guide questions for the midterm (for the first year )

1.                  In the case of Marcos v, Manglapus, Imelda Marcos filed a petition in court so that the dead body of Pres. Marcos be transported from Hawaii to the Philippines, so that he could be buried in his own country. The Supreme Court through Justice Irene Cortes, denied the petition. State the justifications made by the said decision why Pres.Marcos’s dead body could not be returned to the Philippines.

2.                  The Department of Education issued a circular that all students must salute the national flag and sing the national anthem. Some students who belong to the Jehovah’s witnesses were prohibited by their religious leaders to do so in the belief that that would be worshipping another God. Is the DepEd circular constitutional? Will it not violate the freedom of religion of the Jehovah’s witnesses? Explain.

3.                  Freedom of expression is a constitutionally protected right. What kinds of expressions however are not protected by the constitution? Enumerate these excluded expressions.

4.                  To determine the liability of the individual for ideas expressed by him, three major criteria have been applied on the freedom of expression. What are these three major criteria? Explain each.

5.                  A lawyer refused to join the Integrated Bar of the Philippines stating that he cannot be compelled to become a member of that association. He argued that the constitutional right to associate includes necessarily the freedom not to associate. He did not pay his IBP dues hence he was disbarred. Is the disbarment proper under the circumstances? Can a lawyer who does not want to be a member of the IBP be compelled to join? Will you respect his right to be left alone in the practice of law? Explain.

6.                  State the grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Does the declaration of martial law include the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus? Explain.

7.                  Jose was murdered right in his own house. His daughter was also raped. No one knew who the perpetrators were. The police officers were having a hard time. Three days after the commission of the crime, Lucio voluntarily appeared in the police station and confessed as the author of the crime. He also confessed that there were three of them who entered the house to include Amancio and Luis. He executed an affidavit stating how the crime was committed. An information was thus filed in court against the three accused: Lucio, Amancio and Luis.

During the trial, Lucio testified implicating Amancio and Luis, who both denied participation. Questions: (1) is the testimony of Lucio admissible in court? (2) Amancio and Luis who claimed innocence, filed an application for bail. Would you grant the bail? Explain.

8. On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba ("respondent"), represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner. On 7 August 1998, petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim where he denied that he is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physical contact with respondent’s mother.

Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. To support the motion, respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D. When she testified, Dr. Halos was an Associate Professor at De La Salle University where she taught Cell Biology. She was also head of the University of the Philippines Natural Sciences Research Institute ("UP-NSRI"), a DNA analysis laboratory. She was a former professor at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, where she developed the Molecular Biology Program and taught Molecular Biology. In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA paternity testing and asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity.⁴

Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. Decide the case.

9. The presented evidence showed that Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry each other on March 29, 2003 at the Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. However, on the day of the wedding, the supposed officiating priest, Fr. Mario Ragaza, refused to solemnize the marriage upon learning that the couple failed to secure a marriage license. As a recourse, Joey, who was then dressed in barong tagalog,and Claire, clad in a wedding gown, together with their parents, sponsors and guests, proceeded to the Independent Church of Filipino Christians, also known as the Aglipayan Church. They requested the petitioner, an Aglipayan priest, to perform a ceremony to which the latter agreed despite having been informed by the couple that they had no marriage certificate.

The petitioner prepared his choir and scheduled a mass for the couple on the same date. He conducted the ceremony in the presence of the groom, the bride, their parents, the principal and secondary sponsors and the rest of their invited guests.

An information for violation of Article 352 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, was filed against the petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Batac, Ilocos Norte for allegedly performing an illegal marriage ceremony.

Petitioner argued that under the principle of separation of church and State, the State cannot interfere in ecclesiastical affairs such as the administration of matrimony. Is he correct? As judge will you convict him for performing an illegal marriage ceremony? Explain.

10. On December 5, 1988, at about 7:00 o'clock p.m., tricycle driver Freddie Saavedra went to see his wife, Delfa, at Our Lady of Angeles Academy in Atimonan, Quezon, where the latter is a third year high school student, to inform her that he will drive both accused to Barangay Maligaya. It was the last time, however, that Freddie was seen alive. When the latter failed to return that evening, Delfa, as early as 4:30 o'clock a.m. of December 6, 1988 inquired on his whereabouts from relatives and friends. In the course of such inquiry, a certain Arnel Villarama revealed that the lifeless body of her husband was discovered on the diversion road at Barangay Malinao in Atimonan. Forthwith, they proceeded to the said place and found him sprawled on the ground with fourteen stab wounds in different parts of his body.

Meanwhile, relying on the information that an abandoned sidecar of a tricycle was sighted at Barangay Malinao, Lucena Philippine National Police (PNP) led by Lt. Carlos Santos proceeded to the scene of the crime and recovered a blue sidecar which they brought back with them to their headquarters. Subsequently, Lt. Santos, Cpl. Numeriano Aguilar and Pat. Rolando Alandy invited appellant in connection with the instant case and with respect to two other robbery cases reported in Lucena City. During their conversation, appellant allegedly gave an explicit account of what actually transpired in the case at bar. He narrated that he and co-accused Amido were responsible for the loss of the motorcycle and the consequent death of Saavedra. Moreover, he averred that they sold the motorcycle to a certain Danny Teves of Barrio Summit, Muntinlupa for a sum of P4,000.00. With the help of appellant as a guide, the Lucena PNP immediately dispatched a team to retrieve the same.

After admitting that it was purchased from both the accused and upon failure to present any document evidencing the purported sale, Teves voluntarily surrendered it to the police who turned it over, together with the sidecar, to the Atimonan Police Station for safekeeping.

Lt. Carlos, on cross-examination, testified that when he invited appellant to their headquarters, he had no warrant for his arrest. In the course thereof, he informed the latter that he was a suspect, not only in the instant case, but also in two other robbery cases allegedly committed in Lucena City. In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the police station, he admitted that he did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel; nor did he reduce the supposed confession to writing.²

Appellant, on the other hand, alleged that he had no participation in the offense charged and contended that his only involvement in the matter was the referral of accused Amido to Teves. He recounted that sometime in December 1988, Amido sought him at his house and told him that the motorcycle he was riding on was being offered for sale. Upon proof shown that it was indeed registered under Amido's name, he accompanied the latter to Manila on board the said motorcycle and they approached Antonio Carandang. The latter, thereafter, brought them to a certain Perlita Aguilar and Danilo Teves with whom the sale was finally consummated. He allegedly received P150.00 as his commission.

Amido presented alibi as his defense. He alleged that although a tricycle driver by occupation, he was at Barangay Malusak, Atimonan on the day in question, some seven kilometers from the town, busy assisting in the renovation of his mother's house. He narrated that the victim was his friend and, therefore, he could not have participated in the gruesome death of the latter.

In a decision dated April 21, 1994, the trial court convicted appellant, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premised in the foregoing considerations, this Court finds Herson Tan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Highway Robbery with Murder and hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is further ordered to indemnify the family of the deceased in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).

Due to insufficiency of evidence, Lito Amido is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges against him and the Provincial Warden of Quezon, Provincial Jail, Lucena City, is hereby ordered to release from custody the person of said Lito Amido, unless he is being detained thereat for some other lawful cause.

Questions: (1) is the conviction of the accused proper under the above set circumstances?

(2) May the confession of an accused, given before a police investigator upon invitation and without the benefit of counsel, be admissible in evidence against him?

11. In the case of Comendador v. Villa, the Supreme court stated that while the right to bail is applicable to all persons, there is also an exception to this rule. What is that exception? Explain.

13. To protect a person under “investigation” he has certain rights which are embraced in that “Miranda doctrine”. What are these rights? What kind of “investigation” is covered by the Miranda doctrine? Explain.

 

14. Upon complaint filed by Angelita P. Bangit, accused-appellant Joselito Agbulos was charged with the offense of forcible abduction with rape. On January 23, 1981, Agbulos arraigned and pleaded not guilty.¹

On April 25, 1984, the prosecution rested its case. On August 13, 1984, a warrant for the arrest of Agbulos was issued for his failure to appear at the scheduled hearing. On September 24, 1984, the order of arrest was recalled and set aside because notice had been sent to the wrong bonding company. Hearing was reset on November 5, 1984, and the accused was notified at his home address.²

On November 5, 1984, the accused failed to appear and his arrest was again ordered.³ The bonding company was given 30 days to produce the person of the accused and show cause why judgment should not be rendered against its undertaking.

On December 18, 1984, the trial court issued an order reading as follows:

Upon motion of the Fiscal, it appearing that the bonding company of the herein accused failed to produce the person of the latter within the specified period, let judgment issue against the full amount of his bond.

Upon motion of the defense counsel, over the vigorous objection of the Fiscal, the continuation of the trial of this case today for presentation of evidence for the defense is hereby cancelled and reset to January 30, 1985, at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.

It is understood that should the accused still fail to appear and present evidence at the next setting, it shall be deemed that he has waived his right to present evidence and the case shall be considered submitted for decision based on the evidence on record.

As requested by the defense counsel, let an Order of Arrest issue against the herein accused at his address at 119 Dionisio St., Doña Adela Subdivision, Cabanatuan City, to be coursed through the INP Station at Cabanatuan City.

SO ORDERED.

On January 30, 1985, the accused still failed to appear.⁴ His counsel manifested in court that he was adopting the prosecution witness Ernesto Tamayo as evidence for the accused. Thereafter, the defense rested its case.

On July 11, 1985, judgment was rendered against the bonding company for failure to produce the accused and to explain why the amount of its undertaking should not be forfeited.

On June 15, 1985, the trial court rendered its decision finding accused Joselito Agbulos guilty of forcible abduction with rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to indemnify the victim Angelita Bangit in the amount of P20,000.00 and to pay the costs.⁵

Question: Is the conviction of the accused valid on the basis of the above mentioned facts? Explain.

15. If you were the judge and you are going to rule on the motion to grant bail to a person accused of a capital offense, what are the factors that you must consider to grant it? What will you require of the petitioner who applies for bail? What must be contained in your Order to justify the granting of bail in capital offenses? Explain.

 

 16.What are the two kinds of subpoena that a court can issue? Distinguish one from the other.

17. On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a private compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6') by ten feet (10') in size. They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral within public view. The first tarpaulin contains the message "IBASURA RH Law" referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin is the subject of the present case.⁴ This tarpaulin contains the heading "Conscience Vote" and lists candidates as either "(Anti-RH) Team Buhay" with a check mark, or "(Pro-RH) Team Patay" with an "X" mark.⁵ The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the RH Law.⁶Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by petitioners as comprising "Team Patay," while those who voted against it form "Team Buhay":⁷

TEAM BUHAY	TEAM PATAY
Estrada, JV	Angara, Juan Edgardo
Honasan, Gregorio	Casiño, Teddy
Magsaysay, Mitos	Cayetano, Alan Peter
Pimentel, Koko	Enrile, Jackie
Trillanes, Antonio	Escudero, Francis
Villar, Cynthia	Hontiveros, Risa
Party List Buhay	Legarda, Loren
Party List Ang Pamilya	Party List Gabriela
	Party List Akbayan
	Party List Bayan Muna
	Party List Anak Pawis

During oral arguments, respondents conceded that the tarpaulin was neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. Petitioners also conceded that the tarpaulin contains names ofcandidates for the 2013 elections, but not of politicians who helped in the passage of the RH Law but were not candidates for that election.

On February 22, 2013, respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her capacity as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove Campaign Materials⁸ addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra. The election officer ordered the tarpaulin’s removal within three (3) days from receipt for being oversized. COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size requirement of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’).⁹

On February 25, 2013, petitioners replied¹⁰ requesting, among others, that (1) petitioner Bishop be given a definite ruling by COMELEC Law Department regarding the tarpaulin; and (2) pending this opinion and the availment of legal remedies, the tarpaulin be allowed to remain.¹¹

QUESTION: Is the act of the Diocese in posting said political tarpaulins a violation of the separation of the church and state? As Election Officer would you insist that they should be removed because of a constitutional violation? Explain.

18. In the Hall of Justice, a judge sponsored a catholic mass for all catholics working there to hear the mass. The Virgin Mary and the cross were displayed in her courtroom where mass was celebrated by a catholic priest at 3 o clock every last Friday of the month. A member of the Iglesia ni Cristo who works are stenographer there complained that this activity violates the freedom of religion or the establishment of religion since it is only held for the catholics, to the exclusion of the Iglesia ni Cristo believers. Explain if indeed this violates the non-establishment of religion clause in our constitution.

19. Mr. Jose is a cash clerk of the city of Dapitan. On Jan 5, 2019 he was audited by a team of auditors who found out that he fell short of cash in his collections. Mr. Jose admits that he used the money for the hospitalization of his son and he promised to pay the whole amount. To show his sincerity, he signed a promissory note.

Two months later , a case for malversation was filed against him. One of the evidences used against him was the promissory note which he signed. His lawyer objected to the admissibility of said evidence, claiming that it violated his right against self-incrimination and his right to have counsel when the audit team investigated him about the shortage. Question: Is the evidence against Mr. Jose admissible against him? Is there no violation of his Miranda rights? Explain.

20. The case originates from events that occurred a year after the 2004 national and local elections. On June 5, 2005, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters that the opposition was planning to destabilize the administration by releasing an audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly between the President of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The conversation was audiotaped allegedly through wire-tapping.⁵ Later, in a Malacañang press briefing, Secretary Bunye produced two versions of the tape, one supposedly the complete version, and the other, a spliced, "doctored" or altered version, which would suggest that the President had instructed the COMELEC official to manipulate the election results in the President’s favor. ⁶ It seems that Secretary Bunye admitted that the voice was that of President Arroyo, but subsequently made a retraction. ⁷

2. On June 7, 2005, former counsel of deposed President Joseph Estrada, Atty. Alan Paguia, subsequently released an alleged authentic tape recording of the wiretap. Included in the tapes were purported conversations of the President, the First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano, and the late Senator Barbers.⁸

3. On June 8, 2005, respondent Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul Gonzales warned reporters that those who had copies of the compact disc (CD) and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act. These persons included Secretary Bunye and Atty. Paguia. He also stated that persons possessing or airing said tapes were committing a continuing offense, subject to arrest by anybody who had personal knowledge if the crime was committed or was being committed in their presence.⁹

4. On June 9, 2005, in another press briefing, Secretary Gonzales ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to go after media organizations "found to have caused the spread, the playing and the printing of the contents of a tape" of an alleged wiretapped conversation involving the President about fixing votes in the 2004 national elections. Gonzales said that he was going to start with Inq7.net, a joint venture between the Philippine Daily Inquirer and GMA7 television network, because by the very nature of the Internet medium, it was able to disseminate the contents of the tape more widely. He then expressed his intention of inviting the editors and managers of Inq7.net and GMA7 to a probe, and supposedly declared, "I [have] asked the NBI to conduct a tactical interrogation of all concerned." ¹⁰

5. On June 11, 2005, the NTC issued this press release: ¹¹

NTC GIVES FAIR WARNING TO RADIO AND TELEVISION OWNERS/OPERATORS TO OBSERVE ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW AND PERTINENT CIRCULARS ON PROGRAM STANDARDS

xxx xxx xxx

Taking into consideration the country’s unusual situation, and in order not to unnecessarily aggravate the same, the NTC warns all radio stations and television network owners/operators that the conditions of the authorization and permits issued to them by Government like the Provisional Authority and/or Certificate of Authority explicitly provides that said companies shall not use [their] stations for the broadcasting or telecasting of false information or willful misrepresentation. Relative thereto, it has come to the attention of the [NTC] that certain personalities are in possession of alleged taped conversations which they claim involve the President of the Philippines and a Commissioner of the COMELEC regarding supposed violation of election laws.

These personalities have admitted that the taped conversations are products of illegal wiretapping operations.

Considering that these taped conversations have not been duly authenticated nor could it be said at this time that the tapes contain an accurate or truthful representation of what was recorded therein, it is the position of the [NTC] that the continuous airing or broadcast of the said taped conversations by radio and television stations is a continuing violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the conditions of the Provisional Authority and/or Certificate of Authority issued to these radio and television stations. It has been subsequently established that the said tapes are false and/or fraudulent after a prosecution or appropriate investigation, the concerned radio and television companies are hereby warned that their broadcast/airing of such false information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be just cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations issued to the said companies.

In addition to the above, the [NTC] reiterates the pertinent NTC circulars on program standards to be observed by radio and television stations. NTC Memorandum Circular 111-12-85 explicitly states, among others, that "all radio broadcasting and television stations shall, during any broadcast or telecast, cut off from the air the speech, play, act or scene or other matters being broadcast or telecast the tendency thereof is to disseminate false information or such other willful misrepresentation, or to propose and/or incite treason, rebellion or sedition." The foregoing directive had been reiterated by NTC Memorandum Circular No. 22-89, which, in addition thereto, prohibited radio, broadcasting and television stations from using their stations to broadcast or telecast any speech, language or scene disseminating false information or willful misrepresentation, or inciting, encouraging or assisting in subversive or treasonable acts.

The [NTC] will not hesitate, after observing the requirements of due process, to apply with full force the provisions of said Circulars and their accompanying sanctions on erring radio and television stations and their owners/operators.

6. On June 14, 2005, NTC held a dialogue with the Board of Directors of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP). NTC allegedly assured the KBP that the press release did not violate the constitutional freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, and the right to information. Accordingly, NTC and KBP issued a Joint Press Statement which states, among others, that: ¹²

·                     NTC respects and will not hinder freedom of the press and the right to information on matters of public concern. KBP & its members have always been committed to the exercise of press freedom with high sense of responsibility and discerning judgment of fairness and honesty.

·                     NTC did not issue any MC [Memorandum Circular] or Order constituting a restraint of press freedom or censorship. The NTC further denies and does not intend to limit or restrict the interview of members of the opposition or free expression of views.

·                     What is being asked by NTC is that the exercise of press freedom [be] done responsibly.

·                     KBP has program standards that KBP members will observe in the treatment of news and public affairs programs. These include verification of sources, non-airing of materials that would constitute inciting to sedition and/or rebellion.

·                     The KBP Codes also require that no false statement or willful misrepresentation is made in the treatment of news or commentaries.

·                     The supposed wiretapped tapes should be treated with sensitivity and handled responsibly giving due consideration to the process being undertaken to verify and validate the authenticity and actual content of the same."

Petitioner Chavez filed a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against respondents Secretary Gonzales and the NTC, "praying for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, as extraordinary legal remedies, to annul void proceedings, and to prevent the unlawful, unconstitutional and oppressive exercise of authority by the respondents."¹³

Alleging that the acts of respondents are violations of the freedom of expression and of the press, and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern,¹

QUESTION: Decide whether respondents violated the freedom of expression and of the press and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. Explain your answer.

END OF THE EXAMINATION