C OMPARACIONES SIMPLES UTILIZANDO EL GGE B IPLOT

AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. PDEA, November 3, 2008 random drug testing to students in HS & College valid because it is not intended for criminal prosecution but to help the youth through early detection of drug use. RANDOMNESS AND SUSPICIONLESS.

ATTY. MANUEL LASERNA, J. VS. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD, G.R. No. 158633, November 3, 2008 [Mandatory drug testing for persons charged of an offense punishable by 6 yrs. And 1 day up IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

1. Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663

2. Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294, read including the concurring and dissenting opinions

3. Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 4. Beltran vs. Samson, 50 Phil. 570

5. Bagadiong vs. Gonzales, 94 SCRA 906 6. US vs. Tang Teng, 23 Phil. 145

7. Cabal vs. Kapunan, Jr. December 29, 1962

CHAPTER XVII THE RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE 1. Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131 2. Caunca vs. Salazar, supra

CHAPTER XVIII

RIGHT AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

LEO ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE [Death through lethal injection is the most humane way of implementing the Death Penalty. It is not cruel and unusual]

Death Penalty was abolished:

PEOPLE VS. GAVARRA, 155 SCRA 327;

PEOPLE VS. MASANGKAY, 155 SCRA 113;

P VS. ATENCIO, 156 SCRA 242;

PEOPLE VS. INTINO, SEPT. 26, 1988;

PEOPLE VS. MUNOZ, 170 SCRA 107

Death penalty not abolished for two reasons:

• Sec. 19 [1] Art. III. Congress may re-impose for heinous crimes

• Section 5 (2) [d] Art. VIII

b. Is death as a penalty a cruel or unusual punishment?

1. P vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 [It is cruel and unusual if the penalty is disproportionate to the crime committed and shocking to the conscience of the community]

2. People vs. Villanueva, 128 SCRA 488;

3. VENIEGAS VS. PEOPLE, 115 SCRA 79;

4. PEOPLE VS. CAMANO, 115 SCRA 688

CHAPTER XX THE RIGHT

AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

IVLER VS. JUDGE PEDRO, Presiding Judge, METC 71 OF PASIG CITY, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010

After the petitioner pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries and was sentenced to censure, he could not be tried anymore of the 2^nd case of reckless imprudence

same act. Double jeopardy has set in.

LEJANO VS. PEOPLE, January 18, 2011 and PEOPLE VS.

HUBERT WEBB ET AL.

After the acquittal of the accused by the SC on December 14, 2010, double jeopardy has set in and no motion for reconsideration may be entertained.

MONICO JACOB VS. SB, November 17, 2010

Since the dismissal based on speedy trial was not upheld, then the invocation of double jeopardy is unavailing.

When the act is punished by both a law and an ORDINANCE:

PEOPLE VS. JUDGE RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292

DAYAP BS. SENDIONG, JANUARY 29, 2009 [Acquittal through demurrer to evidence is final and could not be appealed.

Double jeopardy has set in but civil aspect may still proceed if there is no express finding that accused has not committed the crime]

PEOPLE VS. DOMINGO, G.R. No. 184343, March 2, 2009 [If an accused of Murder was convicted of Homicide only in the RTC but appeals the same to the higher court, he could not complain of double jeopardy if the appellate court sentences him of Murder since that is the evidence found during the review of the case on Appeal]

1. CUDIA VS. CA, 284 SCRA 173 [Petitioner was arrested of illegal possession of firearm in Mabalacat, Pampanga but it was the City Prosecutor of Angeles City who signed the information]

PEOPLE VS. BALISACAN, 17 SCRA 1119 [Entered a plea of guilty to a charge of homicide but prayed for presentation of his evidence for incomplete self-defense. He was acquitted instead.

No double jeopardy since there was a valid plea]

PEOPLE VS. GALANO, 75 SCRA 193 [Charged of estafa in Batangas. During trial, it was shown that the elements of the

crime actually took place in Manila. No double jeopardy if a new information will be filed in Manila]

8. P vs. Judge Hernando, 108 SCRA 121 9. Esmena vs. Judge Pogoy, 102 SCRA 861

10. Mazo vs. Mun. Court, 113 SCRA 217 [Demurrer to Evidence]

11. Andres vs. Cacdac, 113 SCRA 217 14. P vs. Fuentebella, 100 SCRA 672

15. DIONALDO VS. DACUYCUY, 108 SCRA 736 16. PEOPLE VS. BALADJAY,

17. ESMENA VS. JUDGE POGOY 18. ANDRES VS. CACDAC

19. PEOPLE VS CITY COURT OF SILAY, 154 SCRA 175

• May the government appeal a judgment of acquittal or for the increase of the penalty imposed by the trial court?

PEOPLE VS. JUDGE VELASCO, 340 SCRA 207

The government may not appeal or file a Petition for Certiorari questioning the judgment of acquittal. Double jeopardy has set in.

6. The "Supervening Fact Doctrine."

Read:

1. 76 SCRA 469

2. P vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260 3. P vs. Villasis, 46 O.G. 268 4. Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766 5. P vs. Buling, 107 Phil. 712 5-a. P vs. Adil, 76 SCRA 462

5-b. P. vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601

6. P vs. City Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637

7. Read also Sec. 7, Rule 117, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure

CHAPTER XXI

RIGHT AGAINST EX-POST FACTO LAW,

BILL OF ATTAINER, ETC.

Ex post facto law applies only to penal laws.

LACSON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, January 20, 1999

a. which makes an act criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when committed, and punishes such action;

b. which aggravates the crime or makes it greater when it was committed;

c. when it changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the penalty when the crime was committed;

d. which alters the legal rules of evidence and now receives less or different testimony to convict the accused;

e. a law that alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage, in relation to an offense;

f. which assumes or regulates civil rights and remedies but in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; and

g. deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or proclamation of amnesty.