Bill of Rights

1. Letter D. not sure. (wala kasi akong mahanap na case.)

2. Answers are as follows:
a. Yes, such search violates the Constitution.

Silence is not necessarily a consent to a search but mere passive conformity given under
intimidating or coercive circumstances. The police carry the burden of showing that the
waiver of a constitutional right is one which is knowing, intelligent, and free from any
coercion. (People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014

b. No, such search is valid.

Airport security searches are valid even without a warrant, because of their minimal
intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy
expectations associated with airline travel. (Sales v. People, G.R. No. 191023, February 06,
2013)

c. No, such search is invalid.

With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this in no way gives the police officers unlimited
discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause.
When a vehicle is stopped, and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search
has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable
or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. (People vs. Mariacos, G.R. No.
188611, June 16, 2016, Nachura, J.)

Roadside questioning of a motorist pursuant to a routine traffic stop is not necessarily an

arrest that justifies a warrantless search. Also, a warrantless arrest cannot be made for an
offense penalized by a fine only. Hence, no valid search incident to a lawful arrest can be made
under such circumstances. (Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012)

d. Yes, such search is invalid.

A person can only be searched if there is a search warrant or the case falls under any of the
allowed exceptions.
Requisites for the issuance of search warrant:
a. Probable cause is present; b. Such probable cause must be determined personally by the
judge; c. The judge must examine in writing and under oath and affirmation, the complainant
and the witnesses he or she may produce; d. The applicant and the witnesses testify on the
facts personally known to them; and e. The warrant specifically describes the place to be
searched and things to be seized. (Castillo v. People, GR No. 185128, January 30, 2012)

3. May sagot na si ed dito last time.

4. NO. the firearms seized in room 401 is inadmissible as evidence.

One of the requirements for a valid search warrant is that the warrant should specifically describes the
place to be searched and things to be seized. (Castillo v. People, GR No. 185128, January 30, 2012).
in the case, unit 401 is not mentioned in the search warrant as one of the places to be seized thus
the firearms seized in room 401 is inadmissible as evidence.

5. letter C.

6. The answers are as follows:

A Cannot invoke the right to counsel.

Police lineup is not considered as a part of any custodial inquest, because it is conducted
before that stage of investigation is reached. (People v. Bravo)

B Assistance of counsel is needed.

A person suspected of murder, and while under the custody of the police, even if at his
home, so long as there is a deprivation of his freedom of action, who is being interviewed by
the police regarding a crime is under custodial investigation. Thus, this person should be
assisted by counsel.

C No right to counsel

The purpose of the invitation is to have a general inquiry over the crime committed.

The right to counsel accrues only after an investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime and commences an interrogation aimed at a particular propound question
(People v. Piedad)

D No right to counsel

Preliminary investigation is not a part of custodial investigation and hence assistance of

counsel is not necessary.

7. C admissible as evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

8. (Case: Stonehill v. Diokno)

The search warrant is invalid.

A search warrant to be valid must particularly described the place to be search and the persons or
things to be seized. Search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in the description of the
things to be seized when the things described are limited to those that bear a direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being issued. In this case, the warrant authorized the search for
and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal, thus violating the explicit command of our Bill of
Rights that the things to be seized be particularly described.

Therefore, the search warrant is invalid.

9. (Case: People v. Que)

 Yes, the search of the pick up truck is valid.

The warrantless search of moving vehicle is an exception to the Constitutional Proscription against
warrantless search and seizure. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search,
such a warrantless search has been held to be valid as long as the officers conducting the search
have reasonable or probable cause to believe before search that they will find the instrumentality
or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.

Hence, the search conducted by the PNP is valid.

10. (Case: People v. Aruta)

No, the search is invalid.

There was no legal basis for the police to effect a warrantless search of Mary Janes bag, there being
no probable cause nor a lawful warrantless arrest that would make the search valid. Where a search
is first undertaken, and an arrest effected based on evidence produced by the search, both such
search and arrest would be unlawful, for being contrary to law.

Thus, the search is invalid.

11. The search is not valid. Reliable information alone absent any overt act indicative of felonious
enterprise within the view of arresting officer is not sufficient to constitute probable cause to effect
or justify arrest. In flagrante arrest, the following must concur (1) An overt act that a person is xxxx
commiting a crime (2) The same is done in the presence of arresting officer(s).

12. The confession is admissible.

It is well-settled principle that The rights guaranteed in Sec. 12, Art. Ill, exist only in custodial
investigation or in interrogation of accused persons In People vs Baloloy, it was held that
this guarantee does not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning
by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admitted
having committed the offense. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a
suspect before he was placed under custodial investigation. In this case, the narration before
the Chairman of Homeowners prior to custodial investigation was admissible in evidence.

13. The confession is not admissible. Confessions having been made without the assistance of the
counsel during the custodial investigation shall not be admissible against him. Where the lawyer
merely affixed his signature to the confession as saksi, or as w itness, and he testified that
he had not assisted the accused when the latter was investigated by the police, the
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence [People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 145176, March
30, 2004

14. The confession is not admissible as evidence. In v. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642, the Supreme Court held
that the right to counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation. At that point, the person
being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting
 false or coerced admissions from the lips of the person undergoing investigation. In this case it is
clear that the Joselito's right to counsel was violated.

Applying same analogy in People Vs. Lucero.

15. In People Vs. Musa, the Supreme Court enumerated the elements to effect valid seizure based on
Plain View Doctrine, to wit:

i) a prior valid intrusion based on the arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duties; (ii) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right
to be where they are; (iii) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (iv) plain view
justified the seizure of the evidence without any further search

16. (To be answered by Macoy)

17. Yes. The law is valid.

As the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, Art III of the Constitution is couched and as has been held,
"reasonableness" is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion. And
whether a search at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing of the
government - mandated intrusion on the individual's privacy interest against the promotion of
some compelling state interest. In the criminal context, reasonableness requires showing of
probable cause to be personally determined by a judge. Given that the drug - testing policy for
employees--and students for that matter-under RA 9165 is in the nature of administrative search
needing what was referred to in Vernonia as "swift and informal disciplinary procedures," the
probable - cause standard is not required or even practicable. (SJS vs. DDB, G.R. No. 157870,
November 3, 2008)

18. No. the search is not valid.

The police didnt serve a search warrant and the case does not fall under any of the instances for
warrantless arrest: (i) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in
"plain view;" (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs
search; (vi) a "stop and frisk" search; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances.

The case cannot fall under stop and frisk search because such should be limited only protective
search of outer clothing of weapons. The police officers asked for passport and other identification
papers. There should also be suspiciousness present in the situation where the police officer
finds himself or herself in. the bulge in his waist does not constitute suspiciousness.

19. Void for vagueness. The ordinance is not clear regarding which acts constitutes an improper and
annoying behavior against a tourist. A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it
lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess its
meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it
violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice
 of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its
provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.

20. Yes, the search of the warehouse and the seizure of the luxury vehicles is valid.

Under Secs. 2205 and 2208 of the Tariff and Customs Code, customs officials are authorized to
enter any warehouse, not used as dwelling, for the purpose of seizing any article which is subject
to forfeiture. For this purpose they need no warrant issued by a court. As stated in Viduya vs.
Berdiago, 73 SCRA 553. for centuries the seizure of goods by customs officials to enforce the
customs laws without need of a search warrant has been recognized.

21. No, the search and seizure s not valid.

Under Secs. 2205 and 2208 of the Tariff and Customs Code, customs officials are authorized to
enter any warehouse, not used as dwelling, for the purpose of seizing any article which is subject
to forfeiture. Since the luxury vehicles are in the residence of the owner, a search warrant from
the court is necessary.

22. No, he cannot refuse to attend the hearings of the administrative investigation.

The rights of a person in custodial investigation does not apply in administrative investigations. His
refusal to attend will constitute a waiver of his right to be heard and may result to his termination.
(di ako sure masyado)

23. No , he does not have the right to counsel in the said case.

The right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are
conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against
erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government
service.

Since the case is only an administrative proceeding, he is not entitled to the right to counsel.

24. No, the extra-judicial confession is not valid.

The following are the requirements for a valid extrajudicial confession.

Confession to be admissible must be a) voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel; c) express; and d) in writing.

Since the confession lacks the following requirements: ) made with the assistance of a competent
and independent counsel; and d) in writing, it is not valid.

(no #25-29)
30. No, he is not entitld to right to bail.
In the Jimenez case, It was held that the constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as
Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and
detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings,
because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every
accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to
acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[60] It follows that the constitutional
provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not
at issue.
Since he was arrested to be extradited, he cannot invoke the right to bail.
31. a. No. the non-establishment clause was not violated. In Aglipay v. Ruiz - commemorative postage
stamp Act. No. 4052 contemplates no religious purpose. What it gives is the discretionary power
to determine when the issuance if special postage stamps would be advantageous to the
government. The only purpose of the commemorative postage stamps was to advertise the
Philippines and attract more tourists

b. No. the non-establishment clause was not violated. It is one of the exceptions provided by the
Constitution.

SECTION 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.

(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution,
or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as
such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or
to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

c. NOT SURE, NO PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE FOUND

US jurisprudence:
Organized prayer in the public school setting, whether in the classroom or at a school-sponsored
event, is unconstitutional. The only type of prayer that is constitutionally permissible is private,
voluntary student prayer that does not interfere with the school's educational mission.
d. No, the non-establishment clause was not violated. Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers
Union joining a union is prohibited by the Iglesia ni Cristo closed shop agreement freedom of
religion takes precedent over the right against impairment of contracts

32. Section 1. Petition. 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.
Hence,

a. Informal settlers cannot avail of the said remedy as they are persons whose
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. Writ of amparo does not cover right to property.
b. No, he cannot avail the remedy. Although he is confined, his confinement is upon
lawful order of the court to determine his mental state in relation to his trial for
murder. There is no unlawful deprivation of liberty.
c. No, he cannot avail the remedy. In Fr. Robert Reyes vs CA, a clear threat to liberty
must be shown to avail the remedy. Failure to show any clear threat to his right to
liberty actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.
Here, the restriction on petitioners right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the
criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his
right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a serious
violation of his right to life, liberty and security, for which there exists no readily available
legal recourse or remedy.

In Canlas et al. v. Napico Homeowners Association I XIII, Inc. et al.,[23] this Court ruled that:

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.