Custodial Investigation; Extrajudicial Confession (2013)

No.III. A robbery with homicide had taken place and Lito, Badong and Rollie were invited for questioning based on
the information furnished by a neighbor that he saw them come out of the victim's house at about the time of the
robbery/killing. The police confronted the three with this and other information they had gathered, and pointedly
accused them of committing the crime.

Lito initially resisted, but eventually broke down and admitted his participation in the crime. Elated by this break
and desirous of securing a written confession soonest, the police called City Attorney Juan Buan to serve as the trio's
counsel and to advise them about their rights during the investigation. Badong and Rollie, weakened in spirit by
Lito's early admission, likewise admitted their participation. The trio thus signed a joint extra-judicial confession
which served as the main evidence against them at their trial. They were convicted based on their confession. Should
the judgment of conviction be affirmed or reversed on appeal? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The judgment of conviction should be reversed on appeal. It relied mainly on the
extrajudicial confession of the accused. The lawyer assisting them must be independent. City Attorney Juan Buan is
not independent. As City Attorney, he provided legal support to the City Mayor in performing his duties, which
include the maintenance of peace and order (People vs. Sunga, 399 SCRA 624).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The judgment of conviction should be reversed. The police officers committed an offense by confronting the three accused.
This is a violation to Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which states that any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a
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.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The Judgment of conviction should be affirmed if the accused failed to object when their extrajudicial confession
was offered in evidence, which was rendered it admissible (People vs. Samus, 389 SCRA 93).
Eminent Domain; Public Purpose (2008)
No. IV. Congress passed a law authorizing the National Housing Authority (NHA) to expropriate or acquire private
property for the redevelopment of slum areas, as well as to lease or resell the property to private developers to carry
out the redevelopment plan. Pursuant to the law, the NHA acquired all properties within a targeted badly blighted
area in San Nicolas, Manila except a well-maintained drug and convenience store that poses no blight or health
problem itself. Thereafter, NHA initiated expropriation proceedings against the store owner who protested that his
property could not be taken because it is not residential or slum housing. He also contended that his property is
being condemned for a private purpose, not a public one, noting the NHAs sale of the entire area except his property to a
private party. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? (6%).

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The power of the NHA is a delegated power of eminent domain, strictly construed against
its holder and limited to the public purpose of redevelopment of slum areas. The expropriation of a property already
previously excluded for not posing a blight of health problem lacks public purpose and exceeds the delegated power of the NHA.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The power of expropriation cannot be used to benefit private parties (Pascual vs. Secretary, G.R.
No. L-10405, Dec. 29, 1960.) In this case, the main beneficiary would be the private realty company. The taking of
private property and then transferring it to private persons under the guise of public use is not within the power of
eminent domain (Heirs of Moreno vs. Mactan Airport, G.R. No. 156273, August 9, 2005).

Equal Protection; Responsible Parenthood (2007)

No.II. The City Mayor issues an Executive Order declaring that the city promotes responsible parenthood and
upholds natural family planning. He prohibits all hospitals operated by the city from prescribing the use of artificial
methods of contraception, including condoms, pills, intrauterine devices and surgical sterilization. As a result, poor
women in his city lost their access to affordable family planning programs. Private clinics, however, continue to
render family planning counsel and devices to paying clients. (a) Is the Executive Order in any way constitutionally
infirm? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Executive Order is constitutionally infirm. Under the 1987 Constitution, the State
shall defend the right of spouses to establish a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands
of responsible parenthood. (Art. XV, Sec. 3[1]). By upholding natural family planning and prohibiting city hospitals
from prescribing artificial methods of contraception, the Mayor is imposing his religious beliefs on spouses who rely
on the services of city hospitals. This clearly violates the above section of the Constitution.
Moreover, the 1987 Constitution states that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Art. III, Sec.
1). The Constitution also provides that the state shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity
and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services,
promote full employment, a rising standard of living and an improved quality of life for all. (Art. II, Section 9). The
loss of access of poor city women to family planning programs is discriminatory and creates suspect classification. It
also goes against the demands of social justice as enshrined in the immediately preceding provision.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The Executive Order is constitutionally infirm. It constitutes an invalid exercise of police
power and violates substantive due process by depriving people of the means to control their reproductive processes.
Moreover, since the national government has not outlawed the use of artificial methods of contraception, then it
would be against national policies. In addition, the Mayor cannot issue such Executive Order without an underlying
ordinance. (Moday v, Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107916, February 20, 1997) Besides, the action of the Mayor
may be in violation of a persons right to privacy.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The executive order is constitutionally infirm. It violates Section 3(1), Article XV of the
1987 Constitution, which recognizes the right of the spouses to found a family in accordance with the demands of
responsible parenthood which includes the artificial method.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The Executive order is constitutionally infirm. When Section 12, Article II of the 1987
Constitution provides that the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception, it
is prohibiting abortion only and not the use of artificial contraceptives (Record of the Constitutional Commission,
Vol. IV. Pp.683, 711 and 760).
(c) May the Commission on Human Rights order the Mayor to stop the implementation of the Executive Order?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the power of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is limited to fact-finding investigations. Thus, it cannot
issue an order to desist against the

mayor, inasmuch as the order prescinds from an adjudicatory power that CHR does not possess. (Simon v. Commission on
Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994; Cario v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 96681,
December 2, 1991.)
Freedom of Religion; Benevolent Neutrality Test (2009)
No. XVI. (a) Angelina, a married woman, is a division chief in the Department of Science and Technology. She had
been living with a married man, not her husband, for the last 15 years. Administratively charged with immorality
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest to the service, she admits her live-in arrangement, but maintains that this
conjugal understanding is in conformity with their religious beliefs. As members of
the religious sect, Yahwehs Observers, they had executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness which has been
confirmed and blessed by their Council of Elders. At the formal investigation of the administrative case, the Grand Elder
of the sect affirmed A
ngelinas testimony and attested to the sincerity of Angelina and her partner in the profession of their faith. If you
were to judge this case, will you exonerate Angelina? Reasons. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. (Estrada vs Escritor, August, 4, 2003 and June 22, 2006) Right to freedom of religion must prevail. Benevolent
neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests, but at the same time, strive to
uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Although the morality
contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion,
provided it does not offend compelling state interest. Benevolent neutrality approach requires that the court make an
individual determination and not dismiss the claim outright.
(b) Meanwhile, Jenny, also a member of Yahwehs Observers, was severely disappointed at the manner the Grand Elder
validated what she considered was on obviously immoral conjugal arrangement between Angelina and her partner.
Jenny filed suit in court, seeking the removal of the Grand Elder from the religious sect on the ground that his act in
supporting Angelina not only ruined the reputation of their religion, but also violated the constitutional policy
upholding the sanctity of marriage and the solidarity of the family.
Will Jennys case prosper? Explain you answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The case will not prosper. The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious
institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws and canons, of said
institution/organization. (Taruc v. Bishop dela Cruz, et al. Mar. 10, 2005).
Freedom of Speech; Commercial Speech; Prohibitions (2007)
No.IX. In a protest rally' along Padre Faura Street, Manila, Pedrong Pula took up the stage and began shouting
"kayong mga kurakot kayo! Magsi-resign na kayo! Kung hindi, manggugulo kami dito!" ("you corrupt officials, you
better resign now, or else we will cause trouble here!") Simultaneously, he brought out a rock the size of a fist and
pretended to hurl it at the flagpole area of a government building. He did not actually throw the rock. (a) Police
officers who were monitoring the situation immediately approached Pedrong Pula and arrested him. He was
prosecuted for seditious speech and was convicted. On appeal, Pedrong Pula argued he was merely exercising his
freedom of speech and freedom of expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Decide with reasons. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pedrong Pula should be acquitted. His freedom of speech should not be limited in the absence of a clear and present
danger of a substantive evil that the state had the right to prevent. He pretended to hurl a rock but did not actually throw it. He did
not commit any act of lawless violence. (David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160).

(b) What is "commercial speech"? Is it entitled to constitutional protection? What must be shown in order for
government to curtail "commercial speech"? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Commercial speech is communication which involves only the commercial interest of the
speaker and the audience, such as advertisements. (Blacks Law dictionary, 9thed., p.1529.) Commercial speech is
entitled to constitutional protection. (Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. vs. Capulong, 160 SCRA 861.) Commercial speech
may be required to be submitted to a government agency for review to protect public interests by preventing false or
deceptive claims. (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Duque, 535 SCRA 265.)
(c) What are the two (2) basic prohibitions of the freedom of speech and of the press clause? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The two basic prohibitions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press are prior
restraint and subsequent punishment (Chavez vs. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441.)
Freedom of Speech; Private Parties; Prior Restraint (2007)
The Destilleria Felipe Segundo is famous for its 15-year old rum, which it has produced and marketed successfully
for the past 70 years. Its latest commercial advertisement uses the line: "Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse anyos?" Very
soon, activist groups promoting women's and children's rights were up in arms against the advertisement. (a) All
advertising companies in the Philippines have formed an association, the Philippine Advertising Council, and have
agreed to abide by all the ethical guidelines and decisions by the Council. In response to the protests, the Council
orders the pull-out of the "kinse anyos" advertising campaign. Can Destilleria Felipe Segundo claim that its
constitutional rights are thus infringed?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Destilleria Felipe Segundo cannot claim that its constitutional rights were infringed. In
this case, a private association formed by advertising companies for self regulation was the one who ordered that the
advertisement be pulled out, because Destilleria did not comply with the associations ethical guidelines. The
guarantee of freedom of speech is a limitation on state action and not on the action of private parties (Lloyd
Corporation vs. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 [1972]). The mass media are private enterprises, and their refusal to accept any
advertisement does not violate freedom of speech (Times-Picayune Publishing Company vs. United States, 345 U.S.
594 [1953]; Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. vs. Democrat Control Committee, 412 U.S. 94 [1973])
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No, Destillera Felipe Segundo may not claim that its constitutional rights, particularly
freedom of expression, have been infringed. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech is a guarantee only
against abridgment by the government and does not apply to private parties. (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18,
1991). Moreover, Destilleria freely joined the Philippine Advertising Council and is therefore bound by the ethical
guidelines and decisions of that council. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No. Constitutional rights can be validly restricted
to promote good morals. Moreover, what is being exercised is commercial expression which does not enjoy the
same extent of freedom as political or artistic speech. (Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. PSC, 447 U.S. 557 [1980]).
The order for the withdrawal comes not from the State but from a private group of advertisers which is not within
the coverage of the Bill of Rights.
(b) One of the militant groups, the Amazing Amazonas, call on all government-owned and controlled corporations
(GOCC) to boycott any newspaper, radio or TV station that carries the "kinse anyos" advertisements. They call on
all government nominees in sequestered corporations to block any advertising funds allocated for any such
newspaper, radio or TV station. Can the GOCCs and sequestered corporations validly comply?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The government owned and controlled corporations and the government nominees in
sequestered corporations cannot block any advertising funds allocated for any newspaper, radio or television station
which carries the advertisements of Destilleria Felipe Segundo. Since they are government entities and officers, they are
bound by the guarantee of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech extends to commercial establishments (Metromedia,
Inc. vs. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 [1981]). The mere fact that an advertisement is offensive cannot justify its
suppression (Carey vs. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 [1977]). The blocking of advertising funds is a
threat intended to prevent the exercise of freedom of speech of Destilleria Felipe Segundo through the fear of
consequences. Sucha threat qualifies as prior restraint (Rosden, The Law of Advertising, Vol. I, pp.5-13).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: They may comply with such call as these entities may institute certain measures to promote a
socially desirable end, namely, the prevention of the exploitation and abuse of women, especially those who are not yet of age.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The GOCCs and sequestered corporations may not be compelled to boycott or block advertising
funds for media companies carrying the said advertisements. These companies may have existing contracts with the media
companies concerned and non-compliance may result in breach that will open them to possible suits.
Freedom of Speech; Symbolic Expression (2008)
No.XVI. Nationwide protests have erupted over rising gas prices, including disruptive demonstrations in many
universities, throughout the country. The Metro Manila State University, a public university, adopted a universitywide circular prohibiting public mass demonstrations and rallies within the campus. Offended by the circular,
militant students spread word that on the following Friday, all students were to wear black T-shirts as a symbol of their
protest both against high gas prices and the university ban on demonstrations. The effort was only moderately
successful, with around 30% of the students heeding the call. Nonetheless, university officials were outraged and
compelled the student leaders to explain why they should not be expelled for violating the circular against
demonstrations. The student leaders approached you for legal advice. They contended that they should not be
expelled since they did not violate the circular, their protest action being neither a demonstration nor a rally since all
they did was wear black T-shirts. What would you advise the students? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The wearing of black shirts is an exercise of freedom of expression and not necessarily freedom
of assembly. Regardless of the distinction, in both cases, the Constitutional guaranty includes freedom from prior restraint
and freedom from subsequent liability. There are three tests to determine whether or not there was valid government
interference: (1) dangerous tendency rule; (2) balancing of interest test; and (3) clear and present danger test. In the
Philippine jurisdiction, we adhere to the clear and present danger test (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Comelec, G.R.
No. 133486, Jan. 28, 2000). This test simply means that there is clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the
State has the right to prevent. Applying the clear and present danger test, the protest conducted by the students was
only moderately successful and the wearing of black shirts was neither tumultuous nor disruptive. Thus, the substantive evil
which the school authorities were trying to suppress did not even occur. Therefore, the prohibition imposed by the
circular violates freedom from prior restraint while the threat of expulsion by the school authorities violates freedom
from subsequent liability. Freedom of the Press; Prior Restraint (2009)
No.XV. The KKK Television Network (KKK- TV) aired the documentary, "Case Law: How the Supreme Court
Decides," without obtaining the necessary permit required by P.D. 1986. Consequently, the Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) suspended the airing of KKK-TV programs. MTRCB declared that
under P.D. 1986, it has the power of prior review over all television programs, except "newsreels" and programs "by
the Government", and the subject documentary does not fall under either of these two classes. The suspension order
was ostensibly based on Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 which grants MTRCB the authority to issue such an
order. KKK-TV filed a certiorari petition in court, raising the following issues: (a) The act of MTRCB constitutes
"prior restraint" and violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression; (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The contention of KKK-TV is not tenable. The prior restraint is a valid exercise of police power.
Television is a medium which reaches even the eyes and ears of children (Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA
529 [1996]). ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The memo circular is unconstitutional. The act of the Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board Constitutes prior restraint and violates freedom of expression. Any system of prior
restraint has against it a heavy presumption against its validity. Prior restraint is an abridgment of the freedom of
expression. There is no showing that the airing of the programs would constitute a clear and present danger (New York Times vs.
United States, 403 U.S. 713 [1971]).
(b) While Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was issued and published in a newspaper of general circulation, a copy
thereof was never filed with the Office of the National Register of the University of the Philippines Law Center.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In accordance with Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987,
Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 must be filled with the University of the Philippines Law Center. It cannot be enforced
until it has been filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 541 SCRA 316 [2007]).

Overbreadth Doctrine vs. Void for Vagueness (2012)

No. VIII. (a) What is the doctrine of "overbreath"? In what context can it be correctly applied? Not correctly
applied? Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A statute is overbroad when a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities
constitutionally subject to state regulations is sought to be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and invade the
area of protected freedom. It applies both to free speech cases and penal statutes. However, a facial challenge on the
ground of overbreadth can only be made in free speech cases because of its chilling effect upon protected speech. A facial
challenge on the ground of overbreadth is not applicable to penal statutes, because in general they have an in
terrorem effect. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146.)
(NOTE: The word overbreath should read overbreadth because breath has no limit especially if it is bad breath.)
(b) What is the doctrine of "void for vagueness"? In what context can it be correctly applied? Not correctly applied?
Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence that guess at
its meaning and differ as to its application. It applies to both free speech cases and penal statutes. However, a facial
challenge on the ground of vagueness can be made only in free speech cases. It does not apply to penal statutes.
(Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146.)
Overbreadth Doctrine vs. Void for Vagueness (2010)
No. XXIV. Compare and contrast Overbreadth doctrine from void-for vagueness doctrine.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: While the overbreadth doctrine decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved
by means in a statute which sweep unnecessary broadly and thereby invades the area of protected freedom a statute is void for
vagueness when it forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence cannot
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 369 vs. SCRA 394 [2001]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Overbreadth and Void for Vagueness doctrine is used as test for the validity on their faces
(FACIAL CHALLENGE) statutes in free speech cases (freedom of speech). It is not applicable in criminal cases. Overbreadth
doctrine decrees that governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweeps unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. Void for vagueness doctrine" which holds that "a law is facially
invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the
first essential of due process of law.
Privacy of Communication (2009)
No.VI. In criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented, as witness, an employee of the Manila Hotel
who produced in court a videotape recording showing the heated exchange between the accused and the victim that
took place at the lobby of the hotel barely 30 minutes before the killing. The accused objects to the admission of the
videotape recording on the ground that it was taken without his knowledge or consent, in violation of his right to
privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping law. Resolve the objection with reasons. (3%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The objection should be overruled. What the law prohibits is the overhearing, intercepting, and recording of private
communication. Since the exchange of heated words was not private, its videotape recording is not prohibited
(Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 153 [1999]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The heated conversation at the lobby of the hotel is not privilege and is not protected under the
right to privacy and anti-wire tapping law. Heated conversation is not privilege because it was uttered in a public
place and it has to be revealed in open court to help in the prosecution of the case. Right to Assembly; Permit (2007)
No.VII. Batas Pambansa 880, the Public Assembly Law of 1985, regulates the conduct of all protest rallies in the
Philippines. (a) Salakay, Bayan! held a protest rally and planned to march from Quezon City to Luneta in Manila.

They received a permit from the Mayor of Quezon City, but not from the Mayor of Manila. They were able to march
in Quezon City and up to the boundary separating it from the City of Manila. Three meters after crossing the
boundary, the Manila Police stopped them for posing a danger to public safety. Was this a valid exercise of police
power?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the authorities are given the power to stop marchers who do not possess a permit. However, mere exercise of
the right to peaceably assemble is not considered as a danger to public safety. They could have been asked to
disperse peacefully, but it should not altogether be characterized as posing a danger to public safety. (Bayan v.
Ermita, G.R. No. 169848, April 25, 2006; David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171390, May 3, 2006). ALTERNATIVE
ANSWER: Since the protesters merely reached three meters beyond the boundary of Quezon City, the police authorities in
Manila should not have stopped them, as there was no clear and present danger to public order. In accordance with
the policy of maximum tolerance, the police authorities should have asked the protesters to disperse and if they
refused, the public assembly may be dispersed peacefully. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No, this is not a valid exercise of police power.
Police power has been defined as the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and
property. (City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005). It is principally the Legislature that exercises
the power but it may be delegated to the President and administrative agencies. Local government units exercise the
power under the general welfare clause. In this case, if Salakay applied for a permit from the city government, the
application must be approved or denied within two (2) working days from the date it was filed, failing which, the
permit shall be deemed granted. (Section 16, B.P. Blg. 880). Even without a permit, the law does not provide for
outright stopping of the march if the demonstrators, for example, were marching peacefully without impeding
traffic.
(b) The security police of the Southern Luzon Expressway spotted a caravan of 20 vehicles, with paper banners
taped on their sides and protesting graft and corruption in government. They were driving at 50 kilometers per hour
in a 40-90 kilometers per hour zone. Some banners had been blown off by the wind, and posed a hazard to other
motorists. They were stopped by the security police. The protesters then proceeded to march instead, sandwiched
between the caravan vehicles. They were also stopped by the security force. May the security police validly stop the
vehicles and the marchers?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the security police may stop the vehicles and the marchers but only to advise the leaders to
secure their banners so that it will not pose a hazard to others. They may not be prevented from heading to their
destination. The marchers may also be ordered to ride the vehicles so as not to inconvenience other uses of the
Expressway. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes. While the protesters possess the right to freely express themselves, their
actuations may pose a safety risk to other motorists and therefore be the subject of regulation. The security police
may undertake measures to prevent any hazard to other motorists but not altogether prevent the exercise of the right.
So, to that extent, while the protesters maybe asked to remove the banners which pose hazard to other motorists and
prevent them from using the expressway as a venue for their march, the security force may not prevent them from
proceeding to where they might want to go. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: In accordance with the policy of maximum
tolerance, the security policy should not have stopped the protesters. They should have simply asked the protesters
to take adequate steps to prevent their banners from being blown off, such as rolling them up while they were in the
expressway and required the protesters to board their vehicles and proceed on their way.

Search and Seizure; Warrantless Arrest (2009)

No. VII. Crack agents of the Manila Police Anti-Narcotics unit were on surveillance of a cemetery where the sale
and use of prohibited drugs were rumored to be rampant. The team saw a man with reddish and glassy eyes walking
unsteadily towards them, but he immediately veered away upon seeing the policemen. The team approached the
man, introduced themselves as peace officers, then asked what he had in his clenched fist. Because the man refused
to answer, a policeman pried the fist open and saw a plastic sachet with crystalline substance. The team then took the
man into custody and submitted the contents of the sachet to forensic examination. The Crystalline substance in the
sachet turned out to be shabu. The man was accordingly charged in court. During the trial, the accused: (Decide with
reasons) (a) Challenged the validity of his arrest; (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The arrest is valid. The law enforcer has sufficient reason to accost the accused because
of his suspicious actuations, coupled with the fact that based on reliable information the area was a haven for drug addicts.
(Manalili vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 [1997]). ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The warrantless arrest of the
accused was void. There was no overt act or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that he was committing a crime. The
search preceded his arrest (People vs. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 [2003]).
(b) Objected to the admission in evidence of the prohibited drug, claiming that it was obtained in an illegal search
and seizure. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The objection should be denied. The evidence is admissible because the search and seizure was made
incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest (Manalili vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 [1997]). Search and Seizure;
Warrantless Arrest (2008)
No. V. Having received tips the accused was selling narcotics, two police officers forced open the door of his room.
Finding him sitting party dressed on the side of the bed, the officers spied two capsules on a night
stand beside the bed. When asked, Are these yours?, the accused seized the
capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle ensued, in the course of which the
officer pounced on the accused, took him to a hospital where at their direction, a doctor forced an emetic solution
though a tube into the accus
eds stomach against his will.
This process induced vomiting. In the vomited matter were found two capsules which proved to contain heroin. In the
criminal case, the chief evidence against the accused was the two capsules. (a) As counsel for the accused, what
constitutional rights will you invoke in his defense? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: As counsel for the accused I would invoke the constitutional right to be secured against
unreasonable searches and seizures (Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution) which guarantees: (1) sanctity of the home,
(2) inadmissibility of the capsules seized, (3) and inviolability of the person. A mere tip from a reliable source is not
sufficient to justify warrantless arrest or search (Peo vs. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233 Feb. 22,2007).
(b) How should the court decide the case? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The court should declare the search and seizure illegal: 1.
The entry into the accuseds home
was not a permissible warrantless action because the police had no personal knowledge that any crime was taking
place. 2.
Due to the invalid entry whatever evidence the police gathered would be inadmissible. 3.
The arrest of the accused was already invalid and causing him to vomit while under custody was an unreasonable invasion of
personal privacy (U.S. vs. Montoya, 473 US 531 [1985]) Search and Seizure; Warrantless Search (2010)
No. XII. A witnessed two hooded men with baseball bats enter the house of their next door neighbor B. after a few
seconds, he heard
B shouting, Huwag Pilo babayaran kita agad. Then A saw the two hooded men
hitting B until the latter fell lifeless. The assailants escaped using a yellow motorcycle with a fireball sticker on it
toward the direction of an exclusive village nearby. A reported the incident to PO1 Nuval. The following day, PO1
Nuval saw the motorcycle parked in the garage of a house at Sta. Ines Street inside the exclusive village. He
inquired with the caretaker as to who owned the motorcycle. The caretaker named the brothers Pilo and Ramon
Maradona who were then outside the country. PO1 Nuval insisted on getting inside the garage. Out of fear, the
caretaker allowed him. PO1 Nuval took 2 ski masks
and 2 bats beside the motorcycle. Was the search valid? What about the seizure? Decide with reasons. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The warrantless search and seizure was not valid. It was not made as an incident to a lawful
warrantless arrest. (People vs. Baula, 344 SCRA 663 [2000]). The caretaker had no authority to waive the right of the
brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona to waive their right against unreasonable search and seizure. (People vs. Damaso,
212 SCRA 547 [1992].) the warrantless seizure of the ski masks and bats cannot be justified under the plain view
doctrine, because they were seized after invalid intrusion in to the house. (People vs. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 [1999]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No. the search and the seizure are invalid because there was no search warrant and it cannot be
said to be a search incidental to a lawful arrest. It is the right of all individual to be secured against unreasonable
searches and seizure by the government.