I

On April 27, 2012, on the basis of the application filed by and examination under oath of
applicant Police Officer 2 Pio P. Avila (PO2 Avila), RTC Judge Agripino Morga, Presiding Judge of San
Pablo City, Branch 32, issued Search Warrant No. 97 (12).

In support of PO2 Avila's application, an informant, a certain Jericho S. Labrador (Labrador),

Pursuant to the search warrant, members of the San Pedro Police Station searched the house of
petitioner. Approximately nine grams of shabu were then found in and seized from the premises.
Petitioner was immediately arrested and detained by the members of the searching team for her alleged
violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.

Immediately after the search and petitioner's arrest, the following information was uncovered
from petitioner: (1) that the complete address of her residence is No. 972, Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro,
Laguna; and (2) that the house located at No. 972, Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna was divided
into five separate units each occupied by petitioner and her four siblings, namely, Nomer (Leomer) R.
Diaz, Edwin R. Diaz, Flordeliza R. Diaz, and Leonora Diaz Nesola (Leonora), and their respective families.

On May 22, 2012, petitioner filed before the RTC of San Pablo City, Laguna, Branch 32, a Motion
to Quash Search Warrant No. 97 (12) [16] on the ground that the same was in the nature of a general
warrant which failed to describe with particularity the place to be searched. Particularly, petitioner
averred in her motion that: (a) house number 972 did not appear in her home address as stated in the
search warrant; and (b) the search warrant failed to distinguish petitioner's unit, which was the place
intended to be searched, from the other units or rooms representing the four other households inside the
house located in Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna.

Resolve whether the subject Search Warrant No. 97 (12) is valid and does not constitute a general
warrant. (10 points)

II
• State in toto Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution. (5 points)
• State in toto Section 14, Article III, 1987 Constitution. (5 points)

III
The United States of America used to have a naval base in Subic, Zambales as provided in the
Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and USA.

In May 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the following projects:
· Repair fender system, Alava Wharf at the US Naval Station
· Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon damage to shoreline
revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf approach, NAVBASE Subic Bay.

One of those who responded to the invitation to bid was Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. In its
complaint, it alleged that USA had accepted its bid because the latter requested to confirm a price
proposal. The company took this as a confirmation of the proposal. However, in a letter by William
Collins, the director of Contracts Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Pacific,
Department of the Navy of the United States, the company was informed that it did not qualify to receive
the award for the projects because of a previous unsatisfactory performance on a repair contract for the
sea wall at the boat landings of the US Naval Station at Subic.

Eligio de Guzman & Co. sued the United States as well as some of its officers. The complaint is to
order the defendants to allow the company to work on the projects and in the event that performance was
no longer possible, to order the defendants to pay damages. The company also sought for a preliminary
injunction to restrain UA from entering into contracts with third parties for work on the projects.

What the United States wants is to restrain the respondent Judge Ruiz from trying the civil case.

Issue: May the United States be sued in this case? Resolve. (10 points)

IV
• What is opinion juris? (5 points)
• What is soft law? Is it an International Law? (5 points)
• What is posse comitatus? (5 points)
• What is de lege ferenda? (5 points)
• What is laissez-faire? (5 points)

V
It was contended that the bank inquiry order is in the nature of a general warrant. Is the
contention correct? Explain. (5 points)

VI
On 10 January 2014, at around 11:30 in the morning, an officer on duty at the RPSB office
received a phone call from a concerned citizen, who informed the said office that a certain male individual
[would] be transpiring marijuana from Kalinga and into the Province of Isabela. The information to their
deputy commander, PSI Ngoslab, who subsequently called for a possible joint operation. Thereafter, as a
standard operating procedure in drug operations, coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA).

At around 1:00 in the afternoon, the RPSB hotline received a text message which stated that the
subject male person who [would] transport marijuana [was] wearing a collared white shirt with green
stripes, red ball cap, and [was] carrying a blue sack on board a passenger jeepney, with plate number
AYA 270 bound for Roxas, Isabela. Subsequently, a joint checkpoint was strategically organized at the
Talaca command post.

The passenger jeepney then arrived at around 1:20 in the afternoon, wherein the police officers at
the Talaca checkpoint flagged down the said vehicle and told its driver to park on the side of the road.
Officers Labbutan and Mabiasan approached the jeepney and saw [accused-appellant Sapla] seated at the
rear side of the vehicle. The police officers asked [accused-appellant Sapla] if he [was] the owner of the
blue sack in front of him, which the latter answered in the affirmative. The said officers then requested
[accused-appellant Sapla] to open the blue sack. After [accused-appellant Sapla] opened the sack, officers
Labbutan and Mabiasan saw four (4) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves, wrapped in newspaper
and an old calendar. PO3 Labbutan subsequently arrested [accused-appellant Sapla], informed him of the
cause of his arrest and his constitutional rights in [the] Ilocano dialect. PO2 Mabiasan further searched
[accused-appellant Sapla] and found one (I) LG cellular phone unit. Thereafter, PO2 Mabiasan seized the
four (4) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves and brought [them] to their office at the Talaca
detachment for proper markings.

The next day, or on 15 January 2014, [accused-appellant Sapla] was committed to the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) at Tabuk City, Kalinga. Upon his arraignment on 29 January
2014, [accused-appellant Sapla] pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged against him. In the court a
quo’s Pre-Trial Order dated 11 March 2014, the Prosecution and the Defense stipulated their respective
legal issues to be resolved by the court a quo. Also, the Prosecution identified and marked its pieces of
evidence, while the Defense made no proposals nor pre-mark[ed] any exhibits. Trial ensued thereafter.

On January 9, 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting accused-appellant Sapla for
violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165. Feeling aggrieved, accused-appellant Sapla filed an appeal before the CA.

The CA denied accused-appellant Sapla’s appeal and affirmed the RTC ‘s Decision, Hence, the
instant appeal.

The Issues

1. Whether there was probable cause for the police to arrest the accused?

2. Whether the police can conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a vehicle on the sole
basis of an unverified tip relayed by an anonymous informant?

Resolve the two issues. (10 points)

VII
A husband is now before the Court assailing the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 as being violative
of the equal protection and due process clauses, and an undue delegation of judicial power to barangay
officials.

Explain with particularity why R.A. 9262 is not violative of equal protection clause, due process
clause, and not an undue delegation of judicial power? (10 points)

VIII
Section 19 empowers the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to computer data:
Sec. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data.— When a computer data is prima
facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to
such computer data.
Petitioners contest Section 19 in that it stifles freedom of expression and violates the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. Resolve. (10 points)

IX
• The search warrant authorized the seizure of shabu and its paraphernalia. In the
implementation of the warrant, firearms were seized. Are they admissible in evidence? Why?
(5 points)
• Enumerate the four conditions for the plain view doctrine to apply? (5 points)#