Political Law Bar Q and A

Political Law Bar Questions and Answers

Bar Q and A #27

1.) State with reason(s) whether bail is a matter of right or a matter of discretion in the following cases: a. The imposable penalty for the crime charged is reclusion perpetua and the accused is a minor; b. The imposable penalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment and the accused is a minor; c. The accused has been convicted of homicide on a charge of murder and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

a. A minor charged with a crime punishable with reclusion perpetua is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, in case of conviction the penalty would be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua. This rules out reclusion perpetua. [Bravo v. Borja,134 SCRA 466 (1985)]

b. Bail is a matter of discretion for a minor charged with an offense punishable with life imprisonment, because Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code is inapplicable and he is not entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance under it. [People v. Lagasca, 148 SCRA 264 (1987)]

c. Bail is a matter of discretion for an accused convicted of homicide on a charge of murder, because an appeal opens the whole case of review. There is a possibility that he may be convicted of murder, which is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. His conviction shows the evidence of his guilt is strong. [Obosa v. CA, 266 SCRA 281 (1997)]

Textbox

2.) A law denying persons charged with crimes punishable by recluion perpetua or death the right to bail. State whether or not the law is constitutional. Explain briefly.

A law denying persons charged with crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua or death the right to be bail is unconstitutional, because according to the constitution, ”[A]all persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.”

Textbox

3.) JC, a major in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is facing prosecution before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the murder of his neighbor whom he suspected to have molested his (JC’s) 15-year old daughter. Is JC entitled to bail? Why or why not?

As a rule, bail is a matter of right even in capital offense, unless it is determined, after due hearing, that the evidence of his guilt is strong (Section 13, Article III of the Constitution; Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended).

Textbox

4.) OZ lost five head of cattle which he reported to the police as stolen from his barn. He requested several neighbors, including RR, for help in looking for the missing animals. After an extensive search, the police found two head in RR's farm. RR could not explain to the police how they got hidden in a remote area of his farm. Insisting on his innocence, RR consulted a lawyer who told him he has a right to be presumed innocent under the Bill of Rights. But there is another presumption of theft arising from his unexplained possession of stolen cattle— under the penal law. Are the two presumptions capable of reconciliation In this case? If so, how can they be reconciled? If not, which should prevail?

The two presumptions can be reconciled. The presumption of innocence stands until the contrary is proved. It may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon human experience. The presumption that RR is the one who stole the cattle of OZ is logical, since he was found in possession of the stolen cattle. RR can prove his innocence by presenting evidence to rebut the presumption. The burden of evidence is shifted to RR, because how he came into possession of the cattle is peculiarly within his knowledge (Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63).

Textbox

5.) I skip the Numbering my fault.

Skip this number.

Textbox

6.) One day a passenger bus conductor found a man's handbag left in the bus. When the conductor opened the bag, he found inside a calling card with the owner’s name (Dante Galang) and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a small plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. He brought the powdery substance to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination and it was determined to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante Galang was subsequently traced and found and brought to the NBI Office where he admitted ownership of the handbag and its contents. In the course of the interrogation by NBI agents, and without the presence and assistance of counsel, Galang was made to sign a receipt for the plastic bag and its shabu contents. Galang was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs and was convicted. On appeal he contends that - The receipt he signed is also inadmissible as his rights under custodial investigation were not observed. Decide the case with reasons.

The receipt which Galang signed without the assistance of counsel is not admissible in evidence. As held in People v. Castro, 274 SCRA 115 (1997), since the receipt is a document admitting the offense charged, Galang should have been assisted by counsel as required by Article III, Section 11 of the Constitution.

Textbox

7.) Charged by Francisco with libel, Pablo was arraigned on January 3, 2000, pre-trial was dispensed with and continuous trial was set for March 7, 8, and 9, 2000. On the first setting, the prosecution moved for its postponement and cancellation of the other settings because its principal and probably only witness, the private complainant Francisco, suddenly had to go abroad to fulfill a professional commitment. The judge instead dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. Would the grant of the motion for postponement have violated the accused's right to speedy trial?

The grant of the motion for postponement would not have violated the right of the accused to speedy trial. As held In People v. Leviste, 255 SCRA 238, since the motion for postponement was the first one requested, the need for the offended party to attend to a professional commitment is a valid reason, no substantial right of the accused would be prejudiced, and the prosecution should be afforded a fair opportunity to prosecute its case, the motion should be granted.

Textbox

8.) Select the best answer and explain. 1. An accused’s right against self- incrimination is violated in the following cases: a. When he is ordered by the trial court to undergo a paraffin test to prove he is guilty of murder; b. When he is compelled to produce his bankbooks to be used as evidence against his father charged with plunder; c. When he is ordered to produce a sample of his handwriting to be used as evidence that he is the author of a letter wherein he agreed to kill the victim; d. When the president of a corporation is subpoenaed to produce certain documents as proofs he is guilty of illegal recruitment.

The best answer is (c), ordering the accused to produce a sample of his handwriting to be used as evidence to prove that he is the author of a letter in which he agreed to kill the victim as this will violate his right against self-incrimination. Writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. Producing a sample of his handwriting may identify him as the writer of the letter (Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil. 570, [1929]).

Textbox

9.) PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorists who have violated traffic rules. The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation where P01 Adrian was caught red- handed demanding and taking PhP500.00 from a motorist who supposedly beat a red light. After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required to submit a sample of his urine. The drug test showed that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1 Adrian was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibility of the urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the mandatory drug test under R.A. No. 9165 is a violation of the accused's right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. Are PO1 Adrian's contentions correct?

PO1 Adrian is correct that his rights to privacy and against self-incrimination have been violated. The results of the “confirmatory” urine test should therefore be rejected as evidence against him. It should be noted that RA 9165 allows the conduct of urine tests only for persons arrested for acts prohibited under said law, such as, among others, the manufacturing, sale, use or possession of illegal drugs, and not for any unlawful act, like extortion, for which PO1 Adrian was arrested (De la Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014).

Textbox

10.) Congressman Nonoy delivered a privilege speech charging the Intercontinental Universal Bank (IUB) with the sale of unregistered foreign securities, in violation of R.A. 8799. He then filed, and the House of Representatives unanimously approved a Resolution directing the House Committee on Good Government (HCGG) to conduct an inquiry on the matter, in aid of legislation, in order to prevent the recurrence of any similar fraudulent activity. The HCGG immediately scheduled a hearing and invited the responsible officials of IUB, the Chairman and Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). On the date set for the airing, only the SEC Commissioners appeared, prompting Congressman Nonoy to move for the issuance of the appropriate subpoena ad testificandum tocompel the attendance of the invited resource persons. The IUB officials filed suit to prohibit HCGG from proceeding with the inquiry and to quash the subpoena, raising the following argument: Compelling the IUB officials, who are also respondents in the criminal and civil cases in court, to testify at the inquiry would violate their constitutional right against self- incrimination. Are the foregoing argument tenable? Reasons.

The argument is untenable. Since the IUB officials were not being subjected to a criminal penalty, they cannot invoke their right against self-incrimination unless a question calling for an incriminating answer is propounded (Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee, 541 SCRA 456 [2007]).

Textbox