Feb 08

One of the hallmarks of US bill of rights is

the protection of property.
Capitalist-characterized the US. Unlike
other states focus on liberty.
In philippines property is the bottom of
property.

US made of people gang, persecuted, came
with US with nothing.
Achieving their dreams, which is the
American dream.

When the people form tHE US in mind that
they are better country and they have
better life.

Property rights can put the same category
actually a lesser right, the supreme court
also .. in the non-impairment clause. In
America iron plot in the constitution the
right of property is a condition of non
impairment is actually very limited.

Property
Contracts-prestation and consideration.
The same things that right the whole oida
of accumulation of wealth, you can see the
contracts how tied up with property

The provision was first found in jone law
2016 a nd every constitution carries the
same provision.

NON IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT

Art. III, Sec. 10. No law impairing the
obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Civil Code, Art. 1306. The contracting
parties may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may
deem convenient, provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order, or public policy.
Contract will be higher in general law.
Contract cannot over write contractual
provisions unless unlawful.

IN the US it subject to general Law
cannot affect the provisions to conract.
That was old law, apply to people vs
pomar,.

In the philippines
-contract
-consent
-general law

the wording seems to be iron plat.

Calalang v Williams
Police power supposed to be benefit
everone in general. If that is in the
consent of the police power where you
can revoke or modify the agreement.

Ortigas V CA
-contract between ortigas and the buyer.
-the annotation at the back of the title is
the restriction.
-what the lot can be used for
-in this case it is used for residential
subdivision, it is annotated at the back of
the title.
The restriction binds not only the buyer
but also the subsequent buyer.
-the transfers say that they want to
build a commercial building. Why? To earn
profit.
-owner dont want to because it will
increase also the tax will increase, there
can be traffic, pollution, peace and order.
-from a house you will own a condo.
-ortigas want to imposed the restrictions.
-there is an ordinance? Yes. Not just a
local ordinance but it is LAW.
-can that overwrite the contract? Yes.
-does it impair the CONTRACT? NO/
-did the ordinance expressly impair the
contract.
-residence. Yes, but with options.
-he can choose to maintain it as residence
and put up a new building.
BUT WHY CANt ORTIGAS AND
COMPANY INSIST THAT HELL BE
ALLOWED TO BUILD ONLY THE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
-police power do regulates and restricts
Invariably described as "the most essential,
insistent, and illimitable of powers" and "in
a sense, the greatest and most powerful
attribute of government," the exercise of
the power may be judicially inquired into
and corrected only if it is capricious,
whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, there
having been a denial of due process or a
violation of any other applicable
constitutional guarantee. Police power is
elastic and must be responsive to various
social conditions; it is not confined within
narrow circumscriptions of precedents
resting on past conditions; it must follow
the legal progress of a democratic way of
life.
-it will now promote, business along ortigas
avenue.
-categorized as police power, calalang
vs wiliams, hierchy
-as to owner, the effect of that, a right
to use their property what Is provided
for.
-the argument is subsequent. The
subsequent law is not just a law it
classifies police power.
-what if the subsequent restriction that
they can only use the street for
residence, forced out commercial.
Ecxcluding restaurant etc only sari-sari
store. What is the effect to someone
who already put up sari-sari store. Also
in Bel-air vs MMDA.
-in the similar case also own by the
ortigas, they are supposed to be
residential.
Contextual. The change in environment
will back up the police power
Will it be disadvantageous or
advantageous. It gave another phase to
police power.
Police power can actually be use to
unshuttle the use of the property.
Police power was beneficial to the owner
of the property.
OPOSA V FACTORAN
-the one who filed this case is minor.
They used their children. Arguing the
youths future.
An environmental case in behalf of fish.
-RTC say case dismiss that it is lack on
cause of action went to SC. The court is
there is an cause of action in RTC, the
dismissal of the case is not proper and
there is a cause of action. WHY? There
is a cause of action because there is a
right. Is there a law? No law.
Talking about an agreement. The theory
is that it is open only to the parties of
contract. The court said that license
and not contracts are involved. License
is privilege grant in liberality. Is there a
consideration? The consideration is the
liberality. The privilege can be revoked
just like a donation, when they used it
the way you dont want to use it.
Heirs of the owner want to get the
property back. Remanded to trial court.
ACESS TO COURT
Who can go to court? Any person and
property. Our court system is also
based on the concept of property. Only
those who have property can go to
court. The first you do when you go to
court is to pay.
BUT THE COURT SAYS PAY FIRST.
When you go to court you want
something a sum of money.
You have to say how much you are asking
for. The court says.
The court is now trying to harmonize in
the constitutiom

ACAR V ROSAL
Farmers ask for their right. Farmers
want to get the money. Only 10 persons
filed the case in behalf of 9000
farmers. Court asking for the whole
9000. 1.60 pesos each so court asking
for 10k. the court say they can now
litigate as pauper. The RTC did not
consider them as Pauper because they
considered working. SC said that they
can be litigate as a Pauper.
-they have right.
No one can deprive the right. the rule
of indigence. File first any amount that
will be awarded can be deducted from
the award. The court harmonize the
two.
Pauper-no income at all
Indigent-income is not sufficient.
RIGHTS IN GENERAL WAS
DISCUSSED, now we talk about
individual rights of accused.
-have you been arrested? Stopped by
police?
-when does it start? Its starts in the
gathering of evidence against you. When
there is no warrant when they have
initial contact. The form of initial
contact is when you ARRESTED?
INVITED? INVESTIGATED? WHY?
Because the practice in the Philippines
not actually arrest you but invite you.
Habit of NBI is to invite when you did
not come they will file a case against
you. CRIMINAL SUBPOENA. CIVIL
CASES SUMMONED
aside from arrest people are also
invited and also investigated. What is
the point here? Leads to criminal
liability. Once you had contact to the
law and lead to criminal liability you are
now entitled to rights.
In the constitution there are rights
which are not inherent. The right of the
accused, directly to the people.
Constitution rights in general but also
provided the rights of the accused.
Philippines criminal procedure is merely
procedural.
RIGHT OF THE PERSON
1. The person arrested, detained,
invited or under custodial investigation
must be informed in a language known to
and understood by him of the reason for
the arrest and he must be shown the
warrant of arrest, if any; Every other
warnings, information or communication
must be in a language known to and
understood by said person;
2. He must be warned that he has a
right to remain silent and that any
statement he makes may be used as
evidence against him;
3. He must be informed that he has the
right to be assisted at all times and have
the presence of an independent and
competent lawyer, preferably of his own
choice;
4. He must be informed that if he has
no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a
lawyer, one will be provided for him; and
that a lawyer may also be engaged by any
person in his behalf, or may be appointed by
the court upon petition of the person
arrested or one acting in his behalf;
5. That whether or not the person
arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed
that no custodial investigation in any form
shall be conducted except in the presence
of his counsel or after a valid waiver has
been made;
6. The person arrested must be
informed that, at any time, he has the right
to communicate or confer by the most
expedient means telephone, radio, letter
or messenger with his lawyer (either
retained or appointed), any member of his
immediate family, or any medical doctor,
priest or minister chosen by him or by any
one from his immediate family or by his
counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly
accredited national or international non-
government organization. It shall be the
responsibility of the officer to ensure that
this is accomplished;
7. He must be informed that he has the
right to waive any of said rights provided it
is made voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently and ensure that he understood
the same;
8. In addition, if the person arrested
waives his right to a lawyer, he must be
informed that it must be done in writing
AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise,
he must be warned that the waiver is void
even if he insist on his waiver and chooses
to speak;
9. That the person arrested must be
informed that he may indicate in any
manner at any time or stage of the
process that he does not wish to be
questioned with warning that once he
makes such indication, the police may not
interrogate him if the same had not yet
commenced, or the interrogation must
cease if it has already begun;
10. The person arrested must be
informed that his initial waiver of his right
to remain silent, the right to counsel or any
of his rights does not bar him from invoking
it at any time during the process,
regardless of whether he may have
answered some questions or volunteered
some statements;
11. He must also be informed that any
statement or evidence, as the case may be,
obtained in violation of any of the
foregoing, whether inculpatory or
exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible in evidence.

Rep. Act No. 7438
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS
OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR
UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE
ARRESTING, DETAINING, AND
INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF.
If one of the violations was violated will it
be quashed? NO. only the evidence will be
inadmissible.

In form of confession or the sinumpaang
salaysay.
For an extrajudicial confession to be
admissible, it must satisfy the following
requirements:
(1) it must be voluntary
(2) it must be made with the
assistance of competent and
independent counsel
(3) it must be express
(4) it must be in writing
PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO
robbery with homicide. How did the
police get the confession? Was he
arrested? NO.
. four version of truth
complainant
prosecution
court
what really happened
its an adversarial system-our system.
He waives the two party to present
their version, that is what we call the
judicial truth,
according to the court, he asked his
brother in law to surrender his self in
Subic. His brother in law is a police
officer in Subic, the robbery
happened in Olongapo. The police did
asked Del Rosarion to bring them to
the pawnshop were he pawned the
jewelry.
According to Del Rosario, he was
mauled thats why he confessed.
The court finding is credible, he said
that he was tortured, and he is a
relative of a police officer. Upon
whom lies the burden that he was
totured? To the accused. No
evidence that he was tortured. The
only evidence is his confession.
The prosecution wants to present
evidence.
People v donato
-hearing, who wanted to present
evidence? Donato?
File a motion to reconsideration,
prosecution can present evidence for
the purpose of the increase of bail.
Not for the right because its his
right.
Can still file bail its a matter of
right. even its a capital offense the
burden is still in prosecution
The purpose of bail is to ensure to
attend the hearing.
3 kinds of bail.
1.cash bond
2. Surety bond
3. property bond
(title annotated)
if you will not attend the bail will be
forfeited..
Paderanga vs CA
-mayor paderanga, hospitalized. Get
sick
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
-information, warrant of arrest, bail,
arraignment PLEA guilty or not guilty,
trial.
PEOPLE V CALMA
Proof beyond reasonable doubt-moral
certainty
Moral certainty
is that state of the case which, after
the entire comparison and
consideration of all the evidence
leaves the mind of the judge in that
condition that he cannot say that he
feels an abiding.
Trace of evidence- the semen.
According to the court theres not
even an element, the court requires
cannot even meet the element.
The slightest penetration is evidence.
Two kinds of evidence
Testimonial and real evidence.
Important to meet the stories to
satisfy the court.
FLORES
Sufficient in form and substance.
An accused has the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him
.sexually abuse
error in the information will not
quashial the information.
Elements of rape.
People v murillo
PLEA
Arraignment
In People vs. Pastor, 23 the Court explained that
while there is no definite and concrete rule as to
how a trial judge must conduct a "searching
inquiry", the following guidelines should
nevertheless be observed:
1. Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how
he was brought into the custody of the law; (b)
whether he had the assistance of a competent
counsel during the custodial and preliminary
investigations; and (c) under what conditions he
was detained and interrogated during the
investigations. This is intended to rule out the
possibility that the accused has been coerced or
placed under a state of duress either by actual
threats of physical harm coming from malevolent
quarters or simply because of the judge's
intimidating robes.
2. Ask the defense counsel a series of
questions as to whether he had conferred with,
and completely explained to, the accused the
meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty.
3. Elicit information about the personality
profile of the accused, such as his age, socio-
economic status, and educational background,
which may serve as a trustworthy index of his
capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty.
4. Inform the accused the exact length of
imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the
law and the certainty that he will serve such
sentence. For not infrequently, an accused pleads
guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon
bad advice or because of promises of the
authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he
admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the
judge to ensure that the accused does not labor
under these mistaken impressions because a plea
of guilty carries with it not only the admission of
authorship of the crime proper but also of the
aggravating circumstances attending it, that
increase punishment. cICHTD
5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime
with which he is charged and fully explain to him
the elements of the crime which is the basis of his
indictment. Failure of the court to do so would
constitute a violation of his fundamental right to
be informed of the precise nature of the
accusation against him and a denial of his right to
due process.
6. All questions posed to the accused should
be in a language known and understood by the
latter.
7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the
accused in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The
accused must be required to narrate the tragedy
or reenact the crime or furnish its missing details.

The lawyer did not make an effort at all.
He never crossed exam. The trial court
should have designated another counsel de
oficio.

RIVERA
The right to cross exam is lost.
Even if the substitute lawyer might not