MIDTERM EXAMINATION IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

1. a) What are the requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy?

            b) When does jeopardy of punishment attach?

2. Accused is charged under RPC 189, (1) for selling pumps to which he had given the appearance of those of another’s.  Since there was no proof that he had manufactured the pumps himself, he was acquitted.  However, he was ordered prosecuted under RPC 188, (2) for knowingly selling goods with fraudulent trademark.  He pleaded double jeopardy.  Decide.

3After trial on the merits, the accused was acquitted for insufficiency of the evidence against him in the cases for murder and frustrated murder and on the finding, in the illegal carrying of firearm, that the act charged did not constitute a violation of law.  But the State through a petition for certiorari would want his acquittal reversed.  Decide whether the petition for certiorari is proper.

4.What is the meaning of a “supervening event”? What are the 3 requirements for the supervening event principle to apply?

5. Rosalinda is the daughter of Telesforo. She was born on May 16, 1934 in Western Australia (which adopts the jus soli principle). Her mother is an Australian citizen named Teresa.Telesforo was born in Daet, Camarines Norte on January 5, 1879, (where he registered as a Spanish citizen) but died in Australia at the age of 80. Rosalinda is a holder of an Australian passport and had with her an Australian Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) in 1988.

She went back to the Philippines, lived in their ancestral house in Daet, married and had children to a Filipino husband.

            She ran for a congressional seat and won in the district of Daet.

            Her rival files a disqualification case citing:

            1.That Rosalinda is not a Filipino citizen hence disqualified for public office.

            2.That under section 40 of the Local Government Code, “The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position x x x (d) those with dual citizenship.”

            Rule on the two issues above cited.

6. State whether there is double jeopardy in the following situations:

a. In 1992 Jose is charged before the Provincial Prosecutor’s office with Murder. During the preliminary investigation no witnesses from the private complainants appeared. Another date is fixed. Again no witness appeared. The Prosecutor then resolved to dismiss the case on the ground that there is no evidence to hold the accused for trial.

            In 1998, the private complainant appears and tell the prosecutor that his witnesses have surfaced and are now willing to testify. The Prosecutor set the case for another preliminary investigation. Jose files a motion to dismiss alleging that he cannot be tried for the same offense, as he is not put in double jeopardy, which is contrary to our constitution.

b. During the trial for Homicide, after he had been duly arraigned, the accused X moves for postponement for the reason that he has no counsel. The Judge granted his motion and set the case for trial. On the next hearing date, the Prosecution moved for postponement as its witness is not in Court. The Judge warned the Prosecutor that on the next hearing if he has no witness, the case shall be dismissed. On the next trial date, the Prosecutor moves for another postponement as he has not witness. The accused thru counsel moves to dismiss the case invoking his right to speedy trial. The Judge granted the same. The prosecution moves for a reconsideration. The judge did not reconsider.

            Two weeks after the said dismissal, the Prosecutor refiled the  same case for Homicide. The accused moves for the dismissal of the case invoking his constitutional right against double jeopardy.

            Is the accused correct? Explain your answer.

c. Maria is charged with two counts of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). Considering that the penalty is lesser, she pleaded guilty to the charge and applied for probation. While her probation was pending, the Prosecutor filed another case for Estafa, involving the same transaction which lead to the filing of the BP 22 case, that is Maria issued checks in exchange for the rice which she obtained from Josefa.

            Maria contends that the Estafa cases should be dismissed as she is already put in double jeopardy.

Rule on Maria’s contention. Is she correct?

7. From mainland China where he was born of Chinese parents, Mr. Chan Sing Kha migrated to the Philippines in 1894.As of April 11, 1899, he was already a permanent resident of the Philippine Islands and continued to reside in this country until his death. During his lifetime and when he was already in the Philippines, he married Charing, a Filipina (his salegirl) with whom he begot one son, named Ho Pia Kha, who was born on October 18, 1897. Ho Pia got married (to his classmate) Mirtil, a Filipina, and one of their children is Todas Kha, who was born on September 27, 1936. Todas finished Commerce and engaged in business.

            In the May 1989 election, Todas Kha ran for and was elected Congressman. His rival candidate, Gavino Ang, filed a qou warranto or disqualification case against him on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen. It was pointed out that Todas Kha did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of 21.

            Decide whether Todas Kha suffers from disqualification or not.

8. In 1925, Victoriano Chiu , a Chinese citizen and father of the  William Chiu, was elected to and held the office of municipal councilor of the town of Plaridel, Occidental Misamis. This fact is sufficiently established by the evidence submitted to the Court; by the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation cited in Opinion No. 27, s. 1948, of the Secretary of Justice; and as admitted by respondents in their pleadings. It is also shown and admitted that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, petitioner William Chiu was still a minor. Questions: (1) Is Victorian Chiu considered a Filipino under the 1935 constitution? (2) What is the citizenship of William Tiu? Explain.

9. Petitioner Joevanie Arellano Tabasa was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. In 1968, when petitioner was seven years old, his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, became a naturalized citizen of the United States.  By derivative naturalization (citizenship derived from that of another as from a person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization), petitioner also acquired American citizenship.  

Petitioner arrived in the Philippines on August 3, 1995, and was admitted as a “balikbayan” for one year. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested and detained by agent Wilson Soluren of the BID on May 23, 1996, pursuant to BID Mission Order No. LIV-96-72 in Baybay, Malay, Aklan; subsequently, he was brought to the BID Detention Center in Manila.  X x x        The U.S. Department of State has revoked U.S. passport 053854189 issued on June 10, 1994 in San Francisco, California under the name of Joevanie Arellano Tabasa, born on February 21, 1959 in the Philippines. Mr. Tabasa’s passport has been revoked because he is the subject of an outstanding federal warrant of arrest issued on January 25, 1996 by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, for violation of Section 1073, “Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution,” of Title 18 of the United States Code.  He is charged with one count of a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of California Penal Code, Section 12021(A)(1), and one count of sexual battery, in violation of California Penal Code, Section 243.4 (D).xxx Petitioner filed before the CA a Petition for Habeas Corpus with Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order on May 29, 1996, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 40771.  Tabasa alleged that he was not afforded due process; that no warrant of arrest for deportation may be issued by immigration authorities before a final order of deportation is made; that no notice of the cancellation of his passport was made by the U.S. Embassy; that he is entitled to admission or to a change of his immigration status as a non-quota immigrant because he is married to a Filipino citizen as provided in Section 13, paragraph (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940; and that he was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines prior to his derivative naturalization when he was seven years old due to the naturalization of his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, in 1968. 

At the time Tabasa filed said petition, he was already 35 years old.

X x x on June 13, 1996, petitioner filed a Supplemental Petition alleging that he had acquired Filipino citizenship by repatriation in accordance with Republic Act No. 8171 (RA 8171), and that because he is now a Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the respondent Bureau.

Questions: (1) Has petitioner validly reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 8171? (2) If there is no valid repatriation, then he can be summarily deported for his being an undocumented alien? Explain.

10. (a) Citizenship proceedings is “sui generis”. Explain.

 (b) .  In a long line of decisions, this Court said that every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res judicata; hence, it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand.  State the exception to this rule.

ANSWER:. Citizenship proceedings, as aforestated, are a class of its own, in that, unlike other cases, res judicata does not obtain as a matter of course.  In a long line of decisions, this Court said that every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res judicata; hence, it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand.  Res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship only if the following concur:

1.      a person’s citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party;

2.      the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and

3.      the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court.