3 Tests applied on Bill of Rights/Judicial Standards of Review under the Bill of Rights

1. Rational Basis Test- applicable to economic, property, commercial legislation

2. Intermediate Scrutiny Test- classification based on gender and legitimacy, must further an important
gov’t interest and must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest
3. Strict Scrutiny Test- requires gov’t to show compelling gov’t interest that it justifies the limitation of
fundamental constitutional right.

Fernando v CA (obscenity) Miller Test: (a) whether to the average person, applying contemporary standards would
find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work,
taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

A search warrant is defined in our jurisdiction as an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property and
bring it before the court

Requisites for a valid search warrant

1. it must be issued upon probable cause;

2. the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person;
3. in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and
such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
4. the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons and things to be seized.

Probable cause- It requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be
searched.

Description of the place to be search; when sufficient.

Q — The search warrants commanded any peace officer to make an immediate search of MASAGANA compound
located at Governor’s Drive, Barangay Lapidario, Trece Martires, Cavite City. It was contended that there
was no proper description since there are many structures inside the compound, hence, the warrants are
general, thus, void. Is the contention correct? Why?

ANS: No. The longstanding rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the
warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish if from other
places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to
the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional
requirement.
Moreover, in the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with
sufficient particularity, it has been held that the executing officer’s prior knowledge as to the place intended
in the warrant is relevant. This would seem to be especially true where the executing officer is the affiant
on whose affidavit the warrant had been issued, and when he knows that the judge who issued the warrant
intended the compound described in the affidavit.
Even if there are several structures inside the MASAGANA compound, there was no need to particularize the
areas to be searched because these structures constitute the essential and necessary components of the
 petitioners’ business and cannot be treated separately as they form part of one entire compound. The
compound is owned and used solely by MASAGANA. What the case law merely requires is that the place to
be searched can be distinguished in relation to the other places in the community. Indubitably, this requisite
was complied with in the instant case. (Yao, Sr., et al. v. People, et al., G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007).
Q — It was contended that the search warrants did not indicate with particularity the items to be seized since the
search warrants merely described the items to be seized as LPG cylinders bearing the trademarks GASUL
and SHELLANE without specifying their sizes. Is the contention correct? Why?
ANS: No. A search warrant may be said to have particularly described the things to be seized when the description
therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; or when the description expresses a
conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure;
or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the
warrant is being issued.
While it is true that the property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described therein and no
other property can be taken thereunder, yet the description is required to be specific only insofar as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow. The law does not require that the things to be seized must be described
in precise and minute details as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities;
otherwise it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a search warrant, as they would not
know exactly what kind of things they are looking for. Once described, however, the articles subject of the
search and seizure need not be so invariant as to require absolute concordance, in our view, between those
seized and those described in the warrant. Substantial similarity of those articles described as a class or
species would suffice. (Yao, Sr., et al. v. People, et al., G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007).
Q — Is ownership required of the things seized? Explain.
ANS: No. The law does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom
the search warrant is directed. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the
person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be
seized. Hence, even if, as petitioners claim, the properties seized belong to MASAGANA as a separate entity,
their seizure pursuant to the search warrant is still valid. (Yao, Sr., et al. v. People, et al., G.R. No. 168306,
June 19, 2007).
Return of the things seized after dismissal of criminal case.
Q — There was a criminal action for the prosecution of the crime of trademark infringement. However, the case
was dismissed. Should the court having custody of the seized objects order the return of the same?
Explain.
ANS: Yes. All things considered, it should be noted that there is no law prohibiting the trial court from returning the
articles seized before a case is actually filed in court and even before the final determination by the
prosecutor or the DOJ of whether a case should be filed in court. It is true that in most cases, the release of
the articles seized would be unjustified. However, in the case at bar, the return of the playing cards and the
printing machines would better serve the purposes of justice and expediency. (Summerville Gen.
Merchandising Co. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 158767, June 26, 2007).
There exists a constitutional safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures, which refers to the
immunity of one’s person from interference by the government, included in which is his residence, his
papers and other possessions. The Constitution, however, does not provide a blanket prohibition against
all searches and seizures; rather, the fundamental protection accorded by the search and seizure clause is
that, between persons and the police, there must stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed
with the power to issue or refuse such search warrant. Yet, the responsibilities of the magistrate do not end
with the granting of the warrant, but extends to the custody of the articles seized. In exercising custody
over these articles, the property rights of the owner should be balanced with the social need to preserve
evidence, which will be used in the prosecution of a case.
 Where the parties seized have already been found not to be the “subject of the offense” and the purpose
of presenting them as evidence is no longer served, there is no justification for severely curtailing the
rights of a person to his property.
Examination of complainant/applicant for search warrant.
The searching questions propounded to the applicant and the witnesses depend largely on the discretion of
the judge. Although there is no hard-and-fast rule governing how a judge should conduct his investigation,
it is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general,
peripheral, perfunctory or pro forma. The judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but
must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. (Yao, Sr., et al. v. People, et al.,
G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007).
When can there be search without warrant.
Q — As a rule, search can only be made if there is a search warrant. State some exceptions and the minimum
requirement for their validity. Explain.
ANS: As a rule, search and seizure must be carried through with judicial warrant, otherwise, such search and seizure
constitutes derogation of a constitutional right.
The above rule, however, is not devoid of exceptions. In People v. Sarap, G.R. No. 132165, March 26, 2003,
399 SCRA 503, the SC listed the exceptions where search and seizure may be conducted without warrant,
thus: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of
customs laws; (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view; (5) search when the accused himself waives his right
against unreasonable searches and seizures; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency
circumstances. The only requirement in these exceptions is the presence of probable cause. Probable cause
is the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet, and prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense
are in the place to be searched. (Sony Music Ent. (Phils.) Inc. v. Español, G.R. No. 156804, March 14, 2005,
453 SCRA 360). In People v. Aruta, the Court ruled that in warrantless searches, probable cause must only
be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be
committed. There is no hard and fast rule or fixed formula in determining probable cause for its
determination varies according to the facts of each case. (351 Phil. 868 (1998); Espie, Jr., et al. v. Hon.
Nelsonida T. Ulat-Marredo, et al., G.R. No. 148117, March 22, 2007).

Q — At around 2:30 p.m. of September 6, 1998, a confidential informer disclosed to SPO2 Ngina that a passenger
jeepney with Plate No. AYB 117 loaded with Benguet pine lumber was at Km. 96, Atok, Benguet. The
lumber was covered with assorted vegetables. A PNP roadblock was then placed in Acop, Tublay, Benguet
to intercept the jeepney. At around 4:00 p.m. of that same day, the police spotted the vehicle. They
flagged it down but it did not stop, forcing the police to chase it until it reached Shilan, La Trinidad. A
search of the vehicle disclosed several pieces of Benguet pine lumber. Petitioners could not produce the
required DENR permit to cut and transport the same. May there be search of the moving vehicle? Explain.

ANS: Yes. In People v. Vinecarao, the Court ruled that where a vehicle sped away after noticing a checkpoint and
even after having been flagged down by police officers, in an apparent attempt to dissuade the police from
proceeding with their inspection, there exists probable cause to justify a reasonable belief on the part of
the law enforcers that the persons on board said vehicle were officers of the law or that the vehicle
contained objects which were instruments of some offense. This ruling squarely applies to the present case,
hence, the warrantless search is valid and that the lumber seized is admissible in evidence against
petitioners. (Espie, Jr., et al. v. The Hon. Nelsonida T. Ulat-Marredo, et al., G.R. No. 148117, March 22, 2007).
Search of a moving vehicle.

Q — A confidential informer tipped the police that a Gemini car was going to deliver shabu at Marville
Subdivision. Pursuing said lead, the Antipolo City police sent a team to Marville Subdivision to monitor
said vehicle. The information provided by the informer turned out to be correct as, indeed, the Gemini
car was spotted in the place where it was to be bringing shabu. When they stopped the car, they saw a
gun tucked in appellant’s waist. Appellant did not have any document to support his possession of said
firearm which all the more strengthened the police’s suspicion. After he was told to step out of the car,
they found on the driver’s seat plastic sachets containing white powdery substance. Was there a valid
search of the moving vehicle? Explain.

ANS: Yes, because the circumstances taken together are sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrantless
search of the car. When a vehicle is flagged down and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless
search is valid as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe
prior to the search that they would find the evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
(People v. Bagista, G.R. No. 86218, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 63; People v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 175783,
September 3, 2007).

Q — State the rationale for the validity of search of a moving vehicle. Explain.

ANS: The rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving
vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant
could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of
the issuing judge – a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the
use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. A
warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that “it is not practicable to secure a
warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
must be sought.” (People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017, January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 122).

Nevertheless, the exception from securing a search warrant when it comes to a moving vehicle does not give
the police authorities unbridled discretion to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile. To do so would
render the aforementioned constitutional stipulations inutile and expose the citizenry to indiscriminate
police distrust which could amount to outright harassment. Surely, the policy consideration behind the
exemption of search of moving vehicles does not encompass such arbitrariness on the part of the police
authorities, in recognition that probable cause exist in order to justify the warrantless search of a vehicle.
(Caballes v. CA, 424 Phil. 263 (2002); People v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 175783, September 3, 2007).

WHEN IS AN ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT LAWFUL?

> A peace officer or private person may arrest without warrant:
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
3. 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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
4. In hot pursuit

A POLICE OFFICER WAS CHASING A PERSON WHO HAD JUST

COMMITTED AN OFFENSE. THE PERSON WENT INSIDE A HOUSE,
SO THE POLICE OFFICER FOLLOWED. INSIDE THE HOUSE, THE
POLICE OFFICER SAW DRUGS LYING AROUND. CAN HE CONFISCATE THE DRUGS AND USE THEM AS
EVIDENCE?
> Yes. The plain view doctrine is applicable to this case because there was a valid prior intrusion. The police
officer inadvertently discovered the evidence, he had a right to be there, and the evidence was immediately
apparent.

WHAT IF THE OFFICER MERELY PEEKS THROUGH THE WINDOW OF THE HOUSE AND SEES THE DRUGS, CAN HE
CONFISCATE THEM AND USE THEM AS EVIDENCE?
> He can confiscate them, without prejudice though to his liability for violation of domicile.
> He cannot use them as evidence because the seizure cannot be
justified under the plain view doctrine, there being no previous valid intrusion.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF A WARRANTLESS ARREST IS ILLEGAL?

> It doesn't render void all other proceedings, including those leading to the conviction of the accused nor can
the state deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts of record point
to his culpability
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest
a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and

(c) 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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

Exception on warrantless search and seizure: plain view doctrine

The right against warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject to legal and judicial exceptions, namely:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

2. Search of evidence in "plain view";
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.

The plain view doctrine provides that “objects inadvertently falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right
to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence”

Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure
even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the
following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for
an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view
is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or
properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he
came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand
and its discovery inadvertent

Chain of Custody- Chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation and/or paper trail showing the
seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence, physical or electronic

Freedom of Expression

Standards of Review
O’Brien Test- Content Neutral regulation
1.) If it is w/n the constitutional power of the government
2.) If it furthers an important or substantial gov’t interest
3.) If the gov’t interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression
4.) If the incidental restriction is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest

Miller Test- to determine obscenity

Tests Applied to Freedom of Speech/ Right to peaceable assemble

Dangerous Tendency Test- words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil which the State has the
right to prevent, then such words are punishable

Clear and Present Danger Test- The danger created must not only be clear and present but also traceable
to the ideas expressed

Balancing of interest Test- a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order and the regulation
results in the indirect, conditional and partial abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine
which of the two conflicting interests demands greater protection

Freedom of abode and Right to Travel

Freedom of Abode- Liberty to abode includes the right to choose one's residence to leave it whenever one pleases,
within the limits prescribed by law, to travel where one wills, and to return to his place of residence, except in the
interest of national security, public safety, and health.

When may the DFA validly cancel a passport: The Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall have the authority to issue, deny,
restrict or cancel passports. In the interest of national security, public safety and public health, the Secretary or any
of the authorized consular officers, after due hearing and in their proper discretion may refuse to issue a passport,
or restrict its use or withdraw or cancel a passport

A passport may be cancelled for the following reasons:

a) upon conviction by the holder of a criminal offense. The passport may be restored after service of sentence;

b) upon a finding by the Secretary or his authorized representative or consular officer that a passport was secured
through fraud or misrepresentation, or that it has been tampered with subsequent to its release or issuance to its
holder;

c) upon lawful order of the court to hold the departure of an applicant because of a pending criminal case.”

Writ of Amparo- The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of
a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

This new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the highest
possible rights of any person, which is his or her right to life, liberty and security. The Court will not spare any time
or effort on its part in order to give priority to petitions of this nature. However, the Court will also not waste its
precious time and effort on matters not covered by the writ. ( Canlas v Napico Homeowners)

Freedom of Religion- separation of Church and State

Freedom to Believe and Freedom to act on one’s belief.

Tests on Freedom of Religion

1. Clear and Present Danger

2. Benevolent Neutrality Test
3. Conscientious Objector

Bill of Attainder- a legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime, and punishing them without benefit of a
trial. This usually done is cases of treason.

Elements of Bill of Attainder

1. There must be a law.

2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable members of a group.

3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.

Ex post Facto law

(1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal,
and punishes such action.

(2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was committed.

(3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the law annexed to the
crime when it was committed.

(4) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense in order to convict the accused.

(5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT, in effect, imposes a penalty or deprivation of
a right, which, when done, was lawful.

(6) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled
such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In Re Kay Villegas Kami)

Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law

(a) Must refer to criminal matters

(b) Prejudicial to the accused

(c) Retroactive in application

DOUBLE JEOPARDY- The rule on double jeopardy means that when a person is charged with an offense and the
case is terminate either by conviction or acquittal, or in any other manner without the consent of the
accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense

WHAT ARE THE 2 KINDS OF JEOPARDY?

1. That no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense
2. 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

ELEMENTS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY

1. the complaint or information was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction;
2. the court had jurisdiction;
3. the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and
4. the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent
Exception:

The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions. In People v. Laguio, Jr.,[30] this Court stated

that the only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion,

thus:

x x x The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the
prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham.
However, while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such
an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its
authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. [31]

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE ACCUSED TO RAISE THE DEFENSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
1. A first jeopardy must have validly attached prior to the second
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in
the offense charged in the first information or is an attempt to commit the offense or a
frustration thereof