135981, September 29, 2000
1491. Uy v. Judge Flores, RTJ-12-2332, 2014

S. Right to a Public Trial

Cases
1492. In Re Oliver -333 U. S. 237
1493. Garcia v. Domingo - L-30104
1494. Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) G.R. No. 183152-54, January 21,
2015

T. Compulsory Process

Cases
1495. Fajardo v. Garcia - 98 SCRA 514
1496. People v. Yambot, GR 120350, October 13, 2000
1497. 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
1498. Tampar v. Usman - 200 SCRA 652
1499. People v. Digno - 250 SCRA 237
1500. People v. Miyake – 279 SCRA 180People v. Narca – 275 SCRA 696
1501. People v. Quidato – GR 117401 October 1, 1998
1502. People v. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167
1503. People v. Libo-on, G.R. NO. 136737, May 23, 2001
1504. Carriaga v. C.A., G.R. No. 143561, June 6, 2001
1505. People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001
1506. People v. Monje, GR 146689, Sept. 27, 2002
1507. Victorino v. People 509 SCRA 483
1508. Herrera v. Sandiganbayan – 579 SCRA 32
1509. Ho Wai Pang v. People – GR 1716229, October 19, 2011
V. Trial in Absentia; Right to Be Present

Cases
1510. Carredo v. People - 183 SCRA 273
1511. People v. Ravelo - 202 SCRA 655
1512. People v. Rivera - 242 SCRA 26
1513. People v. Tabag – 268 SCRA 115
1514. Parada v. Veneracion – (supra, Right to Bail)

W. Admissibility of Evidence

Cases
1515. People v. Morial, G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001
1516. People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES AND CIVIL ACTION

1517. RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

A. Institution of Criminal Actions (Section 1)

1518. People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 168641, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 742
1519. Panaguiton, Jr. v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, 25 November 2008, 571 SCRA
549
1520. Jadewell Parking Systems v. Lidua, G.R. No. 169588, 7 October 2013,
706 SCRA 724

B. Who must prosecute (Sections 5, 16)

1521. Piñote v. Ayco, AM No. RTJ-05-1944, 13 December 2005, 477 SCRA
409
1522. People v. Piccio, G.R. No. 193681, 6 August 2014, 732 SCRA 254
1523. People v. dela Cerna, G.R. No. 136899-904, 9 October 2002, 390 SCRA
538
1524. People v. Go, G.R. No. 201644, 24 September 2014, 736 SCRA 501

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

1525. People v. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222, 18 February 2015, 750 SCRA 677
1526. Lasoy, et al. v. Zeñarosa, G.R. No. 129472, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 360
1527. People v. Puig, G.R. No. 173654-765, 28 August 2008, 563 SCRA 564
1528. People v. Cederon, G.R. No. 167179, 28 January 2008, 542 SCRA 550
1529. People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 178325, 22 February 2008, 546 SCRA 514
1530. Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, 9 February 2007, 515
SCRA 302
1531. Senador v. People, G.R. No. 201620, 6 March 2013, 692 SCRA 669
1532. People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 160619, 9 September 2015, 770
SCRA 162

D. Amendment/Substitution (Section 14)

 1533. Buhat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119601, 17 December 1996, 265
SCRA 701
1534. Fronda-Baggao v. People, G.R. No. 151785, 10 December 2007, 539
SCRA 531
1535. Pacoy v. Hon. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 28 September 2007, 534 SCRA
338
1536. Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, 9 February 22007, 515
SCRA 302
1537. Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, 26 February 2009, 580 SCRA
279

E. Venue (Section 15)

1538. Macasaet v. People, G.R. No. 156747, 23 February 2005, 452 SCRA 255
1539. Bonifacio v. RTC, G.R. No. 184800, 5 May 2010, 620 SCRA 268
1540. Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, 17 November 2004, 442 SCRA 450
1541. Unionbank v. People, G.R. No. 192565, 28 February 2012, 667 SCRA 113
1542. Treñas v. People, G.R. No. 195002, 25 January 2012, 664 SCRA 355

1543. RULE 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

A. 1542. Sections 1-3; 5

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

1543. Lee v. Chua, G.R. No. 181658, 7 August 2013, 703 SCRA 240
1544. Cancio v. Isip, G.R. No. 133978, 12 November 2002, 391 SCRA 393
1545. Ferrer v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161067, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA
460
1546. Corpuz v. Siapno, AM MTJ-96-1106, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 83
1547. Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, 29 August 2002, 388 SCRA
72
1548. Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, 28 January 2008, 542 SCRA
504
1549. Co v. Muñoz, G.R. No. 181986, 4 December 2013, 711 SCRA 508
1550. Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002, 388 SCRA 28

C. Prejudicial question – Sections 6-7

1551. Dreamwork v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, 30 June 2009, 591 SCRA 466
1552. First Producers Holdings Corp. v. Co, G.R. No. 139655, 27 July 2000, 336
SCRA 551
1553. San Miguel v. Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 4 September 2013, 705 SCRA 38
1554. Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, 13 September 2010, 630 SCRA
436
1555. Gaditano v. San Miguel Corp., G.R. No. 188767, 24 July 2013, 702 SCRA
191
1556. Reyes v. Rossi, G.R. No. 159823, 18 February 2013, 691 SCRA 57

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

 QUASH

1557. RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Cases:
1558. Perez v. People, G.R. No. 164763, 12 February 2008, 544 SCRA 532
1559. Benares v. Lim, G.R. No. 173421, 14 December 2006, 511 SCRA 100
1560. People v. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, 12 April 2002, 381 SCRA 31
1561. People v. Teves, G.R. No. 141767, 2 April 2001, 356 SCRA 14
1562. People v. Musa, G.R. No. 170472, 3 July 2009, 591 SCRA 619
1563. Aquino v. Paiste, G.R. No. 147782, 25 June 2008, 555 SCRA 255
1564. People v. Serzo, G.R. No. 118435, 20 June 1997, 274 SCRA 553
1565. Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748, 23 July 2014, 730 SCRA 655

1566. RULE 116 – ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

Additional reading:
1567. Sec. 8 (a)-(e), AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Cases:
1568. People v. Magat, G.R. No. 130026, 31 May 2000, 332 SCRA 517
1569. People v. Ulit, G.R. No. 131799-901, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 374
1570. Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 163972-77, 28 March 2008, 550 SCRA
233

1571. RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH

Cases:

1572. Antone v. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, 8 December 2010, 637 SCRA 615
1573. People v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 166510, 23 July 2008, 559 SCRA 492
1574. Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166062, 26 September 2006, 503
SCRA 252
1575. People v. Laggui, G.R. No. 76262-63, 16 March 1989, 171 SCRA 305
1576. People v. Honrales, G.R. No. 182651, 182657, 25 August 2010, 629
SCRA 423
1577. Villalon v. Chan, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
1578. People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
1579. Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 350
1580. People v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, 22 September 2014, 735 SCRA 687
1581. Torres v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 164268, 28 June 2005, 461 SCRA 599
1582. Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, G.R. No. 183994, 30 June 2014,
727 SCRA 503
1583. Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010, 635 SCRA 191
1584. Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, 22 April 2009, 586 SCRA 303
 PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL

1585. RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH

Cases:

1586. Antone v. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, 8 December 2010, 637 SCRA 615
1587. People v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 166510, 23 July 2008, 559 SCRA 492
1588. Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166062, 26 September 2006, 503
SCRA 252
1589. People v. Laggui, G.R. No. 76262-63, 16 March 1989, 171 SCRA 305
1590. People v. Honrales, G.R. No. 182651, 182657, 25 August 2010, 629
SCRA 423
1591. Villalon v. Chan, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
1592. People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
1593. Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 350
1594. People v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, 22 September 2014, 735 SCRA 687
1595. Torres v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 164268, 28 June 2005, 461 SCRA 599
1596. Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, G.R. No. 183994, 30 June 2014,
727 SCRA 503
1597. Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010, 635 SCRA 191
1598. Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, 22 April 2009, 586 SCRA 303

1599. RULE 118 – PRE-TRIAL

Additional reading:
1600. Sec. 8(f), AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Case:
1601. Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143689-91, 12 November 2002, 391
SCRA 415

1602. RULE 119 – TRIAL

Additional readings:
1603. Judicial Affidavit Rule
1604. Secs. 2(c), 2(d), 11-15, AM No. 15-06-10-SC
1605. Sec. 8-15, AM 12-11-2-SC, 1 May 2014
1606. Sec. 11-17, Rules on Summary Procedure

Cases:
1607. Visbal v. Vanilla, AM No. MTJ-06-1651, 7 April 2009, 584 SCRA 11
1608. People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
1609. Cabador v. People, G.R. No. 186001, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 760
1610. Salazar v. People, G.R. No. 151931, 23 September 2003, 411 SCRA 598
1611. Cabarles v. Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, 20 February 2007, 516 SCRA 303
1612. Go v. People, G.R. No. 185527, 18 July 2012, 677 SCRA 213
 1613. Ampatuan v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, 3 April 2013, 695 SCRA 159
1614. 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.

1615. In the Matter of the Petition for Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas
Corpus in Favor if Alicia Jasper S. Lucena v. Sarah Elago, et. al., G.R. No.
252120, September 15, 2020

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
1616. People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999
1617. Binay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120681, October 1, 1999
1618. Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan - 199 SCRA 299 (no violation)
1619. Socrates v. Sandiganbayan - 253 SCRA 773 (no violation)
1620. Bolalin v. Occiano – 266 SCRA 203 (violation)
1621. Angchangco v. Ombudsman – 268 SCRA 301 (violation)
1622. Lambino v. De Vera – 275 SCRA 60
1623. Duterte v. Sandiganbayan – 289 SCRA 721(preliminary investigation,
violation)
1624. Marcos v. Sandiganbayan – GR 126995 October 6, 1998 (violation)
1625. Roque v. Ombudsman – GR 129978 May 12, 1999 (violation)
1626. Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan – GR 108595 May 18, 1999 (violation)
1627. Dansal v. Fernandez, 327 SCRA 145 ( no violation )
1628. Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, 322 SCRA 655 (no violation)
1629. Castillo v. Sandiganbayan, GR 109271, March 14, 2000 (no violation)
1630. Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000
1631. Dela Pena v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 144542, June 29, 2001
1632. Lopez v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 140529, September 6, 2001
1633. Lee v. People, Gr137914, Dec. 4, 2002
1634. People v. Monje, GR 146689, Sept. 27, 2002
1635. Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, 374 SCRA 200
1636. Guiani v. Sandiganbayan, GR 146897, Aug. 6, 2002 (delay in preliminary
investigation)
1637. Avilla v. Reyes 479 SCRA 334
1638. Enriquez v. Office of OMB, 545 SCRA 618
1639. OMB v. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135
1640. Perea v. People, 544 SCRA 532
1641. Gaas v. Mitmug, 553 SCRA 335
1642. Roquera v. Chancellor – 614 SCRA 723
 1643. 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
1644. United States v. Navarro - 3 PHIL. 143 (rationale)
1645. United States v. Tan Teng - 23 PHIL.145
1646. United States v. Ong Siu Hong - 36 PHIL. 73 (discharge)
1647. Villaflor v. Summers - 41 PHIL. 62 (pregnancy test)
1648. Beltran v. Samson - 53 PHIL. 570 (writing)
1649. Bermudez v. Castillo - 64 PHIL. 483
1650. Chavez v. CA – L- 29169, Aug.19, 1968
1651. Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr. - L-19052
1652. Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners - L-25018
1653. People v. Gamboa - 194 SCRA 372 (paraffin test)
1654. People v. Canceran - 229 SCRA 581 (paraffin test)
1655. People v. Tranca - 235 SCRA 455 (x-ray, not a violation)
1656. Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286
1657. People v. Go – 237 SCRA 73
1658. Regala v. Sandiganbayan – 262 SCRA 122
1659. People v. Malimit – 264 SCRA 167
1660. Galman v. Pamaran – (supra, Custodial Investigation)
1661. People v. Banihit, GR 132045, August 25, 2000 (relate to Tan Teng)
1662. People v. Besonia, 422 SCRA 210
1663. Sabio v. Gordon 504 SCRA 704
1664. Benares v. Lim 511 SCRA 100
1665. Standard Chartered v. Senate – 541 SCRA 546
1666. 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
1667. 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
1668. People v. Estoista - 93 PHIL. 647
1669. People v. Dapitan - 197 SCRA 378
1670. Baylosis v. Chavez - 202 SCRA 405 (modified by Robin Padilla)
1671. People v. Munoz - 170 SCRA 107
1672. People v. Amigo - 252 SCRA 43
1673. People v. Echegaray – 267 SCRA 682 (death penalty)
1674. People v. Tongko – 290 SCRA 595
1675. Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice – 12 LR 32 N’98
1676. Padilla v. CA – (supra, Right to Bail)
1677. People v. Alicante, GR 127026-27, May 31, 2000
1678. Lim v. People, GR 149276, Sept. 27, 2002
1679. People v. Gabiana, GR 123543, August 23, 2000
1680. People v. Horio, GR 137842, August 23, 2001
1681. Pagdayawon v. Sec. of Justice, GR154569, Sept. 23, 2002
1682. 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
1683. Lozano v. Martinez - 146 SCRA 323 (check)
1684. Caram Resources v. Contreras - 237 SCRA 724 (check)
1685. Tiomico v. CA – GR 122539 March 4, 1999 (trust receipt)
1686. 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
1687. People v. Ylagan - 58 PHIL. 851
1688. People v. Balisacan - L-26376
1689. Cinco v. Sandiganbayan - 202 SCRA 726
1690. People v, Vergara - 221 SCRA 560
1691. Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
1692. Galvez v. CA - 237 SCRA 685
1693. Cunanan v. Arceo - 242 SCRA 88
1694. People v. Tampal - 244 SCRA 202
1695. People v. Montesa - 248 SCRA 641
1696. De La Rosa v. CA – 253 SCRA 499
 1697. People v. Leviste - 255 SCRA 238
1698. People v. Cawaling – 293 SCRA 267
1699. Cudia v. CA – 284 SCRA 173
1700. Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 123045, November 16, 1999
1701. Dimatulac v. Villon – GR 127107 October 12, 1999
1702. People v. Maquiling – GR 128986 June 21, 1999
1703. People v. Nitafan – GR 707964-66 February 1, 1999
1704. Binay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120681, October 1, 1999
1705. Limpangog v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134229, November 26, 1999
1706. Flores v. Joven, GR 129874, Dec. 27, 2002
1707. Miranda v. Tuliao 486 SCRA 377
1708. Cabo v. Sandiganbayan 491 SCRA 264
1709. Romualdez v. Marcelo 497 SCRA 89
1710. People v. Terrado, 558 SCRA 84 (acquittal not reviewable)
1711. People v. CA – 626 SCRA 352
1712. People v. CA, G.R. No. 183652, 2015

III. Termination of Jeopardy; Existence; Non-Termination

Cases
1713. Bulaong v. People - 17 SCRA 746
1714. Bustamante v. Maceren - 48 SCRA 155
1715. People v. Obsania - L-24447
1716. Rivera, Jr. v, People - 189 SCRA 331
1717. Dizon-Pamintuan v. People - 234 SCRA 63
1718. COMELEC v. CA - 229 SCRA 501
1719. People v. Bans - 239 SCRA 48
1720. State Prosecutors v. Muro - 236 SCRA 505
1721. People v. Bellaflor - 233 SCRA 196
1722. Guerrero v. CA - 257 SCRA 703
1723. Teodoro v. CA - 258 SCRA 603
1724. Cuidia v. CA – 284 SCRA 173
1725. People v. Lising – 285 SCRA 595
1726. People v. Araneta, GR 125894 December 11, 1998, 95 OG 4556
1727. Cuison v. CA – 289 SCRA 159
1728. People v. CA, GR 128986 June 21, 1999
1729. People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 135451, September 30, 1999
1730. Barangan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123307, November 29, 1999
1731. People v. Velasco, GR 127444, September 13, 2000
1732. Tupaz v. ULEP, G.R. No. 127777, October 1, 1999
1733. People v. Verra, GR 134732
1734. Merciales v. CA, 379 SCRA 345
1735. Poso v. Mijares, AM No. RTJ-02-1693, Aug. 21, 2002
1736. People v. Alberto, GR 132374, Aug. 22, 2002
1737. Condrada v. People, GR 141646, Feb. 28, 2003
1738. People v. Romero, GR144156, March 20, 2003
1739. People v. Espinosa, GR 153714, Aug. 15, 2003
 1740. Oriente v. People – 513 SCRA 348
1741. Pacoy v. Cajigal – 534 SCRA 338
1742. Summerville v. Eugenio – 529 SCRA 274
1743. Herrera v. Sandiganbayan – 579 SCRA 32
1744. Javier v. Sandiganbayan – 599 SCRA 324
1745. Co v. Lim – 604 SCRA 702
1746. Lejano v. People – 639 SCRA 760
1747. Bangayon v. Bangayon, GR 172777, October 19, 2011
1748. Goodland v. Co, GR 196685, December 18, 2011

IV. Rule on “Supervening Facts”

Cases
1749. Melo v. People - 85 PHIL. 766
1750. People v. Buling - 107 PHIL. 712

V. Same Offenses

Cases
1751. People v. Tiozon - 198 SCRA 368
1752. Lamera v. CA - 198 SCRA 186
1753. Gonzales v. CA - 232 SCRA 667
1754. People v. Turda - 233 SCRA 702
1755. People v. Manungas - 231 SCRA 1
1756. People v. Deunida - 231 SCRA 520
1757. People v. Fernandez - 239 SCRA 174
1758. People v. Quijada – 259 SCRA 191
1759. People v. Ballabare – 264 SCRA 350
1760. People v. Calonzo – 262 SCRA 534
1761. People v. Benemerito – 264 SCRA 677
1762. People v. Tobias – 266 SCRA 229
1763. People v. Manoyco – 269 SCRA 513
1764. People v. Tan Tiong Meng – 271 SCRA 125
1765. People v. Sadiosa – 290 SCRA 92
1766. People v. Sanchez – 291 SCRA 333
1767. People v. Saley – 291 SCRA 715
1768. People v. Juego – GR 123162 October 13, 1998
1769. People v. Ganadin – GR 129441 November 27, 1998
1770. People v. Balasa – GR 106357 September 3, 1998
1771. Paluay v. CA – 293 SCRA 358
1772. People v. Mercado 304 SCRA 504
1773. People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 115719, October 5, 1999
1774. People v. Ong, 322 SCRA 38
1775. People v. Meris, GR 117145-50, March 28, 2000
1776. People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.
1777. Potot v. People, GR 143547, June 26, 2002
 1778. People v. CA, 423 SCRA 605
1779. Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 375
1780. People v. Comila – 517 SCRA 153
1781. Diaz v. Davao – 520 SCRA 481
1782. Merencillo v. People – 521 SCRA 31
1783. Lapasaran v. People – 578 SCRA 658
1784. Ivler v. Modesto – 635 SCRA 191
1785. People v. Ocden – 650 SCRA 124
1786. People v. Lalli, GR 195419, October 12, 2011 (trafficking in person)

VI. No Appeal from Acquittal; Instances of Void Acquittal

Cases
1787. People v. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 74
1788. Yuchengco v. CA, 376 SCRA 531
1789. San Vicente v. People, GR132081, Nov. 26, 2002
1790. People v. CA, GR 132396, Sept. 23, 2002
1791. People v. Sandiganbayan 491 SCRA 185
1792. People v. CA – 516 SCRA 383
1793. People v. Laguio – 518 SCRA 393
1794. People v. Dumlao – 580 SCRA 409 (void acquittal)
1795. Tiu v. CA – 586 SCRA 118
1796. People v. De Grano – 588 SCRA 550
1797. People v. Nazareno – 595 SCRA 438
1798. People v. Duca – 603 SCRA 159 (void acquittal)
1799. Mupas v. People, GR 189365, October 12, 2011 (void order on demurrer)

VII. Parties

Cases
1800. Metrobank v. Meridiano, G.R. No. 118251, June 29, 2001
1801. Ordinance and Statute
1802. People v. Relova - 148 SCRA 292

VIII. Applied to Impeachment

Cases
1803. Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001; See
also
1804. Resolution for Motion for Reconsideration at GR 146710-15 and 146738,
April 3, 2001
1805. People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.

JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES

1806. RULE 120 – JUDGMENT

 Additional reading:
1807. Sec. 16, AM No. 15-06-10-SC

Cases:
1808. People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 550
1809. Rimando v. Aldaba, G.R. No. 203583, 13 October 2014, 738 SCRA 232
1810. Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 350
1811. Sevilla v. People, G.R. No. 194390, 13 August 2014, 732 SCRA 687

POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES
1812. 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
1813. People v. Ferrer - 48 SCRA 382
1814. Virata v. Sandiganbayan - 202 SCRA 680
1815. Trinidad v. CA - 202 SCRA 106
1816. People v. Taguba - 229 SCRA 188
1817. People v. Sandiganbayan – 211 SCRA 241
1818. Co v. CA – 227 SCRA 444
1819. Rosales v. CA - 255 SCRA 123
1820. Subido v. Sandiganbayan – 266 SCRA 379
1821. Sesbreno v. CBAA – 270 SCRA 360
1822. People v. Burton – 268 SCRA 531
1823. Lacson v. Executive Secretary, GR 128096 January 20, 1999
1824. People v. Nitafan, GR 107964-66 February 1, 1999
1825. Fajardo v. CA, GR 128508 February 1, 1999
1826. People v. Valdez, GR 127663 March 11, 1999
1827. People v. Ringor, G.R. No. 123918, December 9, 1999
1828. People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 128888, December 3, 1999
1829. Republic v. Desierto, GR 136506, Aug. 23, 2001
1830. People v. Torres - 501 SCRA 591
1831. Salvador v. Mapa [2008]
1832. Republic v. Eugenio - 545 SCRA 384
1833. Valeroso v. People - 546 SCRA 450
1834. Presidential v. Desierto - 548 SCRA
1835. 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
1836. Valles v. COMELEC, GR 137000, August 9, 2000
1837. Ong Chia v. Republic, GR 127240, March 27, 2000

A. Children of Filipino fathers or mothers

Cases
1838. Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners – 197 SCRA 853
1839. Tecson v. Comelec, 423 SCRA 277
1840. Go v. Ramos – 598 SCRA 266
1841. Gonzales v. Rennisi – 614 SCRA 292
1842. Cabiling v. Fernandez – 625 SCRA 566

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

Cases
1843. Co. v. Electoral Tribunal - 199 SCRA 692
1844. Republic v. Sagun – 666 SCRA 321

C. Those Naturalized in Accordance with Law

Cases
1845. So v. Republic – 513 SCRA 267
1846. Go v. Republic, G.R. No. 202809, 729 SCRA 138, July 2 2014
1847. Republic of the Philippines v. Huang Te Fu, G.R. No. 200983, 2015

D. Loss of Citizenship

Cases
1848. Yu v. Defensor-Santiago - 169 SCRA 364
1849. Frivaldo v. COMELEC - 174 SCRA 245
1850. Frivaldo v. COMELEC – 257 SCRA 727
1851. Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC - 176 SCRA 1
1852. Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC – 211 SCRA 297
1853. Aznar v. Osmena - 185 SCRA 703
1854. Mercado v. Manzano – GR 135083 May 26, 1999
1855. Tabaso v. CA 500 SCRA 9
1856. David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015
1857. Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016

E. No Collateral Attack
 Case
1858. 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
1859. Bengson v. HRET – GR 142840, May 7, 2001
1860. In re Mallare 59 SCRA 344
1861. Chen Teck Lao v. Republic 55 SCRA 1
1862. 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: 1862. RA 9225 “An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizen who
Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent”

Case
1863. 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
1864. Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR 157013, July 10, 2003
1865. Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC 497 SCRA 649
1866. Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC – (supra, Citizenship)
1867. Romualdez v. RTC – 226 SCRA 408
1868. The Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, GR No. 205728, 747 SCRA 1, Jan
21, 2015

A. Special Registration Before General Elections

Case
1869. 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
1870. 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
1871. Eagle Security v. NLRC - 173 SCRA 479
1872. SSS Employees v. CA – (supra, Right to Form Association)
1873. De Vera v. NLRC – 200 SCRA 439
1874. Republic v. CA - 180 SCRA 428
1875. MPSTA v. Laguio (supra, Right to Form Association)
1876. Union v. Nestle – 192 SCRA 396
1877. Jacinto v. CA – 281 SCRA 657
1878. Telefunken Employees Union v. CA, GR 143013-14, December 18, 2000
1879. Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security, GR 143604, June 20, 2003
1880. Standard Chartered Bank Employees v Confesor, GR 114974, June 16,
2004
1881. 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
1882. Assn. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform - 175 SCRA 343
1883. Tanaka v. Japan - 7 Minshui 1523
1884. Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform – 192 SCRA 51
1885. Natalia v. DAR – 225 SCRA 278
1886. Phil. Veterans Bank v. CA, GR 132767, January 18, 2000
1887. Daez v. CA, GR 133507, February 17, 2000
1888. Bautista v. Araneta, GR 135829, February 22, 2000
1889. Corpus v. Grospe, GR 135297, June 8, 2000
1890. Heirs of Santos v. CA, GR 109992, March 7, 2000
1891. Padunan v. DARAB, GR 132163, Jan. 28, 2003
1892. 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
1893. Dee v. CA, GR 108205, February 15, 2000
1894. 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
1895. Macasiano v. NHA – 224 SCRA 236
1896. Jumawan v. Eviota – 234 SCRA 524
1897. Filstream v. CA – 284 SCRA 716
1898. People v. Leachon – GR 108725 September 25, 1998 (just and humane
manner)
1899. 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
1900. 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
1901. Carino v. CHR - 204 SCRA 483 (no adjudicating power, no contempt)
1902. EPZA V. CHR, et. al. – 208 SCRA 125 (no injunctive power)
1903. 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
1904. Meyer v. Nebraska - 262 US 390
1905. Pierce v. Society of Sisters - 262 US 510
1906. Wisconsin v. Yoder - 406 US 205
1907. Ginsberg v. New York - 390 US 629

B. Quality and accessibility of educational system

Cases
1908. DECS v. San Diego - 180 SCRA 534
1909. 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
1910. 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
1911. Cudia v. PMA GR No. 211362, February 24, 2015

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

Cases
1912. Garcia v. Faculty Admission, 68 SCRA 277
1913. BME v. Judge Alfonso - 176 SCRA 304
1914. Lupangco v. CA - 160 SCRA 848
1915. University of San Carlos v. CA - 166 SCRA 570
1916. Capitol Medical Center v CA - 178 SCRA 493
1917. Reyes v. CA – 194 SCRA 402
1918. Tan v. CA – 199 SCRA 212
1919. Camacho v. Coresis, GR 134372, Aug. 22, 2002
1920. Civil Service Commission v. Sojor – 554 SCRA 160
1921. 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
1922. 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.