Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
consti cases

consti cases

Ratings: (0)|Views: 24|Likes:
Published by Samantha Agustin

More info:

Published by: Samantha Agustin on Jun 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Aniag vs Comelec
In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2323, “GunBan”, promulgating rules and regulations on bearing, carrying and transporting of firearm or other deadly weapons
on security personnel or bodyguards, on bearing arms by members of security agencies or police organizations,and organization or maintenance of reaction forces during the election period.
COMELEC also issued Resolution No. 2327 providing for the summary disqualification of candidates engaged ingunrunning, using and transporting of firearms, organizing special strike forces, and establishing spot checkpoints.
Pursuant to the “Gun Ban”, Mr. Serrapio Taccad, Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, wrote
petitioner for the return of the two firearms issued to him by the House of Representatives.
Petitioner then instructed his driver, Ernesto Arellano, to pick up the firearms from petitioner’s house and return
them to Congress.
The PNP set up a checkpoint outside Batasan Complex
When the car driven by Arellano approached the checkpoint, the PNP searched the car and found the firearmsneatly packed in their gun cases and placed in a bag in the trunk of the car.
 Arellano was apprehended and detained. He then explained the order of petitioner.
Petitioner also explained that Arellano was only complying with the firearms ban, and that he was not a securityofficer or a bodyguard.
Later, COMELEC issued Resolution No.92-0829 directing the filing of information against petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus Election Code, and for petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified fromrunning for an elective position.
Petitioner then questions the constitutionality of Resolution No. 2327.
He a
rgues that “gunrunning, using or transporting firearms or similar weapons” and other acts mentioned in
the resolution are not within the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.
that the resolution did away with the requirement of final conviction before the commission of certainoffenses
that instead, it created a presumption of guilt as a candidate may be disqualified from office which iscontrary to the requisite quantum of proof for one to be disqualified from running or holding public officeunder the Omnibus Election Code
Thus, according to petitioner, Resolution No. 2327 is unconstitutional.
The issue on the disqualification of petitioner from running in the elections was rendered moot when he lost his bidfor a seat in Congress in the elections.
Petitioner protesting manner PNP conducted the search : Without warrant and without informing driver of his right.
He was not impleaded as party respondent in the preliminary investigation and not included in the chargesheet then making him a respondent in the criminal information - violate due process
Driver not a security personnel or bodyguard
Return guns In compliance to gunbanIssue:WON the warrantless search (checkpoint) is valid
Whether or Not petitioner can be validly prosecuted for the criminal information without being impleaded as partyrespondent in the preliminary investigationHeld
 A valid search must be authorized by a search warrant issued by an appropriate authority.
However, a warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search.
In the case at bar, the guns were not tucked in Arellano’s waist nor placed within
his reach, as they were neatlypacked in gun cases and placed inside a bag at the back of the car.
Given these circumstances, the PNP could not have thoroughly searched the car lawfully as well as the packagewithout violating the constitutional injunction. Absent any justifying circumstance specifically pointing to theculpability of petitioner and Arellano, the search could not have been valid.
The firearms obtained from the warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding.
It was also shown in the facts that the PNP had not informed the public of the purpose of setting up the checkpointand it was not also announced to the media to forewarn the citizens
Manner Comelec proceeded against Congressman Aniag runs counter with due process
Petitioner was also not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
He was not subjected to preliminary investigation
He was not informed by the City Prosecutor that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation. - violation of his right to due process.
Comelec cannot contend that Aniag was given opportunity to be heard when he was invited to enlighten the CityProsecutor regarding the circumstances leading to the arrest of his driver because this does not satisfy therequirement of due process the essence of which is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit anyevidence one may have in support of his defense
Must observe both substantive and procedural rights
petitioner was merely invited during the preliminary investigation of Arellano to corroborate the latter'sexplanation.
Petitioner then was made to believe that he was not a party respondent in the case, so that his writtenexplanation on the incident was only intended to exculpate Arellano, not petitioner himself.
he was not apprised that he was himself a respondent when he appeared before the City Prosecutor.
Petitioner's filing of a motion for reconsideration with COMELEC cannot be considered as a waiver of his claim to aseparate preliminary investigation for himself but an insistence on his right.
Thus, the warrantless search conducted by the PNP is declared illegal and the firearms seized during the searchcannot be used as evidence in any proceeding against the petitioner. Resolution No. 92-0829 is unconstitutional,and therefore, set aside.
ADMU vs Capulong
 As a result of the initiation rites of the Aquila Legis, a fraternity organized in the Ateneo Law School, Leonardo H.Villa, a first year law student of Petitioner University, died of serious physical injuries at Chinese General Hospitaland Bienvenido Marquez was hospitalized at the Capitol Medical Center for acute renal failure occasioned by theserious physical injuries inflicted upon him.
Petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee whichwas tasked to investigate and submit a report within 72 hours on the circumstances surrounding the death of LennieVilla.
Said notice also required respondent students to submit their written statements within twenty-four (24) hours fromreceipt in which they failed to file a reply.
In the meantime, they were placed on preventive suspension.
The Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee, after receiving the written statements andhearing the testimonies of several witness, found a prima facie case against respondent students for violation of Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline."
Respondent students were then required to file their written answers to the formal charge. Petitioner Dean createda Disciplinary Board to hear the charges against respondent students.
The Board found respondent students guilty of violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Disciplinewhich prohibits participation in hazing activities.
However, in view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal, the Boardleft the imposition of the penalty to the University Administration.
 Accordingly, Fr. Bernas imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students.
Respondent students filed with RTC Makati a TRO since they are currently enrolled. This was granted.
 A TRO was also issued enjoining petitioners from dismissing the respondents.
 A day after the expiration of the temporary restraining order, Dean del Castillo created a Special Board toinvestigate the charges of hazing against respondent students Abas and Mendoza.
This was requested to be stricken out by the respondents and argued that the creation of the Special Board wastotally unrelated to the original petition which alleged lack of due process.
This was granted and reinstatement of the students was ordered.
the Special Board investigating petitioners Abas and Mendoza and directed the dropping of their names from its rollof studentsIssue:whether a school is within its rights in expelling students from its academic community pursuant to its disciplinary rulesand moral standardswhether or not the penalty imposed by the school administration is proper under the circumstances.Was there denial of due process against the respondent students.Held:
The court granted the petition and reversed the order of respondent judge ordering readmission of respondentstudents.
(Ang Tibay case) Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academicinstitutions, such as petitioner university herein, thus:
the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them
that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if desired:
they shall be informed of the evidence against them
they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf;

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->