guide questions for the preliminary examination

1.While it is true that the Supreme Court and the other courts created by law have that solemn duty to interpret the law, or the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress and approved by the President, it is however governed by principles in interpreting any question of constitutionality. State these rules/principles and explain each of them.

2.Facts:  at about 6:00 a.m. of November 25, 2005, Police Senior Inspector Sofronio Bayan (PSI Bayan) of the San Gabriel Police Station in San Gabriel,La Union, "received a text message from an unidentified civilian informer that one Marvin Buya (also known as Marvin Bugat) "[would]be transporting marijuana" from Barangay LunOy, San Gabriel, La Union to the Poblacion of San Gabriel, La Union

PSI Bayan organized checkpoints in order "to intercept the suspect."⁵ PSI Bayan ordered SPO1 Jaime Taracatac, Jr. (SPO1 Taracatac), a member of the San Gabriel Police, to set up a checkpoint in the waiting area of passengers from San Gabriel bound for San Fernando City.⁶ A passenger jeepney from Barangay Lun-Oy arrived at SPO1 Taracatac’s checkpoint.⁷ The jeepney driver disembarked and signalled to SPO1 Taracatac indicating the two male passengers who were carrying marijuana.⁸ SPO1 Taracatac approached the two male passengers who were later identified as Victor RomanaCogaed and Santiago Sacpa Dayao.⁹ Cogaed was carrying a blue bag and a sack while Dayao was holding a yellow bag.

SPO1 Taracatac asked Cogaed and Dayao about the contents of their bags.¹¹ Cogaed and Dayao told SPO1 Taracatac that they did not know since they were transporting the bags as a favor for their barriomatenamed Marvin.¹² After this exchange, Cogaed opened the blue bag, revealing three bricks of what looked like marijuana.¹³Cogaed then muttered, "nagloko daytoy nga Marvinen, kastoymet gayam ti nagyanna,"which translates to "Marvin is a fool, this is what [is] contained in the bag. "SPO1 Taracatac arrested [Cogaed] and . . . Dayao and brought them to the police station." Cogaed and Dayao "were still carrying their respective bags"¹⁶ inside the station.

While at the police station, the Chief of Police and Investigator PO3 Stanley Campit (PO3 Campit) requested Cogaed and Dayao to empty their bags. Inside Cogaed’s sack was "four (4) rolled pieces of suspected marijuana fruiting tops,"and inside Dayao’s yellow bag was a brick of suspected marijuana.

Question: On the basis of said facts, would you convict the accused? State your basis in law and in applying the principles under R.A. 9165

3.On 15 July 2011, at 6:30 in the evening, a confidential informant (CI) sent a text message to Police Inspector Dominador Orate, Jr. (P/Insp. Orate), then Deputy Station Commander of Police Station 6, Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City, that an alleged courier of marijuana together with a female companion, was sighted at Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. The alleged courier had in his possession a backpack containing marijuana and would be traveling from Bukidnon to Cagayan de Oro City. At 9:30 in the evening, the CI called P/Insp. Orate to inform him that the alleged drug courier had boarded a bus with body number .2646 and plate number KVP 988 bound for Cagayan de Oro City. The CI added that the man would be carrying a backpack in black and violet colors with the marking "Lowe Alpine." Thus, at about 9:45 in the evening, the police officers stationed at Police Station 6 put up a checkpoint in front of the station.

At 11:00 o'clock in the evening, the policemen stopped the bus bearing the said body and plate numbers. P/Insp. Orate, Police Officer 3 Teodoro de Oro (PO3 De Oro), Senior Police Officer 1 Benjamin Jay Reycitez (SPO1 Reycitez), and PO1 Rexie Tenio (PO1 Tenio) boarded the bus and saw a man matching the description given to them by the CI. The man was seated at the back of the bus with a backpack placed on his lap. After P/Insp. Orate asked the man to open the bag, the police officers saw a transparent cellophane containing dried marijuana leaves.

SPO1 Reycitez took photos of accused-appellant and the cellophane bag containing the dried marijuana leaves.PO3 De Oro, in the presence of accused-appellant, marked the bag "RCB-2" and the contents of the bag "RCB-1."Thereafter, PO1 Tenio and PO3 De Oro brought accused-appellant and the seized bag to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. On 16 July 2011, at around 1:40 in the morning, Police Senior Inspector Charity Caceres (PSI Caceres) of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office 10, Cagayan de Oro City, received the requests for examination and the specimen. PSI Caceres, after conducting qualitative examination of the specimen, issued Chemistry Report No. D-253-2011 stating that the dried leaves seized from accused-appellant were marijuana and which weighed 3,200 grams.

QUESTION: On the basis of said fact, how did the Supreme Court on the matter? Was the accused convicted or acquitted? State the reasons.

4. A verified impeachment complaint was filed by two hundred (200) Members of the House of Representatives against Madam Chief Justice Blue. The complaint was immediately transmitted to the Senate for trial.

a.       Madam Chief Justice Blue challenges such immediate transmittal to the Senate because the verified complaint 1) not included in the order of business of the House, 2) was not referred to the House Committee on Justice for hearing and consideration for sufficiency in form and substance, and 3) was not submitted to the House Plenary for consideration as enumerated in Paragraph (2), Section 3, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Decide with reasons.

b.      What is the purpose of Impeachment? Does conviction prevent further prosecution and punishment? Explain.

c.       Enumerate the grounds for impeachment. Is graft and corruption a ground for impeachment?

5. Mr. Brown, a cigarette vendor, was invited by PO1 White to a nearby police station. Upon arriving at the police station, Brown was asked to stand side-by-side with five (5) other cigarette vendors in a police line-up. PO1 White informed them that they were looking for a certain cigarette vendor who snatched the purse of a passer-by and the line-up was to allow the victim to point at the vendor who snatched her purse. No questions were to be asked from the vendors.

a.       Brown, afraid of a "set up" against him, demanded that he be allowed to secure his lawyer and for him to be present during the police line-up. Is Brown entitled to counsel? Explain (5%)

b.      Would the answer in (a.) be the same if Brown was specifically invited by White because an eyewitness to the crime identified him as the perpetrator? Explain.

c.       Briefly enumerate the so-called "Miranda Rights".

6.    The GSIS, pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares. In a close bidding only two (2) bidder participated, the petitioner Manila Prince Hotel and RenongBerhad, a Malaysian firm. First the MPH has a lower bid compare to the Malaysian firm but later matched the bid of the Malaysian firm with all the compliance of the bidding rules imposed by the GSIS on the contracts.

Perhaps apprehensive the respondent GSIS has disregarded the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS and consummated with RenongBerhad. The petitioner came to the court on prohibition and mandamus. The court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from perfecting and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm.

The petitioner invoked Sec 10, second par. Article XII. The Filipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987 constitution. [In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the state shall give preference to qualified Filipinos]. Respondent, opposing that the provision is not self-executing and requires implementing legislation, and Manila Hotel does not fall under the term national patrimony.

QUESTIONS:

1.       Whether Sec 10, second par. Article XII of the constitution is not self-executing?

2.       Whether the 51% share of Manila Hotel does not fall under the term national patrimony?

7.     Distinguish fully between the "free exercise of religion clause" and the "non-establishment of religion clause".

8.      When can evidence "in plain view" be seized without need of a search warrant? Explain.

9. What is a TERRY STOP? Is it the same as the TERRY SEARCH? Explain.

10. Explain the following principles: (a) doctrine of operative fact (b) Purposeful Hesitation (c) doctrine of condonation in administrative cases (d) meaning of taking in “eminent domain” (e) benevolent neutrality