Constitutional law

(b) Principle of double criminality (2%)

Double criminality, or dual criminality, is a requirement in the extradition law of many

Mrs. W supplies the Philippine National Police (PNP) with uniforms every year. Last month, he and
two (2) other officers of the PNP conspired to execute a "ghost purchase", covered by five (5)
checks amounting to ₱200,000.00 each, or a total of ₱1,000,000.00. An investigating committee
within the PNP, which was constituted to look into it, invited Mrs. W, among others, for an inquiry
regarding the anomalous transaction. Mrs. W accepted the invitation but during the committee
hearing, she stated that she will not answer any question unless she be provided with the assistance
of a counsel. The PNP officials denied her request; hence, she no longer participated in the
investigation.

(a) What is a custodial investigation? Under the 1987 Constitution, what are the rights
of a person during custodial investigation? (3%)

1. to be informed of his right to be silent

2. to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice

3. if the person cannot afford the services of a counsel, he shall be provided with one

4. these rights cannot be waived unless it is in writing and in the presence of a

5. no torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or other similar means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him

6. secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado or other similar forms of

7. confessions or admissions obtained in violation of this right shall be inadmissible

(b) Was the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request violative of her right to counsel in the
proceedings conducted before the PNP? Explain.(2%)

No, the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request of a counsel in not violated.

The investigation conducted upon Mrs. W regarding to the ghost purchases in not a
custodial investigation but an administrative investigation. The general inquiry was
conducted by an investigating committee not by law enforcements officers.

Sec. 12 of Article III covers only custodial investigation in order to protect persons
subjected to interrogatory questioning by the law enforcement officers from physical
or moral coercion to elicit an admission. Contrary to that, administrative investigation
lacks the compulsive atmosphere of a police dominated place.
 In a similar case in Van Luspo v. People, the supreme court held that such right was
not violated because the investigation of an administrative investigation headed by
the COA t clear the air of the anomalous purchases of the PNP.

At about 5:30 A.M. of September 15, 2019 Police Senior Inspector Officer A of the Manila Police
District Station received a text message from an unidentified civilian informer that one Mr. Z would
be meeting up later that morning with two (2) potential sellers of drugs at a nearby restaurant. As
such, Officer A decided to hang around the said place immediately.

At about 9:15 A.M., two (2) male passengers. Named A and Y, who were each carrying a traveling
bag, alighted from a bus in front of the restaurant. A transport barker, serving as a lookout for Officer
A, signaled to the latter that X and Y were "suspicious-looking."

As the two were about to enter the restaurant, Officer A stopped them and asked about the contents
of their bags. Dissatisfied with their response that the bags contained only clothes, Officer A
proceeded to search the bags and found packs of shabu therein. Thus, X and Y were arrested, and
the drugs were seized from them. According to Officer A, a warrantless search was validly made
pursuant to the stop and frisk rule; hence, the consequent seizure of the drugs was likewise valid.

(a) What is the stop and frisk rule? (2.5%)

the stop and frisk rule according to Terry v Ohio, is limited to “protective search of
outer clothing for weapons” coupled with a reasonable official suspicion by the police
officer.

1. 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 persons with
whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous (Malacat v. CA)

2. measured by the what the officers knew before conducting the search not just by a
mere anonymous tip (Florida v J.L)

(b) Was the stop and frisk rule validly invoked by Officer A? If not, what is the effect
on the drugs seized as evidence? Explain. (2.5%)

No, the stop and frisk conducted by the police officer was not coupled with a
reasonable official suspicion.

Two people carrying a bag and alighting from the bus does not constitute an unusual
conduct which leads a reasonable man to believe that a criminal activity is afoot or the
said persons are armed.

Also, the basis of their warrantless search is by an anonymous tip of an unidentified

Since X and Y’s right against unreasonable searches and seizure was violated, the
drugs seized is therefore inadmissible as evidence against the two accused in
accordance to section 2 Article III, par. 2 Any evidence obtained in violation of this
section shall be inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any proceedings.
A committee of the Senate invited Mr. X and Mr. Y, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Secretary of
Energy, respectively, as resource speakers for an inquiry in aid legislation. Mr. X refused to attend,
arguing that the Senate, not its committee, has the power to compel attendance. Meanwhile, Mr. Y
attended the committee hearing but upon being asked about discussions made during a closed-door
cabinet meeting, he refused to answer invoking executive privilege. The committee members
insisted that Mr. Y answer the question pursuant to the right of Congress to information from the
executive branch.

(a) Based on his argument, is Mr. X’s non-appearance permissible? Explain. (2.5%)

No, because article 6 section 21 of the constitution clearly states that the senate or
house of representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation.

(b) Is Mr. Y’s refusal to answer based on executive privilege valid? Explain. (2.5%)

No, the congress’ power of inquiry being broad encompasses everything that
concerns administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed
statutes.

An Information for Estafa was filed against the accused, Mr. D. During the course of the trial, Mr. D
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute the case for a reasonable length of time. Opposing
the motion, the prosecution argued that its failure to present its witnesses was due to circumstances
beyond its control. Eventually, the trial court dismissed the case with finality on the ground that Mr.
D’s right to speedy trial was violated.

A month after, the same criminal case for Estafa was refilled against Mr. D, prompting him to file a
motion to dismiss invoking his right against double jeopardy. The prosecution opposed the motion,
arguing that the first criminal case for Estafa was dismissed with the express consent of the accused
as it was, in fact, upon his own motion. Moreover, it was already able to secure the commitments of
its witnesses to appear; hence, it would be prejudicial for the State if the case were to be dismissed
without trial.

(a) For double jeopardy to attach, what requisites must exist? (2%)

To constitute double jeopardy, there must be

(1) valid complaint or information

(2) filed before a competent court

(3) Valid plea is entered by the defendant

(4) Termination of case (of which he had been previously acquitted or convicted or which
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent)
 (b) Rule on Mr. D’s present motion. (3%)

Mr. D can validly invoke Double jeopardy.

As a general rule, A dismissal of the case with express consent of the accused will not
bar another prosecution for the same offense, as the said consent is considered a
waiver of his right against double jeopardy.

Where the accused succeeds in having the case dismissed on the ground that the
information is insufficient, he cannot invoke double jeopardy upon the filing of a
corrected information.

However, in the case of Pacoy v Cojigal, SC held that Dismissal, even with the express
consent of the accused, will give rise to double jeopardy if there is a violation of the
right of the accused to a speedy trial. Insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution,
or made on the basis of a demurrer to evidence.

In the case at bar, the first suit of estafa against Mr. D was dismissed in violation of
his right to a speedy trial tantamount to an acquittal. Therefore, Mr. D can validly
invoke double jeopardy against the subsequent estafa case filed against him

PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorists who have violated
traffic rules. The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation where P01
Adrian was caught red-handed demanding and taking PhP500.00 from a motorist who supposedly
beat a red light.

After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required to submit a sample of his urine. The drug test
showed that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1 Adrian was charged with violation of
Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibility of the urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He
claims that the mandatory drug test under R.A. No. 9165 is a violation of the accused's right to
privacy and right against self-incrimination.

Are PO1 Adrian's contentions correct? (2.5%)

Yes, Adrian’s contentions are correct.

It cannot be said that persons charged of a crime waived their right to privacy or
consented to the mandatory drug testing because in the first place when a person is
accused of a crime, he is impleaded against his will

Unlike in the case of the students, the mandatory drug testing is constitutional
because it is of public interest and the students validly waived their right to privacy
when they seek entry to school.

In a similar case, Social Justice Society v Dangerous Drugs Board, held that the
mandatory drug testing is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for
criminal prosecution and the accused persons are forced to incriminate themselves.
Amoroso was· charged with treason before a military court martial. He was acquitted.

He was later charged with the same offense before a Regional Trial Court. He asks that the
information be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy.

The prosecution objects, contending that for purposes of double jeopardy, the military court martial
cannot be considered as a "competent court."

Should the Regional Trial Court grant Amoroso's motion to quash on the ground of
double jeopardy? (2.5%)

No, a court without jurisdiction cannot render a valid judgment; hence a person
charged before it cannot plead double jeopardy when tried anew for the same offense
by a competent court.

Five foreign nationals arrived at the NAIA from Hong Kong. After retrieving their checked-in luggage,
they placed all their bags in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5. They were instructed to
place their luggage on the examiner's table for inspection.

The examiner found brown-colored boxes, similar in size to powdered milk boxes, underneath the
clothes inside the foreigners' bags. The examiner discovered white crystalline substances inside the
boxes that he inspected and proceeded to bundle all of the boxes by putting masking tape around
them. He thereafter handed the boxes over to Bureau of Customs agents. The agents called out the
names of the foreigners one by one and ordered them to sign their names on the masking tape
placed on the boxes recovered from their respective bags. The contents of the boxes were thereafter
subjected to tests which confirmed that the substance was shabu.

Can the shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners for the
charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002? (2.5%)

Yes, the absence of government interference, the search made by the examiner in
view of a mandatory inspection of the airport is not violative of the right of the
five foreigners against warrantless searches. There being no violation of such right under
section 2 article III of the 1987 constitution, the drugs found inside the boxes are
admissible as evidence against the said five foreigners.
The police served a warrant of arrest on Ariston who was suspected of raping and killing a female
high school student. While on the way to the police station, one of the police officers who served the
warrant asked Ariston in the local dialect if he really raped and killed the student, and Ariston nodded
and said, "Opo."

Upon arriving at the police station, Ariston saw the City Mayor, whom he approached and asked if
they could talk privately. The Mayor led Ariston to his office and, while there in conversation with the
Mayor, Ariston broke down and admitted that he raped and killed the student.

The Mayor thereafter opened the door of the room to let the public and media representatives
witness Ariston's confession. In the presence of the Mayor, the police and the media, and in
response to questions asked by some members of the media, Ariston sorrowfully confessed his guilt
and sought forgiveness for his actions.

Which of these extrajudicial confessions, if any, would you consider as admissible in

The confession made to the mayor is admissible as evidence.

The mayor’s question to the accused were not in the nature of an interrogation
amounting to a custodial investigation but rather an act of benevolence by a leader.

The rule which states that an extrajudicial confession, in order to be admissible, must
be made with the assistance of a counsel is only applicable when such extrajudicial
confession is elicited through custodial investigation.

Two police teams monitored the payment of ransom in a kidnapping case.

The bag containing the ransom money was placed inside an unlocked trunk of a car which was
parked at the Angola Commercial Center in Mandaluyong City.

The first police team, stationed in an area near where the car was parked, witnessed the retrieval by
the kidnappers of the bag from the unlocked trunk. The kidnappers thereafter boarded their car and
proceeded towards the direction of Amorsolo St. in Makati City where the second police team was
waiting.

Upon confirmation by radio report from the first police team that the kidnappers were heading
towards their direction, the second police team proceeded to conduct surveillance on the car of the
kidnappers, eventually saw it enter Ayala Commercial Center in Makati City, and the police team
finally blocked it when it slowed down. The members of the second police team approached the
vehicle and proceeded to arrest the kidnappers.

Is the warrantless arrest of the kidnappers by the second police team lawful? (5%)

Yes, not all warrantless arrests are illegal.

Rule 113 sec. 5 Rules of Court provides that a warrantless arrest is valid when, (1) in
the presence of a police officer, a person arrested committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit a crime; (2) when a crime has just been committed; (3)
when the person arrested is an escaped prisoner.
 In this case, a crime is actually being committed in the presence of police officers
therefore, a valid warrantless arrest.

Pornographic materials in the form of tabloids, magazines and other printed materials, proliferate
and are being sold openly in the streets of Masaya City. The City Mayor organized a task force
which confiscated these materials. He then ordered that the materials be burned in public.
Dominador, publisher of the magazine, "Plaything", filed a suit, raising the following constitutional
issues: (a) the confiscation of the materials constituted an illegal search and seizure, because the
same was done without a valid search warrant; and (b) the confiscation, as well as the proposed
destruction of the materials, is a denial of the right to disseminate information, and thus, violates the
constitutional right to freedom of expression. Is either or both contentions proper? Explain your
answer. (5%)

The search and seizure of the tabloids, magazines and other printed materials is
illegal. the things seized by the city mayor and the task force was confiscated without a
judicial warrant thus violative to the constitutional mandate under section 2 par. 1, Article III
of the 1987 constitution which provides:

(1) the right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizure shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by a
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.

Moreover, the right to freedom of expression was also validly invoked. The mayor
failed to show the required proof which is a clear and present danger to justify the
confiscation of the materials.

***CONTINUE HEREEEE****

A law is passed intended to protect women and children from all forms of violence. When a woman
perceives an act to be an act of violence or a threat of violence against her, she may apply for a
Barangay Protection Order (BPO) to be issued by the Barangay Chairman, which shall have the
force and effect of law. Conrado, against whom a BPO had been issued on petition of his wife, went
to court to challenge the constitutionality of the law. He raises the following grounds:

[a] The law violates the equal protection clause, because while it extends protection to
women who may be victims of violence by their husbands, it does not extend the same
protection to husbands who may be battered by their wives. (2.5%)

Answer
The Government, through Secretary Toogoody of the Department of · Transportation (DOTr), filed a
complaint for eminent domain to acquire a 1,000- hectare property in Bulacan, owned by Baldomero.
The court granted the expropriation, fixed the amount of just compensation, and installed the
Government in full possession of the property.

[a] If the Government does not immediately pay the amount fixed by the court as just
compensation, can Baldomero successfully demand the return of the property to him?
Explain your answer. (2.5%)

[b] If the Government paid full compensation but after two years it abandoned its plan to
build an airport on the property, can Baldomero compel the Government to re-sell the
property back to him? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

Answer

Paragraphs c, d and f of Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 provide:

"Sec. 36. Authorized drug testing. xx x The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: xx x

c. Students of secondary and tertiary schools x x x;

d. Officers and employees of public and private offices x x x;

f. All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an
imposable imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day;"

Petitioners contend that the assailed portions of Sec. 36 are unconstitutional for violating the right to
privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the equal protection clause.
Decide if the assailed provisions are unconstitutional. (5%)

Answer

Congress passed a bill appropriating PlOO-billion. Part of the money is to be used for the purchase
of a 200-hectare property in Antipolo. The rest shall be spent for the development of the area and
the construction of the Universal Temple for All the World's Faiths (UTAW-F). When completed, the
site will be open, free of charge, to all religions, beliefs, and faiths, where each devotee or believer
shall be accommodated and treated in a fair and equal manner, without distinction, favor, or
prejudice. There will also be individual segments or zones in the area which can be used for the
conduct of whatever rituals, services, sacraments, or ceremonials that may be required by the
customs or practices of each particular religion. The President approved the bill, happy in the
thought that this could start the healing process of our wounded country and encourage people of
varied and oftenconflicting faiths to live together in harmony and in peace.

If the law is questioned on the ground that it violates Sec. 5, Article III of the Constitution that "no law
shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," how
will you resolve the challenge? Explain. (5%)

Answer

Jojo filed a criminal complaint against Art for theft of a backpack worth P150.00 with the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila. The crime is punishable with arresto mayor to prision correccional in its
minimum period, or not to exceed 4 years and 2 months. The case was assigned to Prosecutor
Tristan and he applied Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112 which reads: "(a) If filed with the prosecutor. - If the
complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of
less than four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the procedure outlined in Sec. 3(a) of this
Rule shall be observed. The Prosecutor shall act on the complaint within ten (10) days from its
filing."

On the other hand, Sec. 3(a) of Rule 112 provides: "(a) The complaint shall state the address of the
respondent and shall be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as well as
other supporting documents to establish probable cause. x x x"

Since Sec. 8(a) authorizes the Prosecutor to decide the complaint on the basis of the affidavits and
other supporting documents submitted by the complainant, Prosecutor Tristan did not notify Art nor
require him to submit a counter-affidavit. He proceeded to file the Information against Art with the
Metropolitan Trial Court. Art vehemently assails Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112 as unconstitutional and
violative of due process and his rights as an accused under the Constitution for he was not informed
of the complaint nor was he given the opportunity to raise his defenses thereto before the
Information was filed. Rule on the constitutionality of Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112. Explain. (5%)

Answer

Under Sec. 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have the power to "promulgate
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts xxx." Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002 provides that "any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the
imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining." Patricio, a user
who was charged with alleged sale of shabu but who wants to enter a plea of guilt to a charge of
possession, questions the constitutionality of Sec. 23 on the ground that Congress encroached on
the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under Sec. 5, Article VIII. He argues that plea-
bargaining is procedural in nature and is within the exclusive constitutional power of the Court. Is
Patricio correct? Explain your answer. (5%)

Answer

To fulfill a campaign promise to the poor folk in a far-flung area in Mindanao, the President
requested his friend, Pastor Roy, to devote his ministry to them. The President would pay Pastor
Roy a monthly stipend of ₱50,000.00 from his discretionary fund, and would also erect a modest
house of worship in the locality in an area of the latter's choice.

Does the President thereby violate any provisions of the Constitution? Explain your answer. (3%)

Answer

Congress enacted a law to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, access and
information to a full range of modern family planning methods, including contraceptives, intrauterine
devices, injectibles, non- abortifacient hormonal contraceptives, and family planning products and
supplies, but expressly prohibited abortion. To ensure its objectives, the law made it mandatory for
health providers to provide information on the full range of modern family planning methods, supplies
and services, for schools to provide reproductive health education, for non-governmental medical
practitioners to render mandatory 48 hours pro bono reproductive health services as a condition to
Philhealth accreditation, and for couples desiring to marry to attend a family planning seminar prior
to the issuance of a marriage license. It also punishes certain acts of refusals to carry out its
mandates. The spouses Aguiluz, both Roman Catholics, filed a petition to declare the law as
unconstitutional based on, among others, the following grounds:

(b) It violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude because it requires
medical practitioners to render 48 hours of pro bono reproductive health services which may
be against their will.

(c) It violates the Freedom of Religion, since petitioners' religious beliefs prevent them from
using contraceptives, and that any State- sponsored procurement of contraceptives, funded
by taxes, violates the guarantee of religious freedom.

answer

Agnes was allegedly picked up by a group of military men headed by Gen. Altamirano, and was
brought to several military camps where she was interrogated, beaten, mauled, tortured, and
threatened with death if she would not confess her membership in the New People's Army (NPA)
and point to the location of NPA camps. She suffered for several days until she was released after
she signed a document saying that she was a surenderee, and was not abducted or harmed by the
military. After she was released, and alleging that her rights to life, liberty and security had been
violated and continued to be threatened by violation of such rights, she filed with the Supreme Court
(the Court) a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data with prayers for Temporary
Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties. The
case was filed against President Amoyo (who was the President of the Philippines when the
abduction, beating, mauling and life threats were committed), General Altamirano, and several
military men whom Agnes was able to recognize during her ordeal. The Court, after finding the
petition to be in order, issued the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data and directed the
respondents to file a verified return on the writs, and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to hear the
petition. The respondents duly filed their return on the writs and produced the documents in their
possession. After hearing, the CA ruled that there was no more need to issue the temporary
protection orders since the writ of amparo had already been issued, and dismissed the petition
against President Amoyo on the ground that he was immune from suit during his incumbency as
President. Agnes appealed the CA ruling to the Court. The appeal was lodged after President
Amoyo's term had ended.

(a) Was the CA correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance
of the temporary protection order? (2.5%)

Answer