Constitutional Law in the PH | Exams Law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

Final Examinations

ROMANILLOS, ROMMEL ROY E.

JD 1 Block E

1. ANSWER:

No. The court is incorrect. Under the 1987 Constitution, the accused as a matter of right is given the

chance to be present in the trial in order for him to prove his innocence by presenting evidence

through counsel. However, this right is not absolute as it can be waived by his repeated failure to

attend the scheduled hearings despite notices without offering any justification or valid reason.

Furthermore, procedural law provides that an accused whose application for bail was granted

executes an affidavit of undertaking together with the bondsman that they will undertake to ensure

their presence in the scheduled hearings. In this case, Henry who was admitted to bail did not show

up and attend the scheduled hearings for four consecutive times without offering any justification,

despite the court sending him notices of hearings. As a consequence, the Prosecution moved that

the case be held trial in absentia due to the absence of the accused. Clearly, the court here

mistakenly denied the motion by the Prosecution as it is allowed under the law that the case can be

tried despite the absence of the accused because his right have already been considered as waived

due to his repeated absence. Therefore, the court’s actions were not correct.

2. ANSWER:

Yes. The search is valid. The law provides that a person can be validly searched even without

warrant, provided that the officer has a probable cause to do so, that is, the officer has a reasonable

belief that a crime has just been committed and that the person whom the officer spotted is likely

the one who committed such or is carrying an item that was used in the recently committed crime.

Furthermore, the law likewise states that moving vehicles are one of the exceptions in the

requirement for the application of a search warrant considering its mobility. Here, the officers

following an information they received, went on a lookout for a particular car and when they found

it, they flagged it down. Accordingly, the driver stopped and lowered the window, the police

officers then saw a gun tucked on the driver's waist. In accordance with the Plain View doctrine and

having a probable cause, the officers asked that the driver step out to which they unintentionally

found the several heat-sealed sachets with white substance on the driver's seat. With admission

from the driver that said items are illegal drugs, the officers seized said gun and sachets. Hence, the

search conducted by the officers was valid.

3. ANSWER:

No, Juanito as a general rule is not entitled to bail, unless the accused files a petition for bail and

said petition is granted by the Court as the Prosecution failed to prove that the evidence of guilt is

strong. The 1987 Constitution states that all persons except those charged with offenses punishable

by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction be able to post bail.

Under the Revised Penal Code, crime of Murder is one of those whose penalty is reclusion

perpetua, which means that said felony is nonbailable. Thus, Juanito is not entitled to bail.

No. the trial court’s decision of acquitting him did not violate his right against double jeopardy.

Case law dictates that the requisites for double jeopardy to attach are as follows: One, the accused

was already arraigned. Two, the case was tried by a competent court. Three, that the case was

already dismissed or a judgement has been rendered. Fourth and last, the dismissal of the cases or

the rendering of judgement was without the consent of the accused. Here, all of the elements were

present except one, that the dismissal of the case or rendering of judgement was with the consent of

the accused. Therefore, considering that the elements in order for double jeopardy to attach was

lacking not to mention that there was no subsequent case that was filed against him for the same

offense or charge, Juanito’s right against double jeopardy was in anyway not violated.

4. ANSWER:

No. The contention is invalid. The law states that stop and frisk or terry search is a valid process

being conducted by police officers after finding probable cause or having a reasonable belief that a

crime has just been committed and that the person whom the officer spotted is likely the one who

committed such or is carrying an item that was used in the recently committed crime. In this case,

Partial preview of the text

Download Constitutional Law in the PH and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity!

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

Final Examinations ROMANILLOS, ROMMEL ROY E. JD 1 Block E

ANSWER: No. The court is incorrect. Under the 1987 Constitution, the accused as a matter of right is given the chance to be present in the trial in order for him to prove his innocence by presenting evidence through counsel. However, this right is not absolute as it can be waived by his repeated failure to attend the scheduled hearings despite notices without offering any justification or valid reason. Furthermore, procedural law provides that an accused whose application for bail was granted executes an affidavit of undertaking together with the bondsman that they will undertake to ensure their presence in the scheduled hearings. In this case, Henry who was admitted to bail did not show up and attend the scheduled hearings for four consecutive times without offering any justification, despite the court sending him notices of hearings. As a consequence, the Prosecution moved that the case be held trial in absentia due to the absence of the accused. Clearly, the court here mistakenly denied the motion by the Prosecution as it is allowed under the law that the case can be tried despite the absence of the accused because his right have already been considered as waived due to his repeated absence. Therefore, the court’s actions were not correct.
ANSWER: Yes. The search is valid. The law provides that a person can be validly searched even without warrant, provided that the officer has a probable cause to do so, that is, the officer has a reasonable belief that a crime has just been committed and that the person whom the officer spotted is likely the one who committed such or is carrying an item that was used in the recently committed crime. Furthermore, the law likewise states that moving vehicles are one of the exceptions in the requirement for the application of a search warrant considering its mobility. Here, the officers following an information they received, went on a lookout for a particular car and when they found it, they flagged it down. Accordingly, the driver stopped and lowered the window, the police officers then saw a gun tucked on the driver's waist. In accordance with the Plain View doctrine and having a probable cause, the officers asked that the driver step out to which they unintentionally found the several heat-sealed sachets with white substance on the driver's seat. With admission from the driver that said items are illegal drugs, the officers seized said gun and sachets. Hence, the search conducted by the officers was valid.
ANSWER: No, Juanito as a general rule is not entitled to bail, unless the accused files a petition for bail and said petition is granted by the Court as the Prosecution failed to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong. The 1987 Constitution states that all persons except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction be able to post bail. Under the Revised Penal Code, crime of Murder is one of those whose penalty is reclusion perpetua, which means that said felony is nonbailable. Thus, Juanito is not entitled to bail. No. the trial court’s decision of acquitting him did not violate his right against double jeopardy. Case law dictates that the requisites for double jeopardy to attach are as follows: One, the accused was already arraigned. Two, the case was tried by a competent court. Three, that the case was already dismissed or a judgement has been rendered. Fourth and last, the dismissal of the cases or the rendering of judgement was without the consent of the accused. Here, all of the elements were present except one, that the dismissal of the case or rendering of judgement was with the consent of the accused. Therefore, considering that the elements in order for double jeopardy to attach was lacking not to mention that there was no subsequent case that was filed against him for the same offense or charge, Juanito’s right against double jeopardy was in anyway not violated.
ANSWER: No. The contention is invalid. The law states that stop and frisk or terry search is a valid process being conducted by police officers after finding probable cause or having a reasonable belief that a crime has just been committed and that the person whom the officer spotted is likely the one who committed such or is carrying an item that was used in the recently committed crime. In this case,

the team saw a man with reddish and glassy eyes walking unsteadily towards them, who he immediately veered away upon seeing them. The team approached the man, introduced themselves as peace officers, then asked what he had in his clenched fist. Because the man refused to answer, a policeman pried the fist open and saw a plastic sachet filled with crystalline substance. Clearly, said act constitutes stop and frisk or terry search. Hence, the man was validly arrested without warrant subsequent to a valid search conducted on him. On another note, the objection and contention to the admission in evidence of the prohibited drug, since according to him, it was obtained in an illegal search and seizure is likewise untenable. The terry search as explained earlier was validly conducted upon him after the PDEA agents found probable cause to do so due to his external and strange actions in a place rumored to be rampant with illegal crimes. It being a valid search, he was rightfully charged in court, and the admission of evidence of the prohibited drug not being a fruit of the poisonous tree or not being covered under the exclusionary rule, it also rightfully followed the procedural laws and thus, both contentions of the accused are not valid.

ANSWER: (A) torture or lingering suffering The 1987 Constitution states that Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Included thereto is the torture or lingering suffering being done to an inmate, a suspect, or any person subject to prosecution which shocks the conscience of a normal person. This provision adheres to international law regarding cruel and inhuman punishments which violates human rights.
ANSWER: (B) No, the trial judge should have held a hearing to ascertain the quality of the evidence of guilt that the prosecution had against Elmer Our 1987 Constitution states that all persons except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction be able to post bail. Here, the trial judge’s grant of bail to Elmer based on the prosecution's manifestation that it was not objecting to the grant of bail is incorrect. He should have as an indispensable element, conducted a bail hearing upon a petition for bail filed by Elmer’s counsel considering that under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of Murder is one of those whose penalty is reclusion perpetua, which means that said felony is nonbailable. Thus, Elmer is not entitled to bail as a general rule since such bail is only discretionary.
ANSWER: (C) punishment for a crime where one has been duly convicted. The 1987 Constitution provides that no involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime where one has been duly convicted. This provision can be related to the Probation law wherein one of the conditions for the accused’s release from detention is conducting community service and the like for a span of time aside from the other requisites as may be provided by law or stipulated by the Probation Office.
ANSWER: (C) a dual citizen Under our present Constitution, the child who was born to a Filipino mother automatically becomes a Filipino citizen pursuant to the principle of Jus Sanguinis. Moreover, following the law on Citizenship of the United States or the principle of Jus Soli, the child likewise becomes an American citizen. In this case, the child having two citizens from two different states because of the varying citizenship rules of his parents, he becomes therefore a dual citizen, unless he soon renounces one of the two citizenships he possesses in the future.
ANSWER: (D) The driver sped away in his car when the police flagged him down at a checkpoint

Constitutional Law in the PH, Exams of Law

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Constitutional Law in the PH and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity!

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2