2015 Bar Examinations

When is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a law on the ground of violation of the Bill of Rights
traditionally allowed? Explain your answer. (3%)

ANSWER:
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of
possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech. “On its face” invalidation of statutes results in striking
them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court whose
activities are constitutionally protected. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.148560, November 19,
2001

Senator Fleur De Lis is charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan. After finding the existence of
probable cause, the court issues a warrant for the Senator's arrest. The prosecution files a motion to
suspend the Senator relying on Section 5 of the Plunder Law. According to the prosecution, the
suspension should last until the termination of the case. Senator Lis vigorously opposes the motion
contending that only the Senate can discipline its members; and that to allow his suspension by the
Court would violate the principle of separation of powers. Is Senator Lis's contention tenable? Explain.
(4%)

ANSWER:

The contention of Senator Lis is untenable. In a similar case, the Supreme Court held that the order
of suspension prescribed by Republic Act No. 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline
its own ranks under the Constitution. The doctrine of separation of powers by itself may not be deemed
to have effectively excluded members of Congress from Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) nor from its sanctions. Hence, Republic Act No. 3019 does not exclude from its
coverage the members of Congress and that, therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus
decreeing the assailed preventive suspension order. (Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055,
April 18, 2001)

Around 12:00 midnight, a team of police officers was on routine patrol in Barangay Makatarungan
when it noticed an open delivery van neatly covered with banana leaves. Believing that the van was
loaded with contraband, the team leader flagged down the vehicle which was driven by Hades. He
inquired from Hades what was loaded on the van. Hades just gave the police officer a blank stare and
started to perspire profusely. The police officers then told Hades that they will look inside the vehicle.
Hades did not make any reply. The police officers then lifted the banana leaves and saw several
boxes. They opened the boxes and discovered several kilos of shabu inside. Hades was charged with
illegal possession of illegal drugs. After due proceedings, he was convicted by the trial court. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

In his final bid for exoneration, Hades went to the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when the police officers searched his
vehicle without a warrant; that the shabu confiscated from him is thus inadmissible in evidence; and
that there being no evidence against him, he is entitled to an acquittal.

For its part, the People of the Philippines maintains that the case of Hades involved a consented
warrantless search which is legally recognized. The People adverts to the fact that Hades did not offer
any protest when the police officers asked him if they could look inside the vehicle. Thus, any evidence
obtained in the course thereof is admissible in evidence.
Whose claim is correct? Explain. (5%)

ANSWER:

The claim of Hades is correct. In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court held that when a vehicle
looked suspicious simply because it is not common for such to be covered with leaves, it does not
constitute "probable cause" as would justify the conduct of a search without a warrant. It cannot
likewise be said that the contraband found in petitioner's vehicle were in plain view, making its
warrantless seizure valid. Neither can petitioner's passive submission be construed as an implied
acquiescence to the warrantless search. (Caballes vs. C.A., G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002)
Here, the police officers did not have probable cause to justify an extensive search of the petitioner’s
vehicle without his consent, freely and voluntarily given, and without the benefit of a search warrant.
Thus, the seized boxes of shabu must be cast aside as evidence being obtained as the product of an
unreasonable search and seizure. There being no other evidence against the accused, he is entitled
to an acquittal.

2016 Bar Examinations

The contents of the vault of ABC company consisting of cash and documents were stolen. Paulyn, the
treasurer of ABC, was invited by the Makati City Police Department to shed light on the amount of
cash stolen and the details of the missing documents. Paulyn obliged and volunteered the information
asked. Later, Paulyn was charged with qualified theft together with other suspects. Paulyn claims her
rights under the Constitution and pertinent laws were blatantly violated. The police explained that they
were just gathering evidence when Paulyn was invited for a conference and she was not a suspect at
that time. Rule on her defense. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Her defense is bereft with merit. Custodial investigation

begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime, and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has
been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory
questions which tend to illicit incriminating statements. (People v. Dela Cruz, GR No.
118866-68, Sept. 17, 1997) As Paulyn was not taken into custody but only invited and
that there was no particular suspect yet and no questions propounded that will possibly
incriminate her, Paulyn's constitutional rights were not violated.

-VI-

Pornographic materials in the form of tabloids, magazines and other printed materials, proliferate and
are being sold openly in the streets of Masaya City. The City Mayor organized a task force which
confiscated these materials. He then ordered that the materials be burned in public. Dominador,
publisher of the magazine, "Plaything", filed a suit, raising the following constitutional issues: (a) the
confiscation of the materials constituted an illegal search and seizure, because the same was done
without a valid search warrant; and (b) the confiscation, as well as the proposed destruction of the
materials, is a denial of the right to disseminate information, and thus, violates the constitutional right
to freedom of expression. Is either or both contentions proper? Explain your answer. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Only the first contention is proper. (a) In Pita v. CA (GR No.
80806, Oct. 5, 1989), the Court outlined the procedure to be followed, thus: (1) a
criminal charge must be brought against the person/s for purveying the pornographic
materials; (2) an application for a search and seizure warrant obtained from the judge
 who shall determine the existence of probable cause before issuing such warrant; (3)
the materials confiscated brought to court in the prosecution of the accused for the
crime charged; (4) the court will determine whether the confiscated items are really
pornographic, and (5) the judgment of acquittal or conviction rendered by the court
accordingly. In the instant case, the authorities were not possessed of a lawful court
order finding the materials to be pornographic and authorizing them to carry out a
search and seizure. Also, no party has been charged, neither is any charge being
pressed against any party. Thus, the authorities has not shown the required proof to
justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the magazines. (b) Pornographic materials
in violation of Art. 201 of the RPC are mandated by law [PD 969] to be forfeited and
destroyed, even if the accused was acquitted. (Nograles v. People, GR No. 191080,
Nov. 21, 2011) The destruction of the said materials is a valid exercise of police power
to prevent the dissemination of pornographic materials and not to curtail the freedom
of expression.

-VII-

Ernesto, a minor, while driving a motor vehicle, was stopped at a mobile checkpoint. Noticing that
Ernesto is a minor, SPOl Jojo asked Ernesto to exhibit his driver's license but Ernesto failed to produce
it. SPOI Jojo requested Ernesto to alight from the vehicle and the latter acceded. Upon observing a
bulge in the pants of Ernesto, the policeman frisked him and found an unlicensed .22-caliber pistol
inside Ernesto's right pocket. Ernesto was arrested, detained and charged. At the trial, Ernesto,
through his lawyer, argued that, policemen at mobile checkpoints are empowered to conduct nothing
more than a ''visual search". They cannot order the persons riding the vehicle to alight. They cannot
frisk, or conduct a body search of the driver or the passengers of the vehicle.

Ernesto's lawyer thus posited that:

[a] The search conducted in violation of the Constitution and established jurisprudence was
an illegal search; thus, the gun which was seized in the course of an illegal search is the "fruit
of the poisonous tree" and is inadmissible in evidence. (2.5%)

[b] The arrest made as a consequence of the invalid search was likewise illegal, because an
unlawful act (the search) cannot be made the basis of a lawful arrest. (2.5%)

Rule on the correctness of the foregoing arguments, with reasons.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: This is correct. The search is not incidental to a lawful arrest
since such arrest was made without Ernesto being informed of his Miranda rights.
Also, there is nothing that would have allowed the policeman to conduct the search for
he had no probable cause to believe, before the search that either Ernesto is a law
offender or he will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the motor
vehicle to be searched. (Caballes v. CA, GR No. 136292, Jan. 15, 2002) Here, Ernesto
was flagged down because he was a minor, not a felon. [b] The arrest made as a
consequence of the invalid search was likewise illegal, because an unlawful act (the
search) cannot be made the basis of a lawful arrest. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: This is correct. Under the Rules of Court, a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything, which may be used as
proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. (Rule 126, Sec. 12).
Thus, as a rule, the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed.
 The arrest in this case is unlawful for not having complied with the constitutional
requirements. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting
officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the
warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to
remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might make could be used
against them. (Luz v. People, GR No. 197788, Feb. 29, 2012) Here, there is no
showing that Ernesto was informed of his Miranda rights as mandated by the
Constitution hence, the arrest is clearly illegal from which a lawful search may follow.
Rule on the correctness of the foregoing arguments, with reasons.

-XII-

Paragraphs c, d and f of Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 provide:

"Sec. 36. Authorized drug testing. xx x The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: xx x

c. Students of secondary and tertiary schools x x x;

d. Officers and employees of public and private offices x x x;

f. All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an
imposable imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day;"

Petitioners contend that the assailed portions of Sec. 36 are unconstitutional for violating the right to
privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the equal protection clause. Decide
if the assailed provisions are unconstitutional. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Only Sec. 36(f) is unconstitutional. In the case of students,

the constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing
for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy
when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons
to the parental authority of school authorities. In the case of private and public
employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless
drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and
requirement. The situation is entirely different in the case of persons charged before
the public prosecutor's office with criminal offenses punishable with six (6) years and
one (1) day imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are
"randomness" and "suspicionless." In the case of persons charged with a crime before
the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or
suspicionless. To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt
to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated
objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons' right to privacy
guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. (Social Justice Society v.
Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No. 157870, Nov. 3, 2008)

-XV-

Congress passed a bill appropriating PlOO-billion. Part of the money is to be used for the purchase of
a 200-hectare property in Antipolo. The rest shall be spent for the development of the area and the
construction of the Universal Temple for All the World's Faiths (UTAW-F). When completed, the site
will be open, free of charge, to all religions, beliefs, and faiths, where each devotee or believer shall
be accommodated and treated in a fair and equal manner, without distinction, favor, or prejudice.
There will also be individual segments or zones in the area which can be used for the conduct of
whatever rituals, services, sacraments, or ceremonials that may be required by the customs or
practices of each particular religion. The President approved the bill, happy in the thought that this
could start the healing process of our wounded country and encourage people of varied and
oftenconflicting faiths to live together in harmony and in peace.

If the law is questioned on the ground that it violates Sec. 5, Article III of the Constitution that "no law
shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," how will
you resolve the challenge? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The argument is correct. The non-establishment clause is

supported by several provisions under the present Constitution, one of which is the
prohibition against the use of public money or property for the benefit of any religion,
or of any priest, minister, or ecclesiastic. (Art. VI, Sec. 29[2])

The non-establishment clause means that the State cannot among others pass laws
which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another. (Everson v.
Board of Education, 30 US 1) By appropriating fund for the establishment of the
UTAW-F for the purpose of aiding all religion, Congress in effect violated the non-
establishment clause.

-XVI-

Jojo filed a criminal complaint against Art for theft of a backpack worth P150.00 with the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila. The crime is punishable with arresto mayor to prision correccional in its
minimum period, or not to exceed 4 years and 2 months. The case was assigned to Prosecutor Tristan
and he applied Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112 which reads: "(a) If filed with the prosecutor. - If the complaint is
filed directly with the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four (4)
years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the procedure outlined in Sec. 3(a) of this Rule shall be
observed. The Prosecutor shall act on the complaint within ten (10) days from its filing."

On the other hand, Sec. 3(a) of Rule 112 provides: "(a) The complaint shall state the address of the
respondent and shall be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as well as
other supporting documents to establish probable cause. x x x"

Since Sec. 8(a) authorizes the Prosecutor to decide the complaint on the basis of the affidavits and
other supporting documents submitted by the complainant, Prosecutor Tristan did not notify Art nor
require him to submit a counter-affidavit. He proceeded to file the Information against Art with the
Metropolitan Trial Court. Art vehemently assails Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112 as unconstitutional and violative
of due process and his rights as an accused under the Constitution for he was not informed of the
complaint nor was he given the opportunity to raise his defenses thereto before the Information was
filed. Rule on the constitutionality of Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112. Explain. (5%)