CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II FINALS REVIEWER

I. OBJECTIVES/ ENUMERATION
When is bail a matter of right?
a. before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, and
b. Before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

When is it discretionary?
Rule 114, Rules of Court
Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may
be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate
court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused
changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the
application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to
continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the
same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

3 distinctions of RP, LI (Cardines vs Rosete)
1. "life imprisonment" is invariably imposed for serious offenses
penalized by special laws, while "reclusion perpetual" is
prescribed under the Revised Penal Code.
2. "life imprisonment," unlike "reclusion perpetua," does not carry
with it any accessory penalty.
3. "life imprisonment" does not appear to have any definite extent
or duration, while "reclusion perpetua" entails incarceration for at
least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for
pardon.

Implicit limitations of R. to bail
1. Person claiming a right must be under actual detention.
2. Constitutional right available only in criminal cases not in
deportation cases.

Factors to be considered in determining bail
a. Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
b. Nature and circumstances of the offense;
c. Penalty for the offense charged;
d. Character and reputation of the accused;
e. Age and health of the accused;
f. Weight of the evidence against the accused;
g. Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
h. Forfeiture of other bail;
i. The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when
arrested; and
j. Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Elements criminal due process (Mejia v Pamaran)
1. accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction, and
2. accused is proceeded against under the orderly processes of law,
and
3. Accused has been given notice.
4. Accused has been given an opportunity to be heard, and
5. Judgment rendered was within the authority of a constitutional
law.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD
1. R. to be presumed innocent until contrary is proved.
2. R. to be at the trial.
3. R. to counsel.
4. R. to impartial judge.
5. R. to meet witnesses face to face.
6. R. to compulsory process to secure attendance of witness.
7. R. to notice of trial, in case of trial in absentia.

Duties of a judge prior arraignment:
1. Inform the accused that he has the right to counsel before
arraignment.
2. After giving such info, judge has to ask the accused whether or
not he decides to counsel.
3. If yes, court must grant him reasonable time to do so.
4. If unable to employ, court must appoint counsel de oficio.

Objects of written accusations
1. To furnish accused with such description of the charge against
him as to enable him to make his defense.
2. To avail himself of conviction or acquittal for protection against
further prosecution of the same cause.
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one
should be had.

Requisites of double jeopardy
1. There is a valid complaint.
2. Filed in a competent court.
3. To which the defendant pleaded.
4. The defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

Ex post facto law
1. Law making an act criminal which was not so before its passage.
2. Law aggravating the penalty of a crime committed before its
passage.
3. Law inflicting a greater or more severe punishment.
4. Law altering the legal rules on evidence and allowing the receipt
of less or different testimony than what the law required at the
time of commission, in order to convict an accused.
5. Law assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect
imposes penalty of deprivation of right for something which
when done was lawful.
6. Law depriving the accused of some lawful protection entitled to
him such as protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.

Characteristics
1. Refer to criminal cases.
2. Retroactive.
3. Prejudicial to the accused.

Bill of attainder
Legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial.













II. CASES
EX-POST FACTO LAWS

*Nunez vs Sandiganbayan
Nunez, convicted of crimes of estafa through falsification of PDs by SB
assailed the constitutionality of PD 1486 which created the SB, saying it was
an ex post facto law which altered right to appeal. Petition denied. PD was a
valid exercise of lawmaking power of Pres Marcos. Defined kinds of Expost
Facto laws.

*Mejia vs. Pamaran
Petitioner was clerk of court convicted for suggesting to intervene with a
judge to get a favorable judgment in an ejectment case. Atty assails
constitutionality of SB, saying it was an ex post facto law which altered right
to appeal. Petition denied. PD was a valid exercise of lawmaking power of
Pres Marcos. Defined kinds of Ex post Facto laws.

*People vs. Villaraza
Accused convicted with death for 3 counts of rape of her stepdaughter, but
reduced to RP because of he and mother of victim were only live in partners.
Cannot qualify rape to increase penalty if not indicated in the information
filed.

*People vs. Nitafan
The judge dismissed the case of Imelda Marcos even without motion to
quash filed by the accused, saying the bank circular which prohibited
maintenance of foreign exchange deposit accounts is an ex-post facto law.
Denied by SC and remanded back to trial court. Presumption of
constitutionality of a statute, unless otherwise ruled by SC.

*Lacson vs Exec Sec
Chief Lacson contends constitutionality of the amendment on the expanded
jurisdiction of SB in trying all the accused, not only those who are principals,
of the Kuratong Baleleng rub-out case. SC upheld validity of amendment. Not
ex-post facto law, as it was not a penal law, though substantive in nature,
expanding jurisdiction of SB.

*People vs Casingal
Appellants convicted for murder inside a room, sentenced to RP. SC ruled
that aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated for lacking evidence,
hence lowered penalty to RT.

*In re Kay Villegas Inc
The organization assails validity of RA 6132 on prohibited acts during the
Constitutional Convention, because they intend to show their support to the
convention. SC ruled that the statute operates prospectively and acts done
before enactment are not criminal. Hence, no ex post facto law.

*Republic vs. Fernandez
Estate of deceased is charged with war profit tax. Wife of decedent contends
constitutionality of the war profit tax law as ex post facto. Ex post facto laws
only apply to criminal, not civil cases. Hence, it is constitutional.

BILL OF ATTAINDER

*BASECO vs. PCGG
BASECO contends its sequestration by the PCGG, saying EOs and PCGG
orders were bills of attainder. Petition denied, as the orders specifically
stated that judgment would be rendered by a tribunal. No presupposition of
guilt on the orders.

*Misolas vs. Panga
Misolas charged with illegal possession of firearms qualified with rebellion or
subversion. Motion to quash denied. PD 1866 is not a bill of attainder
because it defined the crime, the qualifying circumstances and provided the
penalty thereof.

*People vs. Ferrer
Accused of being a member/officer of CPP-NPA, petitioner assails
constitutionality of Anti-subversion Act as being a bill of attainder. Motion to
quash denied and case remanded back. Statute is not focused on CPP only
but to all subversive orgs.

DEBT AND NON-PAYMENT OF POLL TAX

*Lirag Textiles vs. SSS
Petitioner assails decision of lower court in holding the purchase agreement
between them and SS as a debt instrument rather than redeemable shares of
the textile corp. Denied and ordered to pay. Financial difficulty is not a
reason for not honoring the agreement.

*CIR vs Palanca
Palancas request for tax refund was denied by CIR, when it taxed the
donation of shares to petitioner as income tax. CTA reversed decision,
affirmed by SC. Debt and tax are not the same.

*Villanueva vs City of Ilo-ilo
Petitioners assail validity of ordinance when Iloilo levied taxes on tenement
houses. Ordinance is valid exercise of taxation power, not double taxation.
Not unconstitutional even if it provided a penal clause because debt and tax
are not the same.

*Lozano vs. Martinez
Petitioners charged with BP 22 assails constitutionality of the statute in their
motion to quash. SC upheld validity as the act does not punish nonpayment
of debt but the act of issuing worthless checks to the detriment of the
economy.

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

*Sarmiento vs. Tuico
Workers of ATC staged a strike pending an unfair labor practice case. MOLEs
order of return to work is assailed by ATC and; workers treats this as
involuntary servitude. SC upheld validity of order, MOLE has jurisdiction.
Workers have waived their right to return to work when it continued strikes
pending the case.

*Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan
Former stenographer jailed for failing to submit steno notes of case after his
employment. SC held move, not involuntary servitude. CA may compel the
former employee to render his job for noncompliance is contempt.

EXCESSIVE FINES, CRUEL AND DEGRADING PUNISHMENT

*Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan
Zaldivar punished for contempt was indefinitely suspended from practice of
law. No cruel and degrading punishment, for it effectively placed the lifting of
suspension on the hands of the lawyer.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY
*People vs. Relova
Opulencia charged twice (ordinance and theft) for installing devices in his ice
plant to lower electricity charges. SC ruled it as double jeopardy, denied
certiorari but remanded civil case to trial court.

*People vs. Del Carmen
Accused acquitted of malicious mischief for removing water meter, but was
later charged with coercion. SC ruled it as double jeopardy, from same
offense. Appeal denied.

*People vs. Bocar
Judge dismissed case by prosecution on theft of logs during summary
investigation. No double jeopardy because court was ousted of jurisdiction
when it prematurely dismissed the first complaint. Cases remanded to trial
court.

*Saldana vs. CA
Saldana charged with estafa re. collecting home assoc. fees. CA ordered trial
court to allow admission of testimony of assoc members. No double jeopardy
because court was ousted of jurisdiction. Petition for review denied.




*Nierras vs. Dacuycuy
Nierras charged with estafa and BP 22 by Shell. Contends it as double
jeopardy when RTC allowed info. No double jeopardy as prosecution for
same act is allowed, not same offense.

*People vs. Mogol
Accused charged with serious physical injuries but case was dismissed in
order to pave way for filing of frustrated murder. SC dismissed and ordered
trial court to render judgment on physical injuries case. No double jeopardy
because order of trial court dismissing the first case was invalid.

*People vs. City Court of Silay
The defendants were twice charged for falsifying the entry of weight of sugar
canes in the tarjetas. There was double jeopardy, although it was mistake of
judge to dismiss the case. Petition denied.

*Esmena vs Pogoy
Judge revived the grave coercion case filed by a priest when he was forced to
withdraw from a bank in order to satisfy a lost gambling bet. Provisional
dismissal was not valid as it did not have the consent of the accused. Double
jeopardy if allowed to prosecute.

*People vs. Ylagan
Accsed charged with serious physical injuries, but private prosecutor
dismissed case. Another case was filed. Double jeopardy because mere
silence of accused is not a valid waiver of the dismissal.

*People vs. Baliscanan
Accused pleaded guilty for homicide but changed his mind to submit self-
defense as plea, thus trial court acquitted him. No double jeopardy as
judgment rendered was invalid. Case remanded to trial court.

*People vs. Consulta
Accused charged for violating usury law but trial court dismissed it. Another
case was charged. SC ruled no double jeopardy as first case did not constitute
a crime (less than 14%). Case remanded to trial court.

HABEAS CORPUS

*Harvey vs. Santiago
Habeas corpus denied from petitioners who were foreign pedophiles
awaiting deportation as charges were now pending, detention was now legal.
Writ cannot be granted when detention is legal even if illegal to begin with.

CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS

*Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan
Former Minister Tatad was charged with violating the Anti-Graft law. Case
was hushed until years later. Violation of right to due process and speedy
trial.

*People vs. Linsangan
Accused convicted for selling marijuana sticks but contends conviction as
violation of due process. Testimony of apprehending officers are more
credible in the case at bar.

*People vs. Tranca
Accused convicted for selling shabu but he and his sister posit a defense of
coercion by the operatives. SC affirmed conviction due to presumption of
regularity of acts of the police during buy-bust operation.

*Alih vs. Castro
Petitioners prays that search and seizure on the compound be held illegal as
violative of due process. SC granted as it was without warrant; articles
inadmissible as evidence but withheld for pending criminal proceedings.

*People vs. Gamboa
Accused convicted of murder, shooting victim inside the house; was rushed
to the hospital by wife and father. No violation of due process as he was
identified, coerced confession was not relied upon and paraffin tests and
other evidence pointed to his guilt.


*Alinsugay vs. Cagampang
Judge dismissed a case after petitioners filed a case on a land recovery
dispute after a failed barangay conciliation process. SC ruled that failure of
respondent to appear will allow petitioner to elevate case to court. Case
remanded for hearing on merits.

SPEEDY DISPOSITION

*Caballero vs. Alfonso Jr.
Claim for damages by owners of coconut plantation from illegal harvesting.
They contend that speedy disposition is denied because law requires the
determination of tenant-owner relationship by Sec of Agrarian reform prior
to investigation. Speedy disposition is a relative term. However, 10 years is
enough time so SC directed court now to hear the case.

*Padua vs. Ericta
Claims for damages by Padua but was dismissed by trial court when counsel
and petitioner failed to appear at hearing. SC upheld abuse in authority as
speedy disposition also rests on the other party who twice asked for
rescheduling and was granted. Case reopened.

SELF-INCRIMINATION

*People vs. Otadora
Accused had her sister and her spouse killed through a gunman. Gunman was
made to fit the pants as evidence. Right against self-incrimination does not
include prohibiting the measuring and photographing of a party. Guilty of
double murder through inducement.

*Dariano vs. Fidalgo
A partnership operated ships but was later dissolved. Estate of deceased
accused respondent of fraud in the accounts. SC held that identities of the
people who committed fraud are not established, thus dismissed.

*Beltran vs. Samson
Petitioner was asked to take dictation in his own handwriting from the judge.
Right against self-incrimination invoke and upheld as furnishing handwriting
samples, which may be used as evidence, require more than just body
movements but also intelligence and attention and is thus a violation of the
right.

*Pascual vs. Board of Med Examiners
Dr. Pascual is compelled to take the witness stand in an admin hearing. SC
held that right against self-incrimination extends to admin hearings and the
accuse may not take the witness stand without consent.

*People vs. Ayson
Ayson charged with estafa for mishandling proceeds from sale of PAL plane
tickets. Confessions admitted and SC ordered trial court to continue
investigation. Witness may not refuse to answer questions when cross
examined; but may refuse to answer questions regarding other crimes.

*Ali vs. Castro
Petitioners prays that search and seizure on the compound be held illegal as
violative of due process. SC granted as it was without warrant;
Photographing, fingerprinting and paraffin testing not included in right
against self-incrimination.

*Galman vs. Pamaran
On Aquino-Galman murder case. Respondents invoke right against self-
incrimination in excluding their testimonies from the Agrava Board but Sec 4
of PD 1886 provides punishment for contempt on failure to testify. SC held
that Sec 5 provides immunity in pursuit of justice.

*People vs. Linsangan
Accused convicted for selling marijuana sticks but contends conviction as
marking of the initials on the marijuana sticks violates right. SC held that
conviction was not found upon the initialing but on the act of selling itself.





PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

*People vs. Estillero
Convicted for selling marijuana in a public market, but contends it as a setup.
Presumption of innocence over regularity of performance of official duty.
Acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

*People vs. Diamsay
Convicted of selling marijuana cigarettes, but contends the confession is
coerced and existence of Freddie, the supplier is questionable. Presumption
of innocence over regularity of performance of official duty. Acquitted due to
reasonable doubt.

RIGHT TO BE HEARD

*Sayson vs. People
Charged with attempted estafa for issuing a check from a non-existent dollar
account. Right to be heard not violated as postponement and rescheduling is
upon the discretion of the court, especially if accused abused the request.

*People vs. Villamil
Accused murdered a passerby in a bbq stand after a heated exchange with
the vendor. He was represented by no less than 4 counsel de officio and thus
contends that his right to be heard was not afforded. No evidence that shows
he was not afforded a fair trial; nothing more was to be done.

*People vs. Solis
Appellants convicted for robbery with homicide but contended the decision
for they were not represented by counsel of choice. Untenable, as period of
10 months is sufficient time to get a lawyer of choice and they didnt object
the appointment of counsel de officio during trial.

SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL

*People vs. Tampus
Appellants exacted revenged on fellow prisoner, convicted for murder. They
contend that there was no public trial as it was held inside the penitentiary.
Untenable, as right to public trial may be waived upon request of one of the
accused.

*People vs. Jardin
Appellant charged with malversation through public docs. Counsel and
accused kept on postponing the hearings and upon failure of the prosecution
to appear, invoke their right to speedy trial. Untenable, because delay was
done by himself. Case to be decided by trial court.

CONFRONTATION

*Fulgado vs. CA
Appellants instituted a case for annulment of contracts of sale. After some
time, he died and his son migrated to US. Respondents move to strike their
testimony off the record for not having been cross examined. Untenable, as
failure to cross examine after considerable length of time is laches on part of
the respondent. Case reopened.

*People vs. Ale
Convicted for selling marijuana sticks, but witness, who was the poseur-
buyer was not presented and examined. Acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

*People vs. Bagano
Convicted of selling 10 kgs of marijuana through a buy-bust operation with a
native-informer and an American soldier. Testimony of soldier not convincing
as he didnt understand the dialect. Informer was not presented as witness,
violative of the right to meet witness. Acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

COMPULSORY PROCESS

*People vs. Bardaje
Charged with forcible abduction with rape, but contends that intercourse
was consensual. Lower court erred in burdening the defense with the
security of attendance of one witness; that is the courts duty to compel a
witness to attend the trial.

RIGHT TO BAIL

*Villasenior vs. Abano
Accused of murdering a police sgt, appellant contends bail bond ordered by
respondent judge as excessive. No abuse in discretion, considering the facts
of case and discretion of judge.

*People vs. Donato
Donato was charged with rebellion and waived his right to bail when he
remained in custody. SC held that lower court erred in letting accused post
pail after the waiver.

CITIZENSHIP

*Frivaldo vs COMELEC
Frivaldo ran for governor and won but was inhibited due to citizenship issue.
Citizenship not automatically acquired upon loss of the other. It may be
reaquired through legislative enactment, repatriation or naturalization.

*Frivaldo vs. COMELEC
Frivaldo again ran for governor and won but was inhibited due to citizenship
issue on day of taking office. His citizenship was reacquired upon
repatriation, on oath taking day, as if it was not lost.

*In re Mallare
Mallare removed from membership from bar as his father is Chinese. SC
reversed previous decision, as grandmother was a Filipina, his father is
naturally a Filipino, which makes him Filipino too.

*Moy Ya Lim Yao vs CIR
Wife of petitioner is to be deported for her Chinese citizenship after
repeated filing of extensions for her stay in the country. SC ruled that she is
now a citizen as her husband is, provided she has none of the
disqualifications.

*Ching Leng vs. Galang
Adopted children not included as legitimate if adopter was naturalized.

*Labo vs. COMELEC
Labo won mayorship of Baguio but was removed from office, him not being a
citizen of the Philippines at the time of election. He was still an Australian
citizen due to marriage and had not reacquired Philippine citizenship through
either of the three modes.