Proyección conjunta del grupo y de los estudiantes de los estudios de casos

Crimes covered:

1. Same offense; or attempt to commit or frustration thereof or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in original complaint or information; and

2. When an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall bar another prosecution for the same act.

Doctrine of Supervening Event—prosecution for another offense if subsequent development changes the character of the first indictment under which he may have already been charged or convicted.

Conviction of accused shall not bar another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense originally charged when:

1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission;

2. Facts constituting graver offense arose or discovered only after filing of former complaint or information; and

3. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made without the consent of prosecutor or offended party.

Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, for double jeopardy to attach, the case against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid information sufficient in form and substance and the accused pleaded to the said charge.

Pa ge 1 08 7/ 12 /2 00 8 ¥ sa y

People vs. Perlita J. Tria-Tirona, et al., G.R. No. 130106, July 15, 2006, after trial on the merits, an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double jeopardy. The only exception where double jeopardy cannot be invoked is where there is finding of mistrial resulting in a denial of due process.

Sec. 22, Article III

No ex-post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Right against Ex-Post Facto Law and Bill of Attainder Ex-Post Facto Law—

The equivalent of the impairment clause in criminal matters is the prohibition against the passage of the ex post facto law. This is because the ex post facto law, like the law impairing the obligation of the contracts, operates retroactively to affect antecedent acts. A law can never be considered ex post facto as long as it operates prospectively since its structures would cover only offenses committed after and not before its enactment. Basically, an ex post facto law is one that would make a previous act criminal although it was not so at the time it was committed.

Kinds:

1. Law criminalizing act done before its passage;

Example: A law passed in 1990 raising the age of seduction from 18 to 25 years, effective 1980

2. Law aggravating penalty for crime committed before passage;

Example: A law passed in 2000 designating the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence as murder, effective 1990

3. Law that changes punishment, and inflicts greater or more severe punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;

Example: A law passed in 2000 increasing the penalty for libel from prision correccional to prision mayor, effective 1990

4. Law altering legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than law required at the time of commission, in order to convict accused;

Example: A law passed in 2000 requiring for conviction merely preponderance of evidence instead of proof beyond reasonable doubt, effective 1990

5. Law assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty of deprivation of right for something which when done was lawful; and

Example: A law passed in 2000 depriving professionals of the right to practice for failure or refusal to vote, effective 1990.

6. Law depriving accused of some lawful protection to which he had been entitled, such a protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty.

Pa ge 1 09 7/ 12 /2 00 8 ¥ sa y

Example: A law passed in 2000 lengthening the period for prescription of blackmail from 5 to 10 years, effective 1990.

Characteristics:

1. It refers to criminal matters;

2. It is retroactive in application; and 3. It works to the prejudice of the accused.

In the case of US vs. Gomez Colonel, 12 Phil 279, an information for adultery filed by the prosecutor was dismissed by the SC on the ground that at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, prosecution could be commenced only on complaint of the offended spouse. It was held that the amendatory law permitting the prosecutor to initiate the charge was ex post facto.

Bill of Attainder—

• It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial

• It is a legislative declaration of guilt

• Essential:

1. Specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals;

2. The imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise; and 3. Lack of judicial trial.

It substitute legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt. Thus, it is only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without judicial trial that it becomes a bill of attainder.

Article IV CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship- is membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent in character.

Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if member of a democratic community] or subjects [if members of a monarchial community]. It does not necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising political and civil rights.

Usual modes of acquiring citizenship:

a. By Birth

i. Jus sanguinis-by blood

Pa ge 1 10 7/ 12 /2 00 8 ¥ sa y

ii. Jus soli-by birth b. By Naturalization c. By Marriage

The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of JUS SANGUINIS.

Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his birth, as opposed to the doctrine of JUS SOLI which determines the nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543)

Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines A. Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution

i. Jus Sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and residing in the islands who did not declare their intention of preserving Spanish nationality between said date and October 11, 1900, were declared citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916], and their children born after April 11, 1899. (en masse Filipinization)

ii. Jus Soli. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the courts are recognized as such today, not because of the application of the jus soli principle, but principally because of the doctrine of res judicata.

B. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the Jus Sanguinis doctrine.

Section 1, Article IV— The following are citizens of the Philippines:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; (February 2, 1987)

2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (jus sanguinis) 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine

citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;

4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Section 2, Article IV— Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia, to spouses Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. Is she a Filipino citizen and, therefore, qualified to run for Governor of her province?

Pa ge 1 11 7/ 12 /2 00 8 ¥ sa y

Historically, she was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the organic acts by which the US governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law.

These laws defined who were deemed to be citizens of the Philippine Islands.

Xxx Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private respondent’s father, Telesforo, was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in the registry of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the law in force at the time of her birth, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is likewise a citizen of the Philippines.

The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship xxx. This principle confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship. It was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000)

Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 (on the controversy surrounding the citizenship of FPJ) –The Court took note of the fact that Lorenzo Pou (grandfather of FPJ), who died in 1954 at the age of 84 years of age, would have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was under the Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization”

that the Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ). The 1935 Constitution, during which regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.

Marriage by Filipino to an alien: “Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it” [Sec.4, Art. IV].

Pa ge 1 12 7/ 12 /2 00 8 ¥ sa y

Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999— Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, having been born on April 11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an alien father, was already 35 years old when he complied with the requirements of CA 625 on June 15, 1999, or over 14 years after he had reached the age of majority. By any reasonable yardstick, Ching’s election was clearly beyond the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. All his acts (passing the CPA and Bar Exams) cannot vest in him citizenship as the law gives him the requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which he did not comply with. (He was not allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath)

The proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the US government to the effect that the election should be made within a “reasonable time” after attaining the age of majority.

The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority except when there is justifiable reason to delay.

The span of 14 years that lapsed from the time he reached 21 until he finally expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing “upon reaching the age of majority”.

®(If his parents were not married, he will follow the citizenship of his mother and he need not elect Philippine citizenship. )

Caram provision. Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Islands are considered citizens of the Philippines. In Chiongbian vs. de Leon, the SC held that the right acquired by virtue of this provision is transmissible.

Re: 1973 Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Provision is prospective in application; to benefit only those born on or after January 17, 1973 (date of effectivity of 1973 Constitution).

 If born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, the person must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. [Within reasonable time=3 years except when there is justifiable reason to delay]

Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship:

1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any official authorized to administer oaths.

2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines [Sec. 1, CA 625].

Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines—Prospective application, consistent with the 1973 Constitution.

Pa ge 1 13 7/ 12 /2 00 8 ¥ sa y

The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate right; during his minority, the child is an alien [Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration 80 Phil. 541].

The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. In Republic vs. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004, it was held that the respondent, who was concededly an illegitimate child considering that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married, is not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements. Being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent became a Filipino upon birth. Record shows that respondent elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of electing Philippine citizenship.

Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by RA 530.

To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executor only after 2 years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant:

1. Has not left the Philippines;

2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession;

3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules; or

4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530] (Bengzon III vs.

HRET, G.R. No. 142840, may 7, 2001)

Qualifications that must be possessed by an applicant:

1. He must be not less than 21 years of age on the day of the hearing of petition;

2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than 10 years; may be reduced to 5 years if:

a. he honorably held office in Government;

b. He established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;

c. He is married to a Filipino woman;

d. Has been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a public or private school not established for the exclusive instruction of persons of a particular nationality or race) or in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than 2 year; or

Pa ge 1 14 7/ 12 /2 00 8 ¥ sa y

e. He was born in the Philippines

3. He must be of GMC and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living;

4. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation;

5. He must be able to write and speak English or Spanish and any of the principal languages; and

6. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Bureau of private Schools of the Philippines where Philippine history, government and civic are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Filipino citizen. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, may 7, 2001)

Disqualifications:

1. Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;

2. Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success of predominance of their ideas;

3. Polygamists or believers of polygamy;

4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;

5. Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease;

6. Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of Filipinos;

7. Those citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war;

8. Those citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

Procedure:

1. Filing of declaration of intention- 1 year prior to the filing of the Petition with the OSG

Persons exempt from filing declaration of intention

:

a. Those born in the Philippines and received their primary and secondary education in public or private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality;

Pa ge 1 15 7/ 12 /2 00 8 ¥ sa y

b. Those resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the filing of the petition, and enrolled their children in elementary and HS recognized by the government and not limited to any race or nationality;

c. Those widows and minor children of aliens who have declared their intention to become citizens of the Philippines and die before they are actually naturalized.

2. Filing of the Petition, accompanied by the affidavit of 2 credible persons, citizens of the Philippines, who personally know the petitioner, as character witness;

3. Publication of the Petition in the O.G. or in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Failure to comply is fatal. (Po Yo Bi vs.

Republic, 205 SCRA 400)

4. Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire proceedings.

5. Hearing of the Petition.

6. Promulgation of the decision.

7. Hearing after 2 years. During the 2-year probation period, applicant has:

a. Not left the Philippines;

b. Dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession;

c. Not been convicted of any offense or violation of rules; and

d. Not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government-announced policies.

8. Oath taking and issuance of Certificate of Naturalization.

Modes of Naturalization:

1. DIRECT - through:

d. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000—grants Philippine citizenship to aliens born and residing in the Philippines

e. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made an outstanding contribution to the country

f. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation or subjugation g. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State

f. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation or subjugation g. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State

In document Interés de las creencias y concepciones de los profesores en la investigación educativa (página 165-168)