FINAL CABASAG HOLLY-ANN

 

FINAL EXAMINATION IN POLITICAL LAW

January 16, 2021

 

Cabasag, Holly-Ann A.       JD-1

 

 

1.)               The chain of custody is very significant in cases where buy-bust operations are being carried out. Buy-bust operations are means wherein government officials (i.e. police officers) apprehend certain individuals suspected of drug abuse. This chain of custody is very relevant wherein items of evidence have been handled properly during the investigation of the case. In the case of People of the Philippines v. Asaytuno, the chain of custody was not properly handled however doesn’t affect the said prosecution for justifiable reasons and that the integrity of the evidence are maintained. The non-compliance of Section 21 may be excused of the said reasons are justifiable. In my own understanding, if apprehending officers failed to follow section 21, it would be a problem with regards to the prosecution. Evidence must be strictly handled because if such mishaps would be observed and the integrity of the evidence would no longer be manifested, thus prosecution would likely be affected and be dismissed.

 

2.)              A. No. The argument invoked is not correct. They cannot be charged with double jeopardy. When the criminal charges against petitioners were dismissed with prejudice, they can no longer be refiled without offending the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy.

 

B. For an ordinance to be valid, it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute. It must not oppressive. The ordinance must be fair. It must not be partial and discriminatory. And it must be general and consistent with general policy. An ordinance will not be valid if such requisites were not met.

 

C. The petition was dismissed on the grounds of academic and mootness. In the light of dismissal with prejudicial of all criminal charges against petitioner, this case has been rendered moot and academic. The said grounds are the one that ceases to present justifiable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration will no longer be of any practical use or value.

 

 

D. In the Madrilejos case, said arguments presented by the petitioners are said to be a facial attacks against the ordinance. However, it has been showed that the overbreadth doctrine is only limited to free speeches. The present petition does not involve a free speech case, rather from an obscenity prosecution. The SC held that obscenity is not a protected speech.  

 

3.)              If I were the defense counsel of Juan, I will invoke that the said apprehension is not proper. It was enshrined in the 1987 Constitution specifically in Section 12 of the Bill of Rights that any person under the investigation for the commission of an offense have the right to remain silent and have the right to have a counsel preferably of his own choice. Furthermore, section 13 provides that no torture, force, threat or intimidation which vitiates the free will to be used against him.

The said apprehension made by the apprehending officer is not proper. It is clearly a violation of Section 21 to be followed by the apprehending officers to ensure the integrity of the seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. By failing to follow the chain of custody is not a justifiable reason.

 

4.)              A. Yes. The Anti-Hazing Law is unconstitutional. The decision of the Supreme Court (SC) had been a unanimous decision. The petition has been dismissed questioning the constitutionality of the said law provision that considers a person’s presence in initiation rites as evidence of participation as principal, which is non-bailable. Considering the fact that it is non-bailable, it is a bill of attainder. The bill of attainder is a legislative act wherein a person or group of persons is punished and declaring them guilty of the crime they committed without the benefit of a trial.

The term “constitutional presumption of innocence” is a basic constitutional principle wherein an accused which place on the prosecution the burden of proving and that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty through the process of trial.

The law is somehow violative of the said presumption considering the fact that accused's presence during a hazing is prima facie evidence of his or her participation. The said participation is already considered as one of the principals of the said act and that means that merely the said appearance is already is the participation. The prima facie evidence is considered to be an infringement because it doesn’t mean there’s an appearance, there’s already participation.  

 

B. Alios acta rule provides that the rights of the party cannot prejudice by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Generally speaking, any extra-judicial confession is binding only to the one who confesses and is not admissible to his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them. However, this somehow violates the said principle because according to this principle you cannot be convicted by the confession of the confessant. It doesn’t mean that the confession of your co-accused will made you to be convicted of such act. This is particularly a hearsay which means that it’s not admissible to the court. Hearsay evidences mean inadmissibility.

Cruel and unusual punishment invoke includes torture, degrading punishment that is too severe for the crime committed. The said argument made was not considered to be a cruel and unsual punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment includes death penalty which is considered to be inhumane and degrading. Reclusion perpetua as a punishment is not considered to be cruel. This penalty has been rendered to those offenses committed under the RPC. Death penalty is considered to be a cruel punishment. No one has the right to take one’s life.

 

5.)              A. Buy-bust- This is an undercover operation used by police of detectives to catch unsuspecting drug dealers. This is a means to apprehend certain individuals suspected of drug abuse as well.

B.  Chain of Custody Rule- It requires the order that a piece of evidence must be dealt with when prosecuting a crime. That is a chronological paper trail that records that have gathered, treated, examined or otherwise controlled evidence during the investigation. It is important for the chain of custody to be an unbroken course without holes or contradictions.

 

C. Insulating witness- This witness shall be present during the tagging, the actual inventory and the taking of photos of the recovered objects for evidence in order to prevent the possible planting of evidence.

 

D. Section 5- Sale, Trade, Administration, Dispensation, Supply, Distribution and Shipment of Hazardous Narcotics and/or Regulated Precursors and Critical Chemicals. This provides a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (500,000.00) to ten million pesos (10,000,000.00) shall be levied on any person.

 

E. Section 11- Possession of dangerous drugs. This provides the sentence of life imprisonment to death and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (500,000.00) to ten million pesos (10,000,000.000) shall be imposed on any person who, unless allowed by statute, consumes any harmful substance in any amount, irrespective of the degree of purity.

 

F. Strict Neutrality v. Benevolent Neutrality on religious freedom- Otherwise referred to as division strict or tame. The weight of the new jurisdiction both judicial and terms of volume seems to lie with the separators. Protects the principle of distinction between the Church and the State with a strict implementation of the principle.

 

G. Miller Test on obscenity- Whether the “average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.  

 

6.)      A. No. There will be no double jeopardy. He can be convicted with the two offenses. Double jeopardy can only be applied to cases with the same offenses. In the case at bar, the accused committed different offenses, first is murder under the RPC and in violation of PD 1866 or the illegal possessions of firearms. The rule is that penal laws shall have retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony. Thus, the accused is convicted with two offenses.  

 

B. The Agote doctrine provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition shall be penalized, unless no other crime was committed. Furthermore, use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered only as an aggravating circumstance in cases of murder or homicide. In the case at bar, the accused committed both offenses at the same time in violation of the RPC for the crime of murder and PD 1866 for the illegal possession of firearms, thus aggravates his crime.   

 

7.)              Yes. The ordinance is valid. In the case of Tano v. Socrates, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners contentions were baseless and that the said ordinance did not suffer from any form infirmity and frailness, both under the Constitution and applicable laws. The Constitution enshrined specifically in Section 2 of Article XII which provides that it aims primarily not to bestow any right to substinence fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of the Senate to protect the nation’s marine wealth. It’s not always absolute that the “preferential right” of substinence or marginal fishermen to the use of marine resources be invoked. If such will continue most likely the ecosystem will be destroyed.   

Furthermore, this is in line with the regalian doctrine that the State is the primary owner of the land. Furthermore, the said ordinance imposed is in exercise of the police power for the general welfare of the state in this case for the welfare of the marine ecosystem and power of eminent domain. These two are the inherent power of the state.   

 

8.)              No. The said ordinance is not valid. In the case at bar, there is no disposition of public land.  

 

9.)              In this case, Saludo was a resident of Leyte and Makati. On the other hand, his domicile is in Leyte. There is difference between residence and domicile. Residence refers to the physical appearance of a person in place. Basically, this means the place of abode whether temporary or not. On the other hand, domicile is a fixed permanent residence to which when absent has the intention of returning. Domicile once established, there can be intention to stay permanently even if residence is also established in some other place. Residence can be two or more while domicile is fixed and only one.

 

10.)          No. The two ordinances are not valid. The said ordinances enacted clearly contravene a statute. The requisites for an ordinance to be valid should not contravene a statute. It must be general and consistent with the general policy. The Local Councils exercised only delegated powers conferred by Congress. The said local council cannot overthrow the power of Congress.