Consti Case Law Memory Aid

5/24/2018 Consti Case Law Memory Aid

1/8

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER DEAN SEDFREY CANDELARIA CROMBONDS 2011-2012

1

CASE LAW MEMORY AID

BILL OF RIGHTS

I. Section 1a. Life, Liberty or Property1. Mijares v. RanadaAlien Tort Act

2. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. PBM Co.hierarchy of

rights

b. Due Process3. Tupas v. CAlate petition

i. Procedural Due Process

4. Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palancajurisdiction over

person5. State Prosecutors v. Muro11 complaints; judicial

notice

6. People v. Teehankeemedia coverage

7. Ang Tibay v. CIRadministrative proceedings

8. Government of Hong Kong v. Olaliaextradition

proceedings

9. ADMU v. Capulongacademic discipline

10. Lao Gi v. CAdeportation

11. Maceda v. ERBfixing of rates

12. Globe Telecom v. NTCsubstantial

evidence from prior ruling13. Corona v. UHPAPprofession

14. People v. Nazariomanager; void for

vagueness

15. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

combination, series; vagueness or

overbreadth

16. Central Bank v. CAbank foreclosures;

TSB

17. ABAKADA v. ErmitaE-VAT law

18. British American Tobacco v. Camacho expensive tax

category

ii. Substantive Due Process (Police Power)

19. US v. Toribiocarabao slaughterhouse20. Churchill v. Raffertybillboards as nuisance

21. Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City of Manilacurb immorality; license fees

22. People v. Fajardoview of the plaza

23. Ynot v. Intermediate Apellate Courttransport of carabao and carabeef

24. Balacuit v. CFI of Agusanmovie theatres

25. New Agrix v. Philippine Veterans Bankdissolved mortgages

26. ACCFA v. CUGCOfringe benefits; CBA

27. Agustin v. Eduearly warning devices

28. Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC illegal dismissal; writ

of execution

29. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp.local

ordinance against PAGCOR

30. Bennis v. Michiganconfiscated car

31. Cruzan v. Missouri Health Dept. informed

consent; euthanasia

32. JMM Promotion and Management v. CA

OFW deployment ban

33. Dans v. PeopleImelda Marcos right to counsel

34. Ople v. Torresnational ID system

35. Montesclaros v. COMELECSK elections

36. Tan v. Peopletrucks with lumber

37. Cruz v. FlavierIPRA; Regalian doctrine

38. Smith Kline v. CApharmaceutical patent39. People v. De la Piedraillegal recruitment

40. Pilipinas Kao v. CAunpublished manual of operations

41. PHILSA v. DOLE Secretaryunpublished illegal exaction memo

42. Chavez v. Romuloright to bear arms

43. GSIS v. Montesclarossurvivorship pension claim

44. Romualdez v. Sandiganbayancorruption; no preliminary

investigation

45. Chavez v. COMELECcandidate endorsements

46. Beltran v. Secretary of Healthcommercial blood banks

47. Ong v. Sandiganbayanill-gotten wealth ; spouse

48. Lucena v. JAC Linerlocal government; exclusive franchise49. City of Manila v. Laguio sauna, massageparlors, night clubs

Judicial: CJ-OJ1. Court with judicial power

2. Jurisdiction over person or

property

3. Opportunity to be heard

4. Judgment through lawful

hearing

Judicial Notice: CAJ1.Common knowledge2.Authoritatively settled3.Known within limits of

jurisdiction

Administrative: HEDSBIK1. Hearing

2. Consider evidence

3. Decision must be supported

4. Substantial evidence

5. Decision based on evidence

6. Independent consideration

7. Know issues and reason for

decision

School: IA-IAC1. Inform student of charge

2. Right to answer the charges

3. Informed of evidence

4. Adduce evidence

5. Body must consider evidence

Deportation: SP-RP1. Specify charge against alien

2. Preliminary investigation

3. Rules of Criminal Procedure

4. Private prosecutors not

allowed

Police Power: SM1. Lawful subject

2. Lawful means

Local Ordinance: CUPP-GU1. Must not contravene law

2. Must not be unfair

3. Must not be partial4. Must not prohibit trade

5. Must be general and

consistent with public policy

6. Must not be unreasonable


2/8


2

50. Bayan v. Ermitano permit no rally

51. KMU v. NEDAuniform government ID system

52. Mirasol v. DPWHmotorcycle prohibition

53. Parreno v. COApension ban for US citizen

54. Esponcillia v. Bagong Tanyag Homeowners Assoc. member beneficiaries55. BF Homeowners v. Paranaque Mayorreclassified into commercial zones

56. St. Lukes Employees v. NLRC regulation of profession

57. Carlos Superdrug v. DSWDtax credits and tax deductions

58. Perez v. LPG Refillers Associationpenalties on per cylinder basis

59. MMDA v. Vironno police power

60. Secretary of DND v. Manalowrit of amparo

61. SJS v. DDBmandatory drug testing

62. SJS v. Atienzaoil depots

63. SEC v. Interportshow cause order

64. BANAT v. COMELECfixed salary for poll

watchers

65. People v. Sitonvagrancy

66. White Light Corp. v. City of Manila wash-up

rates; third party standing

67. CREBA v. Romulocreditable withholding

tax, minimum corporate income tax

68. Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Counciltagging; as-applied

doctrine

69. Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyowrit of habeas data

70. Meralco v. Limthreatening letters; habeas data

c.Equal Protection Clause1. People v. Cayatnon-Christian possession of

liquor

2. Ichong v. Hernandeznon-citizens in retail trade

3. Villegas v. Hiu Choing Tsai Pao Honon-Filipino

residents employment permit

4. Dumlao v. COMELECretired elective official

5. Goesart v. Clearyfemale bartenders

6. Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City only sugar

company

7. BASCO v. PAGCORlegalized gambling

8. Republic v. SandiganbayanDe Venecias deed of assignment

9. Binay v. Domingoburial assistance for the poor

10. National Police Commission v. De Guzmanretirement at age 56

11. Tolentino v. Finance Sec.expanded value added tax law

12. Himagan v. Peopleaccused PNP immediate suspension

13. Almonte v. VasquezOmbudsman can choose complaint

14. Lim v. Pacquingrevoked jai-alai franchises

15. Maritime Planning v. POEA land-based and sea-based workers16. Regala v. Sandiganbayanattorney-client privilege

17. Sison v. Anchetahigher tax rates on profession

18. Marcos v. CAperson with pending criminal charge

19. Nolasco v. COMELECpower of COMELEC

20. Phil. Judges v. Pradojudiciary franking privilege

21. Olivarez v. Sandiganbayanmayors discretion in business permits

22. GMC v. Torresnon-resident alien employment permit

23. Segovia v. SandiganbayanOmbusman may impose suspension

24. Chavez v. PCGGimmunity of witness in ill-gotten wealth case

25. Telebap v. COMELECfree airtime for COMELEC

26. Tiu v. CAspecial privileges for Subic Naval Base

27. Lacson v. Exec. Sec.jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan

28. Soriano v. CAprobation and financial capability

29. Aguinaldo v. COMELECincumbent official considered resigned

30. Loong v. COMELECspecial election for governor

31. International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbingsalary distinction

for foreign-hires

32. De Guzman v. COMELECassign election officers to other station

33. BAYAN v. ZamoraVFA

34. People v. Mercadodeath penalty

35. People v. Jalosjoselective official not exempted

36. Lopez v. CAOmbudsman act

37. PHILRECA v. DILG Sec.LGC withdraws certain tax exemptions38. Farinas v. Exec. Sec.appointive officials considered resigned

39. Dimaporo v. HRETcongressional candidate and proclaimed congressional

candidate

40. GSIS v. Montesclarosmarried pensioners

41. In Re: Request of Court Administratorsadditional compensation for judges,

justices, etc.

42. Central Bank Employees v. BSPclassification based on salary

43. Mirasol v. DPWHmotorcycle prohibition

44. In Re: Request of ACAadditional compensation for CTA judges and MTC

judges

45. Dimayuga v. OmbudsmanOmbudsman may conduct preliminary

investigation

3r

-Party Standing: ICH1. Injury-in-fact on litigant

2. Close relation to the party

3. Hindrance to the third art

Valid Classification: SGLA1. Substantial distinction

2. Germane to the purpose of

law

3. Not limited to existing

conditions only

4. Must apply equally to all

members of the same

class.

Standing: ITR1. Actual or threatened injury

2. Traceable to challenged action

3. Injury is likely to be redressed

by favourable action


3/8


3

46. Yrasuegi v. PALobese cabin attendants

47. SJS v. Atienzaoil depots

48. Gobenciong v. CAOmbudsman may impose preventive suspension

49. MIAA v. Olongapo Maintenancenegotiated contract against public bidding

50. Nicolas v. RomuloVFA military member51. Serrano v. Galant Maritime ServicesOFW same as local worker

52. People v. Sitonvagrants

53. League of Cities v. COMELEC cities enumerated in cityhood laws

54. Quinto v. COMELECappointive official considered resigned

55. CREBA v. RomuloCWT, MCIT

56. NPC v. Pinatubomanufacturers and processors of aluminium steel

57. Biraogo v. PTCtruth commission

II. Section 2: Search and Seizurea. What is a search

1. Valmonte v. De Villacheckpoint

2. SJS v. DDBmandatory drug testing

b. Requisites of a valid warrant3. People v. VelosoJohn Doe warrant; best

description personae

4. Alvarez v. CFIsearch made at night

5. Stonehill v. Dioknoexclusionary rule; general

warrants

6. Central Bank v. Morfenot isolated

transactions but general pattern

7. Bache & Co. v. Ruizdepositions made bydeputy clerk

8. Placer v. Villanuevajudge must be satisfied with fiscals report

9. Burgos v. AFP Chief of Staff closure of publishing house for subversion;

general

10. Corro v. LisingPhilippine Times inciting to sedition; general

11. Salazar v. AchacosoPOEA administrator cannot issue search warrant

12. Soliven v. Makasiarjudge not required to personally examine

13. Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosawarrant of exclusion;

deportation

14. Lim Sr. V. Judge Felixjudge used certification as sole basis

15. Silva v. Presiding Judgereturn of personal property not covered by

warrant

16. Allado v. Dioknomurder and kidnapping; corpus delicti not proven

17. Webb v. De Leonrape with homicide; evidence need not be conclusive

18. Roberts v. CAPepsi; reinvestigation to determine probable cause

19. 20th

Century Fox v. CAmaster tapes not needed

20. People v. Franciscosearched the wrong address21. Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorpcopyright infringement; partially defective

warrant

22. Al-Ghoul v. CAsearched places not in warrant; partially defective

23. Uy v. BIRsuperceding warrant

24. Vallejo v. CAmore than one offense; falsification and graft

25. Material Distributors v. Natividadproduction of documents material in

separate case

26. Oklahoma Press Publishing v. Wallingcorporations do not enjoy all rights

of individuals

27. Camara v. Municipal Courthousing inspector

c. Warrantless searches28. MHP Garments v. CAboy scout apparel;

enough time to apply

29. People v. CFI of Rizalanti-smuggling;

customs; moving vehicle

30. Roan v. Gonzalescustodia legis

i. Incidental to lawful arrest31. Nolasco v. Panolimited to the

person of accused

ii. Moving vehicle32. Carrol v. USwarrant not practicable; can easily be moved out of

locality

33. People v. Lo Ho Wingdrug syndicate from Hong Kong

34. People v. Malmstedtbus to Sagada; hashish

35. Mustang Lumber v. CAtruck with lumber

36. Asuncion v. CAshabu in vehicle

iii. Plain view37. Harris v. USofficer who has the right to be in position

38. Coolidge v. USdiscovery must be advertent

iv. Customs39. Papa v. MagoBureau of Customs may commission police

v. Waiver40. Lopez v. Commissioner of Customsmanicurist allowed search

Valid Warrant: PPEP1. Probable cause

2. Personally determined by a

judge

3. Examination upon oath or

affirmation of complainant

and witnesses

4. Particularly describing the

place to be searched or

persons to be seized

Warrantless Searches:

IMP-C-WES1. Incidental to an arrest

2. Moving vehicles

3. Plain view

4. Customs

5. Waiver

6. Exigent circumstances

7. Stop-and-frisk


4/8


4

vi. Exigent circumstance41. People v. De Graciaattempts to overthrow Aquino

administration

vii. Stop-and-frisk42. Aniag Jr. v. COMELEC return gun to Batasan43. Malact v. CAMuslim men with fast moving eyes

44. People v. Cantonairport search

d. Arrests with Warrant45. Amarga v. Abbasboth search and arrest warrants require probable cause

46. Harvey v. Defensor-Santiagopedophilia; CID

e. Warrantless arrests47. People v. Aminnudindisembarking from a

ship

48. People v. Burgosarrested while plowing

field; seditious materials

49. Umil v. Ramoscontinuing crime

50. Go. CAarrested 6 days after

51. People v. Mengotelooking side to side

52. Manalili v. CAred-eyes, swaying side to side

III. Section 3: Privacy of Correspondencea. Exclusionary Rule

1. Salcedo-Ortanez v. Cawiretaps

2. Zulueta v. CAdestroyed cabinets in clinic3. People v. Martisearch by private entity

4. KMU v. NEDAuniform government ID system

b. Waiver under Sec. 2 & 35. People v. Damasowaiver is personal

6. Spouses Veroy v. Layaguelimited to search of person not materials

IV. Section 4: Freedom of Speech, of Expression and of the Pressa. Prior Restraint

1. Near v. Minnesotamalicious articles

published against officials

2. Freedman v. Marylandtheatre; judicial determination

3. NY Times v. USAtop secret information

4. Iglesia ni Kristo v. CAattacks on other religion

5. David v. Arroyostate of emergency

6. Chavez v. Gonzaleswarnings on release ofHello-Garci tapes

7. Newsounds v. Dyradio station closed due to

content-based restraint

b. Subsequent Punishment8. People v. Perezseditious speech; dangerous tendency rule

9. Dennis v. USlaw punishing advocacy for overthrow of the government

10. Gonzales v. COMELECprohibit too early nomination of candidates

11. EBC v. Dansguidelines for courts and quasi-administrative tribunals

12. Ayer v. CapulongEnrile is a public figure; no clear and present danger of

violation of right to privacy

13. Roxas v. de Zuzuarreguicontemptuous remarks against SC

c. Speech and Electoral Process14. Sanidad v. COMELECno candidates in

plebiscite

15. National Press Club v. COMELECprohibit

sale/donation of print spacefor campaign;

except to COMELEC for equal allocation

16. Adiong v. COMELECprohibited posting

election propaganda on private property

17. Osmena v. COMELECre-examined NPC v.

COMELEC; OBrien test18. ABS-CBN v. COMELECexit polls

19. SWS v. COMELECprohibition on publishing surveys before election

d. Commercial Speech20. Rubin v. Coors Brewingliquor labels will

promote strength wars

21. Cincinnati v, Discovery Networknews racks;

safety and aesthetic goals

22. City of Ladue v. Gilleosignage in front of

house.

Warrantless Arrests: PPP

1. In his presence, person

committed, actually

committed, will commit an

offense

2. Offense has been committed

and he has personal

knowledge

3. Prisoner who has escaped

2 Kinds of Prior Restraint:

1. Content-neutral2. Content-based

Tests to Determine Validity

of Restraint: BCD

1. Dangerous tendency doctrine

2. Balancing of interests test

3. Clear and present danger rule

Content-Neutral Regulations

(OBrien Test): P-SUE1. Within constitutional power of

the government

2. Furthers substantial

government interest which is

3. Unrelated to suppression of

free expression

4. Restriction no greater than

essential

Tests to Determine Validity

of Commercial Speech

Suppression: LSAN1.Lawful activity is not

misleading

2. Substantial govt. interest

3. Advances govt. interest

4. Necessary to serve interest


5/8


5

e. Libel23. Policarpio v. Manila Timespublished wrong things about proceedings;

protected if true, faith and in good faith

24. Lopez v. CAhoax of the year

25. New York Times v. Sullivanactual malice; public official26. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc.nudist magazines

27. Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.alleged that lawyer framed accused; private

person

28. Hustler Magazine v. Falwellliquor ad; first time parody of minister

29. In re: Juradoalleged corruption in the judiciary

f. Obscenity30. Miller v. Californiamailing books and

brochures of adult material

31. Gonzales v. Kalaw-KatigbakKapit sa

Patalim movie

g. Assembly and Petition32. Bayan v. Ermitano permit no rally;

Calibrated Preemptive Response

V. Section 5: Religiona. Non-establishment of Religion1. Aglipay v. Ruizpostage stamps; incidental benefit

2. School District v. Schempp10 Bible verses, morning prayers

3. Board of Education v. Allenlend textbooks to all schools; not for religious use

4. Lemon v. Kurtzmansupplement salaries; aidedreligious objectives

5. Tilton v. Richardsonconstruction grants

6. County of Allegheny v. American Liberties Union

crche, menorah; government endorsement

7. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Districtdeaf

student; religious institutions not exempt from

social welfare and services programs

8. Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette & Ku Klux

Klancross in public forum

9. Islamic Dawah Council v. Sec. halal certification

10. Taruc v. De La Cruz excommunication

b. Free Exercise of Religion11. Victoriano v. Elizaldeclosed shop agreement; INC

prohibition to join unions

12. Cantwell v. Connecticutlisten to music, buy book;

prior prestrant13. US v. BallardSaint Germain; cannot question truth/falsity of belief

14. American Bible Society v. City of Manila bible dissemination; license fee

15. Ebralinag v. Division Superintendentflag ceremony

16. Wisconsin v. YoderAmish; not forced to attend highschool

17. Pamil v. Teleronprohibited priest candidate for mayor of Albuquerque

18. McDaniel v. PatyBaptist minister allowed in constitutional convention

19. Goldman v. Weinbergeryarmulke; military discipline

20. German v. BaranganSt. Jude Chapel; rally; good faith

21. Centeno v. Villaonprotection from fraudulent solicitations

22. Lee v. Weismanrabbi; school graduation

23. Church of Lukumi v. City of Hialeahanimal

sacrifices; ordinance not neutral24. Lambs Chapel v. School District film series on

family values

25. INC v. CAcriticisms; clear and present danger

26. Estrada v. Escritorlive-in court employee;

benevolent neutrality doctrine

27. In re: Request of Muslim Employeesexcused during Ramadan

VI. Section 6: Liberty of Abode1. Villavicencio v. Lukbandeported 170 prostitutes to Davao

2. Marcos v. Manglapusright to return to country

3. Marcos v. SandiganbayanImelda Marcos medical treatment

VII.Section 7: Right to Information and Access to Public Documents1. Legaspi v. CSCeligibility of sanitarians

2. Sabio v. GordonPCGG members not exempt from legislative inquiry

3. Bantay v. COMELEClist of partylist nominees

4. Neri v. SenateNBN-ZTE; executive privilege

5. Suplico v. NEDAinquiry became moot; government desisted from NBN-ZTE

6. AKBAYAN v. AquinoJPEPA; diplomatic negotiations

7. Province of North Cotabato v. GRPMOA-AD peace negotiations not exempt

Test to Determine

Obscenity:Whether to the average person,

applying contemporary

community standards, the

dominant theme of the materialtaken as a whole appeals to

prurient interest.

Lemon v. Kurtzman Test:

(SEN)1. Secular legislative purpose

2. Neither advances nor inhibits

religion

3. No excessive entanglement

with religion

W/N Religious Expression

Violates Non-Establishment:1. Purely private

2. Occurs in traditional or

designated public forums,

publicly announces and opento all on equal terms

Non-neutral Laws must be:1. Justified by compellinggovernment interest

2. Narrowly tailored (neither

overbroad nor to specific)

2 Aspects of Free Exercise:1. Freedom to Believe - absolute

2. Freedom to Actmay be

regulated


6/8


6

VIII.Section 8: Right to Travel1. Manila Public School Teachers v. Laguiopublic school teachers have no right to

strike

2. PADCOM v. Ortigas Centerautomatic membership of buyer

IX. Section 9: Eminent Domain1. Iron and Steel Authority v. CArepublic to

substitute ISA

2. Republic v. Vda. Castelvileased by Air Force;

computed from date of taking not lease

3. US v. Causbychicken farm near airport;

navigable airspace

4. People v. Fajardoview of the plaza

5. Republic v. PLDTpublic utility

6. Penn Central v. New York CityGrand Central;

landmark preservation

7. Sumulong v. Guerreoopportunity to beheard

8. Philippine Columbian v. Hon. Panishousing project

9. Mactan v. Tudtudabandoned Cebu Lahug Airport project

10. City of Manila v. Estradamarket;

compensation subject to review

11. Madumba v. GSISbank bonds accepted at

face value

12. Mactan v. UrgelloLahug airport;

reconveyance; return compensation

13. De Knecht v. BautistaEDSA extension; social impact factor

14. Republic v. De KnechtEDSA extension; moot; cause disappeared15a. Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. PARC decisionstock distribution plan; date of taking

15b. Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. PARC resolutionoperative fact doctrine; SDP revoked

X. Section 10: Non-Impairment of Contracts1. Home Building v. Blaisellextended mortgage redemption; emergency

2. Rutter v. Estebanobligation delayed for 8 years; not reasonable

3. Abella v. NLRClarorers not party to the contract; no impairment

4. Presley v. Bel Airhot pan de sal; commercial zone

5.Ortigas v. Feati Bankresidential to commericial; police power

6. Republic v. Caguioatax exemption of cigar and liquor in SEZ

7. Land Bank v. Republicinalienable forest; void contract

XI. Section 11: Free Access to Courts and Quasi-Judicicial BodiesXII. Section 12: Rights of a Person Under

Investigation

1. Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda Rights2. People v. Sungacity legal officer; conflict of

interest

3. Magtoto v. Mangueraprospective

application

4. Gamboa v. Cruzvagrancy; police line-up not part

of custodial investigation

5. People v. Escordialrape and robbery; no need for

counsel in line-up

6. People v. Teehankeetotality of circumstances

test; out-of-court identification valid7. Galman v. Pamaranviolation of Sec. 12 rights;

inadmissible

XIII.Section 13: Right to Bail1. Yap v. CAconvicted of estafa; P5.5M bail is

excessive

2. Government of HK v. Olaliaright to bail in

extradition proceedings

3. De La Camara v. Enageguidelines for determining

bail

4. Comendador v. Gen. De Villacoup attempt; bailnot granted to military personnel

XIV.Section 14: Rights of the Accused in a CriminalProsecution

1. Olaguer v. Military Commissionmilitary courts; no

jurisdiction

2. US v. Lulingprima facie evidence of guilt;

Congress power to define

3. Dumlao v. COMELECdisqualification on the

ground of a charge

4. People v. Holgadopleaded guilty without counsel;

decision inconsistent with charge

Taking: E-MAP-O1. Enter private property

2. Not for a momentary period

3. Under warrant of legal

authority

4. Devoted to public use

5. As to oust the owner

Judicial Review:1. Adequacy of compensation

2. Necesity of taking

3. Public use character of taking

Expropriation by Municipal

Government: P-JOL1. Public use

2. Just compensation

3. Valid offer

4. Legislative act (ordinance)

Miranda Rights:1. right to remain silent

2. anything said can be used against him

3. right to have counsel present before and

during the questioning4. right to have a "free" attorney if indigent

5. even he consents to answering without

counsel, interrogation must cease upon

request for counsel

6. inadmissible if rights are violated

Totality of Circumstance

Test: ODA-LTS1. witness opportunity to view

the criminal

2. witness degree of attention

3. accuracy of any prior

decription

4. level of certainty of witness5. time between crime and

identification

6. suggestiveness of procedure

Guidelines for determining

Bail: ANO-CHEAF-FB1. Ability to give bail

2. Nature of offense

3. Penalty for offense

4. Character and reputation

5. Health

6. Evidence

7. Probability of appearing

8. Forfeiture of other bonds

9. Fugitive of justice

10.Bond for appearance

Rights of the Accused: DIHI-

SWA1. Due process

2. Presumed Innocent

3. Heard by himself and counsel

4. Informed of nature and cause

5. Speedy, impartial, public trial

6. Meet witness face to face

7. Secure attendance of

witnesses and production ofevidence


7/8


7

5. People v. Regalainformation must allege all elements of qualifying

circumstance

6. Enrile v. Salazarsimple rebellion; charge

still exists but not complexed

7. Conde v. Riveraremedy is mandamus to

dismiss the case; speedy trial

8. People v. Ginesreasonable delay; medical

reasons

9. Mateo Jr. Hon. Villaluzdisqualified judge

10. Tampar v. Usmanyamin oath is sharia court

11. Carredo v. Peopleexception to waiver of appearance; identification by

witnesses

XV.Section 15: Habeas Corpus XVI.Section 16: Speedy Dispositionof Cases

XVII. Section 17: Self-incrimination1. US v. NavaroArt. 483/481; declaration of whereabouts is incriminating

2. US v. Tan Tengsubstances emitted; gonorrhoea

3. US v. Ong Sui Hongmorphine from mouth

4. Villaflor v. Summerspregnancy test; ocular inspection is permissible provided

proper safeguards are observed and no force/violence are employed

5. Beltran v. Samsonhandwriting; creating evidence against oneself

6. Bermudez v. Castillodenied writing letters; perjury

7. Chavez v. CAcompelled accused to take witness stand; right of prosecution

8. Cabal v. Kapunanforfeiture proceeding; graft and corruption

9. Pascual Jr. Board of Examiners revocation of license; malpractice in medicine

10. Standard Chartered v. Senatelegislative inquiry; pending criminal case

XVIII. Section 18: Political Beliefs, Aspirations, Involuntary Servitude

XIX.Section 19: Excessive Punishment, Death Penalty1. People v. Estoistaimposed death for murder and illegal possession of firearms;

recommended executive clemency

2. People v. Echegarayqualified rape; death penalty not cruel/degrading/inhuman

XX. Section 20: Debt and Non-Payment of Pol TaxXXI.Section 21: Double Jeopardy1. People v. Ylaganserious physical injuries; waiver cannot be predicated on

silence

2. Bulaong v. Peoplerebellion and subversion; legal jeopardy must be terminated

3. Melo v. Peoplesupervening fact; frustrated to consummated

4. People v. Bulingincompetence of physician

5. People v. Tiozonillegal possession of firearms qualified by murder and murder;

not the same offense

6. People v. Relovaelectric wires; same act two offenses punished under national

law and ordinance

7. Estrada v. Sandiganbayanimpeachment

Application of Double Jeopardy

1. Legal Jeopardy

a. upon valid

indictment/complaint

b. before court with jurisdiction

c. after arraignment

d. after plea

2. Termination

a. acquittal

b. final conviction

c. dismissal without express

consent of the accused

d. dismissal on the merits

3. Identity of offense

a. one offense is identical to

another

b. one is an attempt or

frustration of the other

c. one necessarily includes or

is included in the other

XXII. Section 22: Bill of Attainder, Ex-post Facto Laws1. People v. Ferrersubversion; requisites of bill of

attainder

2. Virata v. SandiganbayanPCGG charter;

substitute legislative rather than judicialdetermination of guilt

3. Lacson v. Executive SecretaryKoratong Baleleng case; expanded

Sandiganbayans jurisdiction; not penal statute but procedural

CITIZENSHIP

1. Valles v. COMELECfailed to give facts to warrant reversal of prior case

2. Ong Chia v. Republicdid not comply with naturalization requirements

3. Gatchalian v. Board of Commissionersdeportation; no proof to invalidate

filiation to Filipino father

4. Tecson v. COMELECFPJ; illegitimate son of a Filipino father; recognized

paternity5. Co. v. Electoral Tribunalelection of citizenship through positive acts

Grounds for Disqualification

of a Judge: PR-PO1. Pecuniary interest

2. Relationship

3. Previous participation

4. Other just or valid reason

Requisites for Suspension of

Privilege of Habeas Corpus:1. Existence of actual invasion orrebellion

2. Public safety requires

sus ension

Bill of Attainder:1. Statute specifies persons or

groups

2. Applied retrospectively


8/8


8

6. Yu v. Defensor-SantiagoPortugese passport; express renunciation may be

deemed from acts

7. Frivaldo v. COMELECrepatriation retroacts to day of request

8. Labo Jr. v. COMELEC3 modes of acquiring citizenship

9. Mercado v. Manzanotook oath of allegiance upon filing of COC; alien

registration not renunciation

10. Tabasa v. CAwho may repatriate

11. Bengson v. HRETnatural-born citizenship reacquired after repatriation

12. AASJS v. Datumanongdual citizenship is not dual allegiance

SUFFRAGE

1. Romualdez v. RTC - requisites of changing

domicile

2. Macalintal v. COMELECabsentee voters exempt

from residency requirement

3. Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELECabsentee voters/dual

citizens need not comply with residency

SOCIAL JUSTICE

1. ISA v. Quisumbingequal pay for equal work

2. Association of Small Land Owners v. Sec. Of Agrarian Reform retention limits;

just compensation subject to review by court; compensation need not be in

money; revolutionary

3. Luz Farms v. DARpoultry and livestock

4. People v. Leachondue process in Ejectment

5. Carino v. CHRpower to investigate; not

adjudicate

6. EPZA v. CHRcannot issue injunction7. Simon Jr. v. CHRcannot cite for contempt

EDUCATION

1. DECS v. San Diegofailed NMAT 3 times; regulate

admission

2. Miriam College v. CAerotic articles; academic

freedom

3. Garcia v. Faculty Admindenied admission to

Loyola School of Theology

4. University of San Carlos v. CAfailed Architecture subjects; did not graduate cum

laude; academic freedom

Academic Freedom:1. What may be taught

2. How it may be taught

3. Who may teach

4. Who may be admitted to be

taught

Due Process in Ejectment:1. Opportunity to be heard

2. Notice

3. No lives lost

Animus Non

Revertendi/Animus

Manendi: PRA1. Presence in the new locality

2. Intention to remain there

3. Abandon old domicile

Consti Case Law Memory Aid

Documents

Transcript of Consti Case Law Memory Aid