Freedom Of Association All contracts are made subject to an implied reservation of the protective power of the state and
acts are made subject to an implied reservation of the protective power of the state and statutes
 Occena vs. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404 (1985)
 In re Edillon, 84 SCRA (1979)
The IBP issued a resolution for the removal of AttyEdillon from the roll of attorneys for his failure to pay
the monthly IBP dues.
Edillon argued that compulsion to be a member of the IBP, as well as the payment of its dues are a
deprivation of his rights to liberty which are guaranteed by the constitution.
The court ruled that an Integrated Bar is different from bar associations in that the former is an official
national body of which all lawyers are required to be members.
Bar Integration is dictated by the considerations of public interest and welfare and is therefore subject to
the police power of the state. The Constitution no less gives the authority to the supreme court to
promulgate rules concerning the practice of law in all courts.
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional
freedom to associate. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he
is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations.
The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion
be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the lawyers.
 Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537 (1987)
 Arizala v CA, GR 43633-34, Sep 14, 1990
The Non-Impairment Clause
 Rutter vs. Esteban, 93 Phil. 68 (1953)
Rutter sold to Esteban two parcels of land for the sum of 9.6k, 4.8k paid outright with a remaining
balance of 4.8k to be paid partly in 1942 and 1943. A mortgage was executed over the parcels of land in
favor of Rutter to secure the payment. Esteban failed to pay and Rutter filed an action to recover the
balance due.
Esteban set up a defense that the moratorium clause of RA 342 citing that the obligation was contracted
in 1941 and that he is a war sufferer who filed claims with the Philippine War Damage Commission. As
such, payment for his obligation cannot be enforced until after the lapse of 8 years from the settlement
of his claim with the commission.
Rutters argues that the law is an impairment of the obligation of contracts.
The court ruled that moratoria are valid exercise of police power in that the same are emergency
measures called into exercise by public economic emergency which the legislative have found to exist. It
is the duty of the state to safeguard the vital interest of its people. Existing laws must be read into
contracts. The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and
dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.
However, to be valid, the interference must be to address a legitimate endand the measures taken are
reasonable and appropriate.
which validly exercise this reserved power, rather than impairing the obligations of an existing contract,
are comprehended within them.
Such police power may only be invoked and justified by an emergency, temporary in nature and upon
reasonable conditions in order that it may not infringe the constitutional provision against impairment of
contracts.
Here, the 8 years which RA 342 grants, or the 12 years total counting the executive issuances prior, is
unreasonable and oppressive considering the improvement in the situations after the war.
 Villanueva vs. Castaneda, 154 SCRA 142 (1987)
 Sangalang vs. IAC, 168 SCRA 634 (1988)
 Ortigas& Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000
Ortigas& co sold to Emilia Hermoso a parcel of land in Greenhills San Juan subject to conditions that it
would be used for residential purposes only, without any billboards, with the plans to be approved by
the seller, and with such restrictions extending until 2025.
The MMDA enacted oridnance No 81-01 reclassifying the area as a commercial zone.
The subject lot was leased to Ismael Mathay who constructed a commercial building thereat. Ortigas& co
sued Hermoso and sought the demolition of the property for violating the terms of their deed of sale.
Petitioner argues that the ordinance nullified the prior agreement that the property may only be used for
residential purposes. The ordinance did not preclude the use of lots for residential purposes and the
ruling of the CA is erroneous in that exclusive residential use was nullified by the zoning ordinance.
A later law which enlarges, abridges, or in any manner changes the intent of the parties to the
contract necessarily impairs the contract itself and cannot be given retroactive effect without
violating the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts. (contract – 1976, ordinance –
1981)
However, the exercise of police power may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts. Nonimpairment
yields to the superior exercise of the state of police power to promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people.
Here, the retroactive effect of the zoning ordinance effectively extinguished the single-family residential
building limit of the contract. Stipulations in a contract cannot contravene law, morals, good customs,
public order, or public policy.
Rights Of Persons Under Custodial Investigation
 Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
o Custodial Investigation
 People v. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
Clemente Lugod was sentenced to death for the rape and homicide of Nairube Ramos.
He was alleged to be seen drunk near the vicinity where Nairube was missing. The mother testified that
his slippers were found in their house and after searching, the body of her daughter was found in the
nearby Villa Anastacia.
The accused was arrested by reason of his shirt and slippers. The police officer and the vice mayor claim
that the accused confessed to the evil deeds and in fact he was even the one who pointed to the
body.Lugod claims that the alleged confession he made to the vice mayor cannot be considered as such.
The court ruled that he was arrested without being informed of his constitutional rights1. His confession,
therefore, before the police officer cannot be used against him for being fruit of the poisonous tree.
In arguendo, his confession was not voluntarily made considering the peculiar circumstances of his
detention – he was promised by the police officer that he would help him if he told the truth. When he
pointed to the body, he was surrounded by an army of police officers and a hundred antagonistic
townspeople. It was intimidating and not conducive to a spontaneous response, even coercive as the
accused alleged that he was maltreated by the officers.
His confession being inadmissible, the remaining circumstantial evidence falls. Circumstantial evidence
is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which
the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Here, the discovery of the rubber slippers in the victim’s house as well as a shirt near the cadaver of the
victim does not lead to a logical conclusion that he raped and murdered the victim. These circumstances
are not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and are mere speculations that cannot
serve as basis for conviction.
 People v. Del Rosario G.R. 127755, April 14, 1999
 People v. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992)
 Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)
 People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)
Larry Mahinay was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of Ma. Victoria Chan.
The victim was purported to be seen in front of the unfinished house where the accused was earlier. He
disappeared the following day and the victim’s body was found inside the septic tank of the property.
The belongings of the victim were found in the second floor of the house. The belongings of the
appellant were also found nearby.
He was eventually arrested and he executed an extra-judicial confession with the assistance of a lawyer.
During trial, he alleged that he was sleeping in the second floor of the house when Zaldy and Boyet
arrived carrying a cadaver and held him at knife point to rape the dead body. He refused but aided them
in dumping the body into the septic tank.
The circumstantial evidence (demeanor/seen at the place/fled/belongings) lead to his guilt. His
confession was freely and voluntarily given with the aid of counsel without being forced or promised a
reward or leniency.
1
12 – Art III - 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.
His defense is unbelievable and unnatural. The testimony of the assisting lawyer also belies his claim that
he was coerced. He was assisted, warned, and his constitutionally guaranteed interrogatory and
custodial rights were explained to him.
 Evangelista v People, G.R. No. 163267
 Jasalva v People, G.R. No. 187725
Benjamin Jesalva was charged with the murder of Leticia Aldemo. It was him who brought Leticia home.
On the same night, Noel Olbes saw a half-naked woman on the highway and carried her. Seeing blood,
he hurriedly left the woman. The scene was reported by De Vera to the police.
Olbes was interrogated sans being informed of his rights,but Jesalva, being the last person with the
victim when she was alive, was sought by the police. He surrendered, accompanied by fiscal Jayona. His
defense was that Leticia jumped out of the vehicle. He added that there was no witness who testified as
to the author of her injuries and that Olbes should be considered a suspect in the case.The statements
he gave at the police station should be inadmissible as him, being under custodial investigation, did not
waive his right to remain silent.
The court opined that: Custodial investigation refers to "any questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way." This presupposes that he is suspected of having
committed a crime and that the investigator is trying to elicit information or a confession from
him. The rule begins to operate at once, as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime, and direction is aimed upon a particular suspect who has been
taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend
to elicit incriminating statements.
Here, his statements were spontaneously made and not elicited through questioning. He voluntarily
made the statement that Leticia jumped out of his vehicle.
He was convicted based on circumstantial evidence (he drove her home, he fled the police, body was
found thereafter) His denial is unmeritorious.
o Administrative Investigations
 People vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
 Office of the Court Administrator v. Sumiling, 271 SCRA 316 (1997)
MeTC Pila Laguna was audited. Anomalous transactions were discovered, one involving a manager’s
check. The amount of 240k was deposited in the name of judge Sumilang instead of the
OCC.Mallaexecuted an affidavit that the money was distributed among her and two
stenographers.Lagmay in her own affidavit stated that the money was from the personal account of
Malla and not from the deposited money. She adds that she was pressured to sign the affidavit and thus
must be inadmissible in evidence.
The court ruled that the right of persons during custodial investigations may only be invoked DURING
custodial investigation. Moreover, she reiterated her statements during her testimony, effectively
refuting whatever pressure and coercion she claims was employed against her. By repeating her
confession in open court, she converted it into a judicial confession.
 People v. Uy, G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005
Jose Uy, Ernesto Gamus, Jaime Ochoa, and Raul Gutierrez were charged for funneling funds from the
NaPoCor from UCPB for their own benefit.

183.8m was used to purchase managers’ checks for the satisfaction of its loan obligations with the ADB,
which was in Yen. However, upon transfer to an off shore account in NY and remittance of such amount,
PNB Kalaw did not make the agreed remittance to the NYBank.The prosecution theorizes that the
managers’ checks were falsified by adding the account number of Raul Gutierrez, diverting the funds to
the same.
Uy refutes the allegations claiming that his conviction was based on the alleged sworn statement and
TSN of his interview with NPC personnel and the NBI’s report. The statement was signed while he was
confined at the Philippine Heart Center with the assurance that the same would not be used against him.
He was not assisted by counsel nor was he appraised of his constitutional rights.
The court ruled that the investigation alluded to in the constitution means that a suspect has been taken
already into police custody. The investigation ceases to be a general inquiry and begins to focus on the
person as a suspect. This causes an unequal situation due to its coercive and intimidating nature. These
rights are not available before government investigators enter the picture. Admissions in an
administrative investigation are not covered by the constitutional protection.
His statements were not extorted, and were in fact attested to in the presence of counsel.
o Police Lineup
 Gamboa vs. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988)
 United States v. Wade, 388 U.A. 218 (1967)
 People v. Escordial, G.R. 138934, January 16, 2002
Escordial was sentenced to death or robbery with rape.
Erma Blanca, Michelle Darunday, and Teresa Gellaver were asleep when a man who had his face covered
entered their dwelling, had them blindfolded, and robbed them. Michellle was also raped.
The assailant was described as someone with long hair, small eyes, slim body, and had a rough projection
on his nape. This description led to Escordial as the suspect. He was “invited” for questioning. Michelle
confirmed him as her assailant due to his keloid and his voice.He was also identified by other witnesses.
Defense witnesses, including police officers, testified that Michelle was unsure when she identified the
accused because the attacker had a mask on. The accused also testified that he was maltreated and
forced to confess. He denied being identified by the complainants who even asked the police if he was
the suspect.
The court ruled that his arrest was invalid but such defect was cured when he pleaded not guilty. His
invocation of Art III, Sec 12 is misplaced as he was unable to prove that the police officers obtained any
statement from him. More significantly, he was unaided by counsel at the time he was identified out of
court by the prosecution witnesses.
As a rule, an accused is not entitled to the assistance of counsel in a police line-up considering
that such is usually not a part of the custodial inquest.However, the cases at bar are different
inasmuch as accused-appellant, having been the focus of attention by the police after he had
been pointed to by a certain Ramie as the possible perpetrator of the crime, was already under
custodial investigation when these out-of-court identifications were conducted by the police. (Show
up and police line up)
These confrontations must be done in the presence of counsel for it may settle the accused’s fate.Any
identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up, or in a show-up for that
matter, after the start of the custodial investigation is inadmissible as evidence against him
However, failure to object immediately when the witnesses were presented effectively deemed him to
have waived his right to the admissibility. The inadmissible out-of-court identifications does not render
the in-court identification inadmissible.
 People vs. Piedad, et al., G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002
 People v.Sayaboc, G.R. 147201, January 15, 2004
Benjamin Sayaboc, Miguel Buenviaje, Marlon Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso were charged with the
killing of Joseph Galam y Antonio.
Buenviaje and Galam had a fisticuff and a few months thereafter, Galam was shot to death near his
restobar, allegedly by Sayaboc.
JoselitoParungao saw Sayaboc walking toward a tricycle driven by Marlon, with Miguel and Patricio
inside the sidecar.Sayaboc was identified as the gunman by witnesses.
Sayaboc was interrogated after being advised of his right to counsel, and in fact was provided with one.
He executed an extra-judicial confession to the killing of Galam at the behest of Marlon Buenviaje,
implicated likewise Miguel and Patricio. The confession was signed by Atty. Cornejo and attested by
Fiscal Tiongson.
He denied having been assisted by counsel nor of being informed of his rights. He claims to have been
maltreated by police officers and he retracted his confession.
The court ruled that Sayaboc’s confession may not be used as evidence against him. For the same to be
considered voluntary, the accused’s rights during custodial investigation must be proved to be complied
with.Sayaboc made no express waiver of his rights. His extrajudicial confession is in the nature of a legal
form or model. It is artificial and does not show a spontaneous, free, and unconstrained waiver of his
right.
The right to be informed is not the mere ceremonial recitation of constitutional principles, but rather the
transmission of meaningful information. It must allow the subject to consider the effects and
consequences of any waivers he might make.
His counsel was incompetent in that he remained silent throughout the investigation. There is no
showing that there was a faithful attempt at each stage of the investigation to make sure that Sayaboc
was aware of the consequences of his actions.
The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if
the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of
the person undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be useless,
voluntariness is impaired.