Bar Q Section 16-20

2000 BAR. 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 reversal of the trial court's assailed dismissal of the case place the accused in double jeopardy? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the postponement of the case would not violate the right of the accused to speedy trial, the precipitate dismissal of the
case is void. The reversal of the dismissal will not place the accused in double Jeopardy.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Since the dismissal of the case is valid, its reversal will place the accused in double jeopardy.

2001 BAR. For the death of Joey, Erning was charged with the crime of homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela.
He was arraigned. Due to numerous postponements of the scheduled hearings at the instance of the prosecution, particularly
based on the ground of unavailability of prosecution witnesses who could not be found or located, the criminal case was
pending trial for a period of seven years. Upon motion of accused Erning who invoked his right to speedy trial, the court
dismissed the case.
Eventually, the prosecution witnesses surfaced, and a criminal case for homicide, involving the same incident was filed anew
against Erning. Accused Erning moved for dismissal of the case on the ground of double jeopardy. The prosecution objected,
submitting the reason that it was not able to present the said witnesses earlier because the latter went into hiding out of fear.
Resolve the motion. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion should be granted. As held in Caes vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 54 (1989), the dismissal of a criminal
case predicated on the right of the accused to a speedy trial amounts to an acquittal for failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt and bars his subsequent prosecution for the same offense.

1986 BAR. At the trial of a rape case, the prosecution submitted in evidence a pair of pants which the victim in her testimony,
identified as the very paid of pants left by the accused when he hurriedly jumped from the window to escape rescuers who
heard cried for help while being raped. When it was the accused’s turn to testify on his defense, the fiscal, on cross examination
asked the accused to put on the pair of pants. The defense objected, invoking the right of the accused against self-incrimination.
As judge would you sustain or overruel the objection?

MY ANSWER:
I will overrule the objection. The right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of
the accused an admission of guilt. What is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion and not the inclusion of his body in
evidence when it may be material. In the case at bar, putting on the pair of pants does not fall under the purview of testimonial
compulsion or physical and moral compulsion. Hence, it does not violate Section 17, Article III of the 1987 constitution which
refers to the right against self-incrimination.

1988 BAR. Dr. Juan Sto. Tomas is a practicing dentist in Marikina, Metro Manila. He was charged with immorality before the
Board of Dentistry by a lady patient, who claims that Dr. Sto. Tomas took liberties with her person and kissed her while she was
under the treatment at the latter's clinic. At the initial hearing of the administrative complaint, the complainant's counsel called
the respondent as his first witness. The respondent through counsel, objected vigorously, claiming his constitutional right to be
exempt from being a witness against himself. The Board noted the objection, but ruled that in the next scheduled hearing, a
month and a half later, the respondent would be called to testify as a witness, as the right he claims is not available in
administrative investigations, but only in criminal prosecutions. Dr. Sto. Tomas is decided not to testify. As his lawyer, what
would you do? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will file a petition for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court. The privilege against self
incrimination is available not only in judicial proceedings but also in administrative investigations. In Pascual v. Board of Medical
Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969), it was held that the revocation of a license as a medical practitioner can be an even greater
deprivation than mere forfeiture of property. In some aspects it is similar to criminal proceedings and, therefore, the respondent
can not be made to testify as a witness for the complainant.
1998 BAR. Suppose Congress passed a law to Implement the Constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust, by
providing as follows:
"No employee of the Civil Service shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, records,
correspondence, documents or other evidence in any administrative investigation concerning the office in which he is employed
on the ground that his testimony or the evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or
forfeiture; but his testimony or any evidence produced by him shall not be used against him in criminal prosecution based on
the transaction, matter or thing concerning which is compelled, after invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify
or produce evidence. Provided, however, that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and
punishment for perjury committed in so testifying nor shall he be exempt from demotion or removal from office. Any employee
who refuses to testify or produce any documents under this Act shall be dismissed from the service,"
Suppose further, that Ong, a member of the Professional Regulatory Board, is required to answer questions in an investigation
regarding a LEAKAGE in a medical examination.
1. Can Ong refuse to answer questions on the ground that he would incriminate himself? [4%]
2. Suppose he refuses to answer, and for that reason, is dismissed from the service, can he pausibly argue that the Civil Service
Commission has inferred his guilt from his refusal to answer in violation of the Constitution? |3%]
3. Suppose, on the other hand, he answers the question and on the basis of his answers, he is found guilty and is dismissed. Can
he plausibly assert that his dismissal is based on coerced confession? I3%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No, Ong cannot refuse to answer the question on the ground that he would incriminate himself, since the law grants him
immunity and prohibits the use against him in a criminal prosecution of the testimony or evidence produced by him. As stated
by the United States Supreme Court in Brown vs. Walker. 161 U.S. 591, 597, what the constitutional prohibition against
self-incrimination seeks to prevent is the conviction of the witness on the basis of testimony elicited from him. The rule is
satisfied when he is granted immunity.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In accordance with Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99, 107-108, If Ong is being cited merely as a witness, he may not refuse to
answer. However, if the question tends to violate his right against self-incrimination, he may object to it. On the other hand,
under the ruling in Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663, 680, If he is a respondent, Ong may refuse to answer any question
because of his right against self-incrimination.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. No Ong cannot argue that the Civil Service Commission inferred his guilt from his refusal to answer. He was not dismissed
because of his involvement in the leakage in the medical examination but for his refusal to answer. This is a violation of the law.
He could be compelled to answer the question on pain of being dismissed in case of his refusal, because he was granted
Immunity. In Lefkowitz vs. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 84, the United States Supreme Court held: "Furthermore, the accomodation
between the interest of the State and the Fifth Amendment requires that the State have means at its disposal to secure
testimony if immunity is supplied and testimony is still refused. This is recognized by the power of courts to compel testimony,
after a grant of immunity, by use of civil contempt and coerced imprisonment. Shilitani v. United States, 384 US 364. 16 L Ed
2d 622. 86 5 Ct 1531 (1966). Also, given adequate immunity the State may plainly insist that employees either answer questions
under oath about the performance of their job or suffer the loss of employment."

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3. Jes Ong can argue that his dismissal was based on coerced confession. In Garrity vs. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500, the United
States Supreme Court held: "We now hold the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced
statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and
that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of the body politic."

2000 BAR. A man was shot and killed and his killer fled. Moments after the shooting, an eyewitness described to the police that
the slayer wore white pants, a shirt with floral design, had boots and was about 70 kilos and 1.65 meters. Borja, who fit the
description given, was seen nearby. He was taken into custody and brought to the police precinct where his pants, shirt and
boots were forcibly taken and he was weighed, measured, photographed, fingerprinted and subjected to paraffin testing. At his
trial, Borja objected to the admission in evidence of the apparel, his height and weight, his photographs, fingerprints comparison
and the results of the paraffin test, asserting that these were taken in violation of his right against self-incrimination. Rule on the
objection. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The objection of Borja is not tenable. As held in People v. Paynor, 261 SCRA 615 (1996), the rights guaranteed by Section 12,
Article in of the Constitution applies only against testimonial evidence. An accused may be compelled to be photographed or
measured, his garments may be removed, and his body may be examined.
2010 BAR. X. A, the wife of an alleged victim of enforced disappearance, applied for the issuance of a writ of amparo before a
Regional Trial Court in Tarlac. Upon motion of A, the court issued inspection and production orders addressed to the AFP chief of
Staff to allow entry at Camp Aquino and permit the copying of relevant documents, including the list of detainees, if any.
Accompanied by court-designated Commission on Human Rights (CHR) lawyers, A took photographs of a suspected isolation cell
where her husband was llegedly seen being held for three days and tortured before he finally disappeared. The CHR lawyers
requested one Lt. Valdez for a photocopy of the master plan of Camp Aquino and to confirm in writing that he had custody of
the master plan. Lt. Valdez objected on the ground that it may violate his right against self-incrimination. Decide with reasons.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The objection of Lt. Valdez is not valid. The right against self-incrimination refers to testimonial evidence and does not apply to
the production of a photocopy of the master plan of Camp Aquino, because it is a public record. He cannot object to the request
for him to confirm his custody of the master plan, because he is the public officer who had custody of it. (Almonte vs. Vasquez,
244 SCRA 286 [1995]).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The objection is without merit. Right against self-incrimination is not violated because the right is simply against testimonial
compulsion. But the prohibition also extends to the compulsion for the production of documents, papers and chattels that may
be used as evidence against the witness, except where the State has a right to inspect the same such as in this case. Pursuant to
the production order issued by the court, there can be compulsion for the production of documents sought in the order.

2011 BAR. The right of the State to prosecute crimes by available evidence must yield to the right of
(A) the accused against selfincrimination.
(B) another State to extradite a fugitive from justice.
(C) the State to deport undesirable aliens.
(D) the complainant to drop the case against the accused.

2012 BAR. The right of the accused against self-incrimination will be violated if:
a. he is charged with violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act and he was required to produce his bank passbook;
b. he is a public officer charged with amassing ill-gotten wealth and his statement of assets and liabilities will be presented as
evidence;
c. his gun was subjected to a ballistics test;
d. a sample of his blood was taken if his blood type matches the blood type found at the scene of the crime.

2014 BAR. Alienmae is a Foreign tourist. She was asked certain questions in regard to a complaint that was filed against her by
someone who claimed to have been defrauded by her. Alienmae answered all the questions asked,e xcept in regard to some
matters in which she invoked her right against self-incrimination. When she was pressed to elucidate, she said that the
questions being asked might tend to elicit incriminating answers insofar as her home state is concerned. Could Alienmae invoke
the right against self-incrimination if the cear of incrimination is in regard to her foreign law?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Alienmae cannot invoke her right against self-incrimination even if the fear of incrimination is in regard to her foreign law.
Under the territoriality principle, the general rule is that a state has jurisdiction over all persons and property within its territory.
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessary, exclusive, and absolute. However, the are a few exceptions on
when a state cannot exercise jurisdiction even within its own territory, to wit: 1) foreign states, head of states, diplomatic
representatives, and consults to a certain degree; 2) foreign state property; 3) acts of state; 4) foreign merchant vessels
exercising rights of innocent passage or arrival under stress; 5) foreign armies passing through or stationed in its territories with
its permission; and 6) such other persons or property, including organisations like the United Nations, over which it may, by
agreement, waive jurisdiction. Seeing that the circumstances surrounding Alienmae do not fall under those exceptions, that she
is a foreign tourist who received a complaint for fraud, such principle of territoriality can be exercised by the State to get the
information it needs to proceed with the case.

1980 BAR. D, a resident of Davao, borrowed 9,666.00 from E, his emoployer, a resident of Manila. D agreed in writing that he
would work as a helper in the house of E; that his account would be paid back to him at the rate of 400 per month; and that in
case D fails to pay in casg, he would continue to render service as domestic helper in E’s household. ON the 6th month, he
requested to be allowed to leave E’s service because he had a better opportunity in Davao, salary-wise. E refused to release D
from his service and insisted on D’s compliance with his agreement even as D promised to continue remitting from Davao the
monthly amounts due until his debt was fully paid. Evaluate the rights of the parties based on the Constitution. Which conflicting
rights should prevail.
My Answer: The right of D should prevail. Section 18, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that no involuntary servitude in
any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime. In the case at bar, D has not commited any crime. His promise to
continue remitting the monthly due until his debt is fully paid is enough to release him of his obligation to render service to E. E
cannot detain him involuntary as it will constitute violation of the provision in the consitution.

1986 BAR. Mabagal, a court stenographer, transfers to the Far East Bank before she can finish transcribing stneographic notes
taken during the intestate proceedings in the Cebu RtC. The CA, where the RTC decision was elevated, rders Mabagal’s arrest
and detention for ignoring court’s repeated orders to submit the transcript of stenographic notes. Mabagal files a habeas corpus
petition to the SC stating that her small children are deprived of their mother’s care and that she is being subjected to
involuntary servitude, never having been charged, tried, or convicted of any crime. How would you resolve the petition? Explain.

My Answer:
Mabagal should be released from detention. Article III Section 18 of the Constitution provides that no involuntary servitude in
any form shall existexcept upon punishment for a crim whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. She should not be
deprived of his liberty and forced to do involuntary servitude since she has not convicted with any crime. The provision of the
Constitution requires conviction prior to rendering involuntary servitude as a punishment.

1990 BAR.