San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests

INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
THE NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS RELATION WITH THE COURTS FRANCISCO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [415 SCRA 44; G.R. No. 160261; 10 Nov 2003] Facts: Impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The justiciable controversy poised in front of the Court was the constitutionality of the subsequent filing of a second complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment provided for by law. Issue: Whether or Not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the House of Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution and whether the resolution thereof is a political question – has resulted in a political crisis. Held: In any event, it is with the absolute certainty that our Constitution is sufficient to address all the issues which this controversy spawns that this Court unequivocally pronounces, at the first instance, that the feared resort to extra-constitutional methods of resolving it is neither necessary nor legally permissible. Both its resolution and protection of the public interest lie in adherence to, not departure from, the Constitution. In passing over the complex issues arising from the controversy, this Court is ever mindful of the essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government by no means prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge by each of that part of the governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign people. At the same time, the corollary doctrine of checks and balances which has been carefully calibrated by the Constitution to temper the official acts of each of these three branches must be given effect without destroying their indispensable co-equality. There exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components of the calibrated system of independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution. When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. In fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. In the case of a taxpayer, he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review, however, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.

Page 1 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
At all events, courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be entertained. This Court opts to grant standing to most of the petitioners, given their allegation that any impending transmittal to the Senate of the Articles of Impeachment and the ensuing trial of the Chief Justice will necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds. As for a legislator, he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. Indeed, a member of the House of Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office.83 The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary meaning. Thus when a proposal reached the floor proposing that "A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary… to initiate impeachment proceedings," this was met by a proposal to delete the line on the ground that the vote of the House does not initiate impeachment proceeding but rather the filing of a complaint does. To the argument that only the House of Representatives as a body can initiate impeachment proceedings because Section 3 (1) says "The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment," This is a misreading of said provision and is contrary to the principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating "impeachment cases" with "impeachment proceeding." Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least onethird of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period. The Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the main issue of whether the impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly political questions. Because it is not at all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other two great branches of the government. No one is above the law or the Constitution. This is a basic precept in any legal system which recognizes equality of all men before the law as essential to the law's moral authority and that of its agents to secure respect for and obedience to its commands. Perhaps, there is no other government branch or instrumentality that is most zealous in protecting that principle of legal equality other than the Supreme Court which has discerned its real meaning and ramifications through its application to numerous cases especially of the high-profile kind in the annals of jurisprudence. The Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court. But just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law than anybody else. The law is solicitous of every individual's rights irrespective of his station in life. Thus, the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representatives on November 28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS [267 SCRA 408; G.R. No. 122156; 3 Feb 1997] Facts: The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel Corporation. In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.

Page 2 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts, matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad. On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came to this Court on prohibition and mandamus. In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. It is a proud legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in the nobility and sacredness of independence and its power and capacity to release the full potential of the Filipino people. To all intents and purposes, it has become a part of the national patrimony. 6 Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the shares of the MHC carries with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS, a government-owned and controlled corporation, the hotel business of respondent GSIS being a part of the tourism industry is unquestionably a part of the national economy. Issue: Whether or Not the sale of Manila Hotel to Renong Berhad is violative of the Constitutional provision of Filipino First policy and is therefore null and void. Held: The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the MHC, is not just any commodity to be sold to the highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. The Manila Hotel has played and continues to play a significant role as an authentic repository of twentieth century Philippine history and culture. This is the plain and simple meaning of the Filipino First Policy provision of the Philippine Constitution. And this Court, heeding the clarion call of the Constitution and accepting the duty of being the elderly watchman of the nation, will continue to respect and protect the sanctity of the Constitution. It was thus ordered that GSIS accepts the matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute the necessary clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as may be necessary for purpose. PEOPLE VS. POMAR [46 Phil 126; G.R. No. L-22008; 3 Nov 1924] Facts: Macaria Fajardo was an employee of La Flor de la Isabela, a Tobacco factory. She was granted a vacation leave, by reason of her pregnancy, which commenced on the 16th of July 1923. According to Fajardo, during that time, she was not given the salary due her in violation of the provisions of Act No. 3071. Fajardo filed a criminal complaint based on Section 13 and 15 of said Act against the manager of the tobacco Factory, Julio Pomar, herein defendant. The latter, on the other hand, claims that the facts in the complaint did not constitute an offense and further alleges that the aforementioned provisions of Act No. 3071 was unconstitutional. Section 13, Act No. 3071 provides that, “Every person, firm or corporation owning or managing a factory, shop or place of labor of any description shall be obliged to grant to any woman employed by it as laborer who may be pregnant, thirty days vacation with pay before and another thirty days after confinement: Provided, That the employer shall not discharge such laborer without just cause, under the penalty of being required to pay to her wages equivalent to the total of two months counting from the day of her discharge.” Section 15 of the same Act provides for the penalty of any violation of section 13. The latter was enacted by the legislature in the exercise of its supposed Police Power with the purpose of safeguarding the health of pregnant women laborers in "factory, shop or place of labor of any description," and of insuring to them, to a certain extent, reasonable support for one month before and one month after their delivery. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff, sentencing the defendant to pay the fine of fifty pesos and in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Hence, the case was raised to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the former decision. Issue: Whether or not Section 13 of Act No. 3071 is unconstitutional.

Page 3 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which renders the initiative void. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions. But that power cannot grow faster than the fundamental law of the state. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral. The Initiative Violates Section 2. Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a people’s initiative.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or not the promulgation of the questioned provision was a valid exercise of Police Power. 3. they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Issue: Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition. The police power may encompass every law for the restraint and punishment of crimes. COMELEC [G. provided they are not contrary to law. that the right to contract about one's affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual. nor transcend or violate the express inhibition of the constitution. and morals. No.presidential form of government to unicameral. COMELEC is Not Necessary Page 4 Section 1-C. health. A Revisit of Santiago v. and will not be permitted to violate rights secured or guaranteed by the latter. Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect. 3071 to be unconstitutional for being violative or restrictive of the right of the people to freely enter into contracts for their affairs. 1. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2. for the preservation of the public peace. 174153. The Police Power is subject to and is controlled by the paramount authority of the constitution of the state. terms. SY ’06-‘07 . Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. protected by the "due process of law" clause of the constitution. Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between “amendment” and “revision. morals or public policy The police power of the state is a very broad and expanding power. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change.parliamentary. inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution. The contracting parties may establish any agreements. Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition. It has been decided several times. it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution. therefore a constitutes a revision.R. 25 Oct 2006] Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 constitution. and conditions they may deem advisable. Held: The Supreme Court declared Section 13 of Act No. Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete. 2. LAMBINO VS.

The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid. The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. through People’s Initiative. and prohibiting political dynasties. Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon. filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right. 9 Nov 1967] Facts: The case is an original action for prohibition. Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision. A revision cannot be done by initiative. and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several arguments. cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). the people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation. Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. without implementing legislation the same cannot operate. with preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention. (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution. Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. 1967. 2. considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative. SANTIAGO VS. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision. such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. G. No such law has been passed.127325. COMELEC [270 SCRA 106. Sec. No. SY ’06-‘07 . The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision. therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. G. as it would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as the synchronization of elections. Alexander Padilla. The main facts are not disputed. the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions: Page 5 Section 1-C. is void. president of People’s Initiative for Reforms. No. considering the Court’s decision in the above Issue. Senator Roco. Art. the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right to people’s initiative. It has been an established rule that what has been delegated. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid. which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Public Interest Law Center. 19 Mar 1997] Facts: Private respondent Atty. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago. Held: Sec. GONZALES VS. it will not change the result because the present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative. the constitutional guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service. On March 16. Jesus Delfin. 2. He based this petition on Article XVII. At the hearing. not to revision thereof. Issue: Whether or not Sec. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. L-28196.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution.R. the issue of whether or not the petition is a revision or amendment has become academic. However. must first comply with the constitution before complying with RA 6735 Petition is dismissed. COMELEC [21 SCRA 774. 2 of the 1987 Constitution. and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of the Constitution. the IBP.R. Modernization and Action (PIRMA). thus.

SY ’06-‘07 . 1967. although each province shall have. for approval by the people. B. upon approval by the President. B. As a consequence. by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately. Subsequently. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid. by quo warranto proceedings. And the reasons are obvious: (1) it would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the office. as provided in the present Constitution. From our viewpoint. even if they should run for and assume the functions of delegates to the Convention. . insofar as the public is concerned. B. The Congress in joint session assembled. 4913. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. one (1) member. 1 and 3 be submitted. proposing that Section 16. B. violates the Constitution. It is so ordered. No. "The judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. became Republic Act No. if within the competence of his office. and (2) the acts of a de facto officer. H. the provisions of Article XV of the Constitution are satisfied so long as the electorate knows that R. 3. at the general elections which shall be held on November 14." Article XV of the Constitution provides: . providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. 1. dismiss and the writs therein prayed for denied. B." and 3. Congress passed a bill. of the Constitution of the Philippines. be amended so as to increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120. H. COMELEC [78 SCRA 333. R. Article VI. which.R.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 1. Held: Inasmuch as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor of declaring Republic Act 4913 and R. to be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants. G. H. H. . 1971. of the same Constitution. 90878. Nos. proposing that Section 5. No. 2. R. may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a contention for that purpose. at least. H. It may not be contested except directly. acting as a constituent assembly. Neither may the validity of his acts be questioned upon the ground that he is merely a de facto officer. calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution. be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention. 3 permits Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators. the petitions in these two (2) cases must be. R. without special pronouncement as to costs. to be "elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November. on June 17. the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district. Issue: Whether or Not a Resolution of Congress. Article VI. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification. 1967. as they are hereby. the title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally. SANIDAD VS. No. No. 29 Jan 1990] Facts: Page 6 Section 1-C. 2. are valid. to a maximum of 180.

Republic Act No. 1989. announcer or personality. 2167. all sides of the issue. no mass media columnist. 6766. Issue: Whether or not Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. Page 7 Section 1-C.A. herein petitioner Pablito V. commentator. of R. 6646).A. 1989 which was. 2nd par. the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881). on the day before and on the plebiscite day. 6766 and other pertinent election laws. Therefore. by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution. The Commission on Elections. reset to January 30. However. shall take part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act originally scheduled last December 27. Sanidad. and hear. It cannot be gainsaid that a columnist or commentator who is also a candidate would be more exposed to the voters to the prejudice of other candidates unless required to take a leave of absence. On October 23. 1989. including reasonable. 6646 can be construed to mean that the Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods. In a petition dated November 20. 2167 is unconstitutional. said R. there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. who claims to be a newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. Pursuant to said law. as well as ventilate. and the right to reply. time and space. 2167 on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. 2167 has no statutory basis. 1990 by virtue of Comelec Resolution No. media of communication or information to the end that equal opportunity. Plebiscite Issue are matters of public concern and importance. neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11 (b). 2226 dated December 27. it would in fact help in the government drive and desire to disseminate information. In fact. 1989. petitioner maintains that as a columnist. The people affected by the Issue presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised.A. The people's right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the Issue. however. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the Comelec was the power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises. beliefs and opinions on the issue submitted to a plebiscite. Mountain Province. commentator. entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. all comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region. This is also the reason why a "columnist. Ifugao. assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. — During the plebiscite campaign period. permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other public utilities. announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite Issue. It is clear from Art. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. including the forum. for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. his column obviously and necessarily contains and reflects his opinions. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. promulgated Resolution No. the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras which consist of the provinces of Benguet.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. who is a candidate for any elective office is required to take a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period (2nd par. views and beliefs on any issue or subject about which he writes. SY ’06-‘07 . Abra and Kalinga-Apayao. which provides: Section 19. Prohibition on columnists. Petitioner likewise maintains that if media practitioners were to express their views. a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras. Section 11(b) R. Unlike a regular news reporter or news correspondent who merely reports the news. commentators or announcers. The evil sought to be prevented by this provision is the possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give any undue advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or television time. equal rates therefor. 2167 is unconstitutional. Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to the public concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television times. 2167. It is alleged by petitioner that said provision is void and unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press enshrined in the Constitution.

Congressman Camasura received a letter informing him that he was already expelled from the LDP for allegedly helping to organize the Partido Pilipino of Eduardo Cojuangco and for allegedly inviting LDP members in Davao Del Sur to join said political party. permanent disability. therefore. his death. which is composed of 9 members. On the day of the promulgation of the decision. the House of Representatives decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of Congressman Camasura to the HRET. Hence.R. resignation from the political party he represents in the tribunal. membership in the HRET may not be terminated except for a just cause. an injustice and a violation of the Constitution. They must discharge their functions with complete detachment. a Chattel Mortgage on Standing Crops. Members of the HRET. may change that party’s representation in the HRET to thwart the promulgation of a decision freely reached by the tribunal in an election contest pending therein Held: The purpose of the constitutional convention creating the Electoral Commission was to provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of contests to legislative office. a decision had been reached in which Bondoc won over Pineda. such as. the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion. Thereafter. devoid of partisan consideration. as sole judge of congressional election contests. formal affiliation with another political party or removal for other valid cause. 1987. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. Its resolution of expulsion against Congressman Camasura is. 128448. impartiality and independence even independence from the political party to which they belong. Philippine National Bank (PNB) financed the Mirasols' sugar production venture FROM 1973-1975 under a crop loan financing scheme. On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision. 26 Sep 1991] Facts: In the elections held on May 11. the Chairman of HRET received a letter informing the Tribunal that on the basis of the letter from the LDP. and a Real Estate Page 8 Section 1-C. G.R. Another reason for the nullity of the expulsion resolution of the House of Representatives is that it violates Congressman Camasura’s right to security of tenure.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The instant petition is GRANTED. A member may not be expelled by the House of Representatives for party disloyalty. Pineda was proclaimed winner. No. The Mirasols signed Credit Agreements. G. As judges. No. Bondoc filed a protest in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). 2167 is declared null and void and unconstitutional. Issue: Whether or not the House of Representatives. In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a “conscience vote” in favor of Bondoc. disloyalty to party and breach of party discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. 3 of whom are Justices of the SC and the remaining 6 are members of the House of Representatives (5 members belong to the LDP and 1 member is from the NP). Congressman Camasura of the LDP voted with the SC Justices and Congressman Cerilles of the NP to proclaim Bondoc the winner of the contest. 1 Feb 2001] Facts: The Mirasols are sugarland owners and planters. BONDOC VS. based strictly on the result of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the tribunal. SY ’06-‘07 . null and void. the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. 97710. are entitled to security of tenure just as members of the Judiciary enjoy security of tenure under the Constitution. the expiration of the member’s congressional term of office. short of proof that he has formally affiliated with another MIRASOL VS CA [351 SCRA 44. at the request of the dominant political party therein. Marciano Pineda of the LDP and Emigdio Bondoc of the NP were candidates for the position of Representative for the Fourth District of Pampanga. PINEDA [201 SCRA 792. Therefore.

4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. Inc. there must be before the Court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial review.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Mortgage in favor of PNB. Where there is no ambiguity in the words used in the rule. or proclamation. petitioners. (PHILEX) to purchase sugar allocated for export and authorized PNB to finance PHILEX's purchases. PNB proceeded to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgaged properties. instruction. treaty. SY ’06-‘07 .R. the Mirasols filed a suit for accounting. presidential decree. DUMLAO VS. specific performance. President Marcos issued PD 579 in November. the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. No. As a result. We must stress that. the mandatory notice requirement is not limited to actions involving declaratory relief and similar remedies. Third. No. but in all Regional Trial Courts. Petitioners contend that P. could offset their outstanding obligations. G.D. Petitioners continued to avail of other loans from PNB and to make unfunded withdrawals from their accounts with said bank. Petitioners continued to ask PNB to account for the proceeds. order.. Second. PNB still had a deficiency claim. international or executive agreement. all earnings from the export sales of sugar pertained to the National Government. order. and lastly. No. PNB remained adamant in its stance that under P. 4 provides that any retired elective provincial or municipal official who has received Page 9 Section 1-C. petitioners asked PNB for an accounting of the proceeds which it ignored. the person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge. the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity. To deny the Solicitor General such notice would be tantamount to depriving him of his day in court. Issue: Whether or not the Trial Court has jurisdiction to declare a statute unconstitutional without notice to the Solicitor General where the parties have agreed to submit such issue for the resolution of the Trial Court. ordinance. presidential decree. if properly liquidated. Whether or not said PD is subject to judicial review. the question before the Court must be ripe for adjudication. insisting that said proceeds. 1979. 579 and its implementing issuances are void for violating the due process clause and the prohibition against the taking of private property without just compensation. The purpose of the mandatory notice in Rule 64. Held: It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute. Sec.L-52245. there is no room for construction. and damages against PNB. or regulation not only in this Court. Believing that the proceeds were more than enough to pay their obligations. 15 In all actions assailing the validity of a statute. treaty. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392. On August 9. 579. notice to the Solicitor General is mandatory. there was nothing to account since under said law. or executive order. The Chattel Mortgage empowered PNB to negotiate and sell the latter's sugar and to apply the proceeds to the payment of their obligations to it. conveyed to PNB real properties by way of dacion en pago still leaving an unpaid amount. contrary to petitioners' stand. PNB asked petitioners to settle their due and demandable accounts.D. 1974 authorizing Philippine Exchange Co. The decree directed that whatever profit PHILEX might realize was to be remitted to the government. Petitioners now ask this Court to exercise its power of judicial review. Jurisprudence has laid down the following requisites for the exercise of this power: First. Fourth. Whether PD 579 and subsequent issuances thereof are unconstitutional. presidential decree. The rule itself provides that such notice is required in "any action" and not just actions involving declaratory relief. Section 3 is to enable the Solicitor General to decide whether or not his intervention in the action assailing the validity of a law or treaty is necessary. 22 Jan 1980] Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law.

PEREZ [357 SCRA 756. including those amounting to subversion. which states that any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State. As to (4). or other similar crimes. Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned statutory provisions violate the Constitution and thus. As to (2). 3) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Petitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. 2006. the provision amounts to class legislation. They have no personal nor substantial interest at stake. SY ’06-‘07 . G. injunction. Held: President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of Proc. accordingly the instant petition has been rendered moot and academic. the necessity for resolving the issue of constitutionality is absent. should be declared null and void Whether or not the requisites of judicial review are complied with Held: No constitutional question will be heard and decided by the Court unless there is compliance with the requisites of a judicial inquiry.R. and without the benefit of a detailed factual record. Sec. 4 of BP Blg 52 remains constitutional and valid. 147780 . 2) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. or to participate in any partisan activity therein: provided that a judgment of conviction of those crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact. LACSON VS. Respondents have declared that the Justice Department and the police authorities intend to obtain regular warrants of arrests from the Page 10 Section 1-C. In regards to the second paragraph of Sec. 38) on May 1.10 May 2001] Facts: President Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of Rebellion (Proclamation No. Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the “rebellion” were thereafter effected. In this case. 38 on May 6. there is no cause of action in this particular case. Petitioners assail the declaration of Proc. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52. nor disqualified from being candidates for local elective positions. mandamus and habeas corpus with an application for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests payments of retirement benefits and shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected. Therefore. No. insurrection. 38 is valid. 2001 as well as General Order No. One class can be treated differently from another class. In regards to the unconstitutionality of the provisions. but the institution of a taxpayer’s suit per se is no assurance of judicial review. No. also assail the validity of Sec. 4. Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. The purpose of the provision is to satisfy the “need for new blood” in the workplace. They also contend that they are allegedly faced with impending warrantless arrests and unlawful restraint being that hold departure orders were issued against them. rebellion. No. employees 65 years of age are classified differently from younger employees. 38 and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. it should be declared null and void for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. along with the warrantless arrests and hold departure orders allegedly effected by the same. shall not be qualified for any of the offices covered by the act. neither Igot nor Salapantan has been charged with acts of loyalty to the State. would desist arraignment and trial until this instant petition is resolved. His question is posed merely in the abstract. Petitioners furthermore pray that the appropriate court. wherein the information against them were filed. As to (1). Petitioner filed for prohibition. and 4) The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. According to Dumlao. Igot and Salapantan have institute the case as a taxpayer’s suit. Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of the provision. which are: 1) There must be an actual case or controversy. 1 ordering the AFP and the PNP to suppress the rebellion in the NCR.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. some three-hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP. 2003. G. While the Court may examine whether the power was exercised within constitutional limits or in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. acting upon instigation. v. petitioners contending that the proclamation is a circumvention of the report requirement under the same Section 18. Negotiations took place and the officers went back to their barracks in the evening of the same day. petitioners contending that Sec.R. Section 18. none of the petitioners here have. Article VII. the Philippines was declared under the State of Rebellion. Article VI of the Constitution. otherwise the officer responsible for such may be penalized for the delay of the same. 427 and General Order No. (2)SJS Officers/Members v. Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief. No. both the Proclamation and General Orders were lifted. by way of proof. and by virtue of Proclamation No. consistent and congruent with their undertaking earlier adverted to. Under Section 5. The President in addition to its Commander-in-Chief Powers is conferred by the Constitution executive powers. demanding the resignation of the President. 18 Article VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the AFP. Hon. 3 Feb 2004] Facts: During the wee hours of July 27. thus the warrantless arrests are not based on Proc. Executive Secretary. Petitioners were neither assailing the validity of the subject hold departure orders. 38. Romulo. authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion in suppressing the rebellion if the circumstances so warrant. 2001 siege of Malacañang. 427 and General Order No. 4. they complained of the corruption in the AFP and declared their withdrawal of support for the government. commanding the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law. No. Petitioners’ prayer for relief regarding their alleged impending warrantless arrests is premature being that no complaints have been filed against them for any crime. they contend that the presidential issuances cannot be construed as an exercise of emergency powers as Congress has not delegated any such power to the President. In the interim. petitioners contending that there was usurpation of the power of Congress granted by Section 23 (2). providing for preliminary investigation.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests courts for all acts committed prior to and until May 1. are hereby enjoined from arresting Petitioners without the required judicial warrants for all acts committed in relation to or in connection with the May 1. 2001. nor were they expressing any intention to leave the country in the near future. To declare the hold departure orders null and void ab initio must be made in the proper proceedings initiated for that purpose. Article VII does not expressly prohibit declaring state or rebellion. and all persons acting in their behalf. If the detention should have no legal ground. 4 are constitutional? Whether or Not the petitioners have a legal standing or locus standi to bring suit? Held: The Court rendered that the both the Proclamation No. Suplico et al. On August 1. representatives. Publicly. declaring the Cessation of the State of Rebellion was issued. et al. SANLAKAS VS. et al. SY ’06-‘07 . command and direction of known and unknown leaders have seized the Oakwood Building in Makati. 2003. and that there is no factual basis for such proclamation. and Proclamation No. Petitioner’s prayer for mandamus and prohibition is improper at this time because an individual warrantlessly arrested has adequate remedies in law: Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. 159085. Petition is dismissed. furthermore. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [421 SCRA 656. the arresting officer can be charged with arbitrary detention. 4 are constitutional. the writ of habeas corpus is uncalled for since its purpose is to relieve unlawful restraint which Petitioners are not subjected to. (4) Pimentel v. however. Finally. These acts constitute a violation of Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code. providing for the period in which a warrantlessly arrested person must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities. Respondents. supported their Page 11 Section 1-C. 427 and General Order No. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. the following petitions were filed: (1) SANLAKAS AND PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA VS. 435. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. not prejudicial to claim of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. (3) Rep. together with their agents. President Macapagal-Arroyo and Executive Secretary Romulo. It is not disputed that the President has full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessity for the exercise of such power. Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. petitioner fears that the declaration of a state of rebellion "opens the door to the unconstitutional implementation of warrantless arrests" for the crime of rebellion.

the Commission on Audit through then Chairman Eufemio C. It sustained its decision in Philippine Constitution Association v. have standing to challenge the subject issuances. Suplico et al. Pimentel.. that the extent the powers of Congress are impaired. On 14 August 1990.. as Members of Congress. requesting her for authority to sign the proposed Consignment Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines through PCGG and Christie. his relatives and cronies. After the oral arguments of the parties on 9 January 1991. Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. Inc concerning the scheduled sale on 11 January 1991 of eighty-two) Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware seized from Malacañang and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila alleged to be part of the ill-gotten wealth of the late President Marcos. On 11 January 1991. The fear on warrantless arrest is unreasonable. Mateo A. Jr. in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces. No. vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18. representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. and SJS Officers/Members have no legal standing to sue. the assets subject of auction were historical relics and had cultural significance. 96541. Manson and Woods International. the sale at public auction proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of $13. Article VII.604.R. G. their disposal was prohibited by law. Issue: Whether or not petitioners have legal standing. JOYA VS. Only petitioners Rep. PCGG. On 26 October 1990. Enriquez. Caparas. SY ’06-‘07 .86 were turned over to the Bureau of Treasury. authorized Chairman Caparas to sign the Consignment Agreement allowing Christie's of New York to auction off the subject art pieces for and in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. and Sen. signed the Consignment Agreement with Christie's of New York. These are purely executive powers. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges "such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of Issue upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. and such other property as may subsequently be identified by PCGG and accepted by CHRISTIE'S to be subject to the provisions of the agreement. The issue of the circumvention of the report is of no merit as there was no indication that military tribunals have replaced civil courts or that military authorities have taken over the functions of Civil Courts. wrote then President Corazon C. through former Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig. so is the power of each member thereof. According to the agreement. PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction in the U.S. PCGG shall consign to CHRISTIE'S for sale at public auction the eighty-two Old Masters Paintings then found at the Metropolitan Museum of Manila as well as the silverware contained in seventy-one cartons in the custody of the Central Bank of the Philippines. then Chairman of PCGG. Aquino. On 15 August 1990. was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. we issued immediately our resolution denying the application for preliminary injunction to restrain the scheduled sale of the artworks on the ground that petitioners had not presented a clear legal right to a restraining order and that proper parties had not been impleaded. 24 Aug 1993] Facts: On 9 August 1990. PCGG [225 SCRA 568.302. then President Aquino. since any person may be subject to this whether there is rebellion or not as this is a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Domingo submitted to President Aquino the audit findings and observations of COA on the Consignment Agreement of 15 August 1990 to the effect that: the authority of former PCGG Chairman Caparas to enter into the Consignment Agreement was of doubtful legality. and as long as a valid warrantless arrest is present. Whether or not the Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware are embraced in the phrase "cultural treasure of the nation".T. Based on the foregoing. as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 (2). the contract was highly disadvantageous to the government. The issue of usurpation of the legislative power of the Congress is of no moment since the President.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests assertion that the President acted without factual basis. through Chairman Caparas. Page 12 Section 1-C. hence. petitioners Sanlakas and PM. and. Article VI.

a "national cultural treasures" is a unique object found locally. Whether or not the petition has become moot and academic. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and related party. There are certain instances however when this Court has allowed exceptions to the rule on legal standing. Whether or not PCGG has complied with the due process clause and other statutory requirements for the exportation and sale of the subject items. petitioners are not challenging any expenditure involving public funds but the disposition of what they allege to be public properties. any constitutional or statutory defect in their acquisition and their subsequent disposition must be raised only by the proper parties the true owners thereof whose authority to recover emanates from their proprietary rights which are protected by statutes and the Constitution. although the public has been given the opportunity to view and appreciate these paintings when they were placed on exhibit. The confiscation of these properties by the Aquino administration however should not be understood to mean that the ownership of these paintings has automatically passed on the government without complying with constitutional and statutory requirements of due process and just compensation. It is worthy to note that petitioners admit that the paintings and antique silverware were acquired from private sources and not with public money. or a mere incidental interest. The cultural properties of the nation which shall be under the protection of the state are classified as the "important cultural properties" and the "national cultural treasures. yet the novelty and importance of the Issue raised by the petition deserve this Court's attention. If these properties were already acquired by the government. The Court will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought before it by a party who has the legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal question. They lack basis in fact and in law. Having failed to show that they are the legal owners of the artworks or that the valued pieces have become publicly owned. Rule 3. Since the purpose of this petition for prohibition is to enjoin respondent public officials from holding the auction sale of the artworks on a particular date — 11 January 1991 — which is long past. whether the above Issue warrant resolution from this Court. such as the case before us. "Legal standing" means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. of the Rules of Court which provides that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. Neither can this petition be allowed as a taxpayer's suit. The term "interest" is material interest. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. The ownership of these paintings legally belongs to the foundation or corporation or the members thereof. and when a taxpayer questions the validity of a governmental act authorizing the disbursement of public funds. SY ’06-‘07 . as when a citizen brings a case for mandamus to procure the enforcement of a public duty for the fulfillment of a public right recognized by the Constitution. A case becomes moot and academic when its purpose has become stale. the Issue raised in the petition have become moot and academic." On the other hand. and if so.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or not the paintings and silverware are properties of public dominion on which can be disposed of through the joint concurrence of the President and Congress. Held: This is premised on Sec. and that all persons having interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. 2. there must be an actual case of controversy — one which involves a conflict of legal rights. Moreover. possessing outstanding historical. Page 13 Section 1-C. that although the sale of the paintings and silver has long been consummated and the possibility of retrieving the treasure trove is nil. For a court to exercise its power of adjudication. Petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit. the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. petitioners argue that this case should be resolved by this Court as an exception to the rule on moot and academic cases. Anent the second requisite of actual controversy. petitioners do not possess any clear legal right whatsoever to question their alleged unauthorized disposition. Obviously. They submit that the resolution by the Court of the Issue in this case will establish future guiding principles and doctrines on the preservation of the nation's priceless artistic and cultural possessions for the benefit of the public as a whole. an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution.

are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. [224 SCRA 792. inter alia. Jr. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion." The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court.R. Alcala. Inc. SY ’06-‘07 . Again. 30 Jul 1993] Facts: Principal petitioners." On 22 June 1990. 192 creating the DENR.) No. the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action. Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19. a domestic. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network. for lack of merit. the motion is dilatory and the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion. was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. This Court takes note of the certification issued by the Director of the Museum that the Italian paintings and silverware subject of this petition do not constitute protected cultural properties and are not among those listed in the Cultural Properties Register of the National Museum. (PENI). 101083. Jr. Factoran. 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations). petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts.. the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government. Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.O. the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural law. His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary. The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. G. No. the petition for prohibition and mandamus is DISMISSED. respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. OPOSA VS. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause. WHEREFORE. FACTORAN. Secretary Factoran.D.) No. In the said order. Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O. the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land. filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two grounds. the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy). Page 14 Section 1-C. artistic and/or scientific value which is highly significant and important to this country and nation. the Honorable Angel C. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E. Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. 192. and entitled to the full benefit. No. Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P. but have also joined the latter in this case. use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. taxpayers. not only was the defendant's claim that the complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question sustained. engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. the original defendant. namely: the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and. Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests cultural.. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines. On 18 July 1991. to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment. it is well settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires. non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of. Section 16. It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is available involves a judicial question. JR. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi. then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). the petitioners maintain that.

as well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation. SY ’06-‘07 ." Section 3 thereof makes the following statement of policy: The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment. but to all citizens of the Philippines. Whether or not the petition should be dismissed." Section 2 of the same Title. then President Corazon C. Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation. Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition. 192.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or not the petiton is in a form of a class suit. a TLA remains effective for a certain period of time — usually for twenty-five (25) years. Consequently. and lands of the public domain. it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher authority. the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found. Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Hence. Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health. resources. since the parties are so numerous. these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. specifically forest and grazing lands. Held: As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12. to have violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. to bring all of them before the court. respondents submit that the same cannot be done by the State without due process of law. Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987 E. Page 15 Section 1-C. on the other hand. including those in reservation and watershed areas. development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources. The plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. development and utilization of the country's natural resources. it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself. While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights. Nature means the created world in its entirety. at the same time. Section 16. the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. Once issued. The minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes. Article II of the 1987 Constitution. it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. however. becomes impracticable. the latter being but an incident to the former. if not totally impossible. after due notice and hearing. thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second. management.O. but also for those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter. No. The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which. During its effectivity. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR. it. Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of due process. Whether or not the TLA’s can be out rightly cancelled. is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. mineral. for the first time in our nation's constitutional history. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several. As a matter of fact. as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.

the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The NEDA approved the NAIA IPT III project. 1151 and P. Moreover. and among the proposal Peoples Air Cargo (Paircargo) was chosen. so they formed Asians Emerging Dragon Corp. and the termination of contract. the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. 90-777 is hereby set aside. Intl. In the second place.D. 5 May 2003] Facts: Some time in 1993. and the service providers joined them. nonetheless. 1998 it was amended in the matters of pertaining to the definition of the obligations given to the concessionaire. the truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. Airport Terminals Co. 155001. (PIATCO). Because of that. hence. as the trial court did. filed a motion for intervention. A group of congressmen filed similar petitions. Bidders were invited. save in cases of renewal. On 6 June 1977. renewing or approving new timber licenses for. the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right. explored the possibility of investing in the new NAIA airport terminal. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Branch's legal office concluded null and void. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests It may. SY ’06-‘07 .O. six business leaders. furthermore. be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer. VS. Petition is hereby GRANTED. Since MIAA is charged with the maintenance and operations of NAIA terminals I and II. Hence. the question submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. Issue: Page 16 Section 1-C. The workers filed the petition for prohibition claiming that they would lose their job. This is because by its very nature and purpose. processing. granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications. G.D. 1152 were issued. P.R. it is difficult to imagine. No. the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. Likewise several employees of the MIAA filed a petition assailing the legality of arrangements. AEDC protested alleging that preference was given to Paircargo. Nevertheless. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right. accepting. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements. No other matter should be considered. which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion. No. and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. development of facilities and proceeds. with respect to renewal. violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology. the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs. specific statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future generations. be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. AGAN JR. They submitted proposals to the government for the development of NAIA Intl. Arroyo declared in her speech that she will not honor PIATCO contracts which the Exec. Thus. fees and charges. The DOTC and PIATCO entered into a concession agreement in 1997 to franchise and operate the said terminal for 21years. how the non-impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving. however. no contract would have as of yet existed in the other instances. it has a contract with several service providers. Finally. such as law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. Pres. it incorporated into. PIATCO [402 SCRA 612. even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. Phil. promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. It must. In Nov. It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III). the right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E. No. but still the project was awarded to Paircargo. No.

GUINGONA [305 SCRA 533. Petitioner was duly informed of the charges against him. November 29. After a careful study. Initial hearing was set on August 25. On August 1. To be sure. G. he is CESO eligible entitled to security of tenure. Whether or Not Petitioner was denied due process of law Whether or Not the PCAGC is a validly Constituted government agency and whether the petitioner can raise the issue of constitutionality belatedly in its motion for reconsideration of the trial courts decision. 1994. at the PCAGC Office. 1994 and Makati. No. the amendments and supplements thereto are set aside for being null and void. Issue: Whether or Not AO No. 131124. Consequently. and he attended the hearings before the investigatory body. On August 23. the PCAGC issued its Resolution of September 23. And was directed him to send in his answer. The amendments have the effect of changing it into and entirely different agreement from the contract bidded upon. rules and regulations during his incumbency as Regional Director. petitioner theorized. then President Ramos issued Administrative Order No. and Personal Data Sheet. March 16. he can only be removed for cause and under the Administrative Code of 1987. 1994 to August 4. It is thus decisively clear that his protestation of non-observance of due process is devoid of any factual or legal basis. Records show that the petitioner filed his answer and other pleadings with respect to his alleged violation of internal revenue laws and regulations.m. UMALI VS. 1994. we are of the irresistible conclusion that the Court of Appeals ruled correctly on the first three Issue. petitioner was not denied the right to due process before the PCAGC. he failed to adduce sufficient evidence on the matter. They are prejudiced by the concession agreement as their livelihood is to be taken away from them. it was only posed by petitioner Page 17 Section 1-C. 152 violated petitioner's Right to Security of Tenure. 1994. On October 6. his dismissal from office on the ground of loss confidence violated his right to security of tenure. and Liabilities for the past three years (3). together with its amendments for being contrary to the constitution. According to petitioner. Held: The 1997 concession agreement is void for being contrary to public policy. However. 152 Held: Petitioner maintains that as a career executive service officer.R.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not the 1997 concession agreement is void. He assigned him in Manila. for investigation. SY ’06-‘07 . copies of his Statement of Assets. acting upon the recommendation of the PCAGC. 1994. 1994. As regards the issue of constitutionality of the PCAGC. at 2:00 p. The amendments present new terms and conditions which provide financial benefit to PIATCO which may have the altered the technical and financial parameters of other bidders had they know that such terms were available. Ramos. Neither can it be said that there was a violation of what petitioner asserts as his security of tenure. upon receipt of the said confidential memorandum.. the petitioner filed his required answer. as a Regional Director of Bureau of Internal Revenue. misfeasance and nonfeasance. After evaluating the evidence on record. 1993 to March 15. His failure to do so is fatal. 6 loss of confidence is not one of the legal causes or grounds for removal. with forfeiture of retirement and all benefits under the law. It was incumbent upon him to prove that he is a CESO eligible but unfortunately. more particularly the following malfeasance. petitioner's claim of CESO eligibility is anemic of evidentiary support. The petitioners have local standi. Whether or Not the ombudsman's resolution dismissing the charges against the petitioner is still basis for the petitioner's dismissal with forfeiture of benefits as ruled in AO No. 152 dismissing petitioner from the service. The 1997 concession agreement. 21 Mar 1999] Facts: Osmundo Umali the petitioner was appointed Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue by Pres Fidel V. finding a prima facie evidence to support six (6) of the twelve (12) charges against petitioner. former President authorized the issuance of an Order for the preventive suspension of the petitioner and immediately referred the Complaint against the latter to the Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC). President Ramos received a confidential memorandum against the petitioner for alleged violations of internal revenue laws.

commonly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953. SY ’06-‘07 . suspension. which dealt with the subject matter of House Bill No. On this matter. In sum. Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional. disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial. 152. that there is no more basis for Administrative Order No. The Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill No. there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government. IN RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534. The former was prepared by the committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms of Representatives on the basis of two House Bills referred to it. has decided to consider the dismissal of the charges against petitioner before the Ombudsman. which dealt with the initiative and referendum mentioned in Sections 1 and 32 of Article VI of the Constitution. It is obvious. Issue: Whether or Not RA No. 152 were based on the results of investigation conducted by the PCAGC and not on the criminal charges before the Ombudsman. It was certainly too late to raise for the first time at such late stage of the proceedings. The charges included in Administrative Order No. dealt with initiative and referendum concerning ordinances or resolutions of local government units. as its history reveals. 988. After its approval. those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation. that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court. As to last issue. the petition is dismissable on the ground that the Issue posited by the petitioner do not constitute a valid legal basis for overturning the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Court of Appeals. Resolution. or as other authorities may say. many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions. as effective and substantive supervening events that cannot be overlooked. 972 is constitutional and valid. while other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. 18 Mar 1954] Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners. in the exercise of its equity powers.” In accordance with the said law. however. the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration. Senate Bill No. viz. merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. according to its author. (a) House Bill No. and (b) House Bill No. intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. and the position taken by the Solicitor General. Held: RA No. to admit to the Bar. It is worthy to note that in the case under consideration. the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent. 17 and Page 18 Section 1-C. as well as with initiative and referendum under Section 3 of Article XVII of the Constitution. the succinct and unmistakable manifestation by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue that his office is no longer interested in pursuing the case. and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character. 21505 and Senate Bill No.. taking into account the antecedent facts and circumstances aforementioned. There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without. the Court. suspension. 17 solely. 17. the admission. However. therefore. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ACT R. the admission. 6735 was. the administrative action against the petitioner was taken prior to the institution of the criminal case. invoking the law in question. 497. The Act is a consolidation of House Bill No.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests in his motion for reconsideration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. 972. No. In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved. 497. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972 has for its object. REPUBLIC ACT 6735.A.

Page 19 Section 1-C. 6735. 21505 into a draft bill. This approved bill is now R.A. SY ’06-‘07 . No.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests House Bill No. which was subsequently approved on 8 June 1989 by the Senate and by the House of Representatives.

In the case at bar. 2 Feb 1979] Facts: President Marcos issued the Letter of Instruction No. L-49112. Issue: Whether or not Petitioner’s contentions possess merit. Minister of national Defense. No.R. The restraining order regarding the implementation of the Reflector Law is lifted making the said law immediately executory. health and prosperity of the State. the petition is dismissed. Minister of Public Highways. Juan Ponce Enrile. Land Transportation Commissioner. Held: Petitioner’s contentions are without merit because the exercise of police power may interfere with personal liberty or property to ensure and promote the safety. Hon. L-7995. Pres. According to him. ICHONG VS. 31 May 1957] Facts: Republic Act 1180 or commonly known as “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” was passed. Specifically.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE THE POLICE POWER AGUSTIN VS. EDU [88 SCRA 195. Petitioner also failed to present the factual foundation that is necessary to invalidate the said letter of instruction. 229 which states that all owners. G. Also. They can personally create a EWD provided that it is in accordance to the specifications provided by law. As signatory to the 1968 Vienna Conventions on Road Signs and Signals. Petitioner alleges that EWD are not necessary because vehicles already have hazard lights (blinking lights) that can be use as a warning device. Also petitioner contest that the letter of instruction violates the delegation of police power because it is deemed harsh. oppressive and unreasonable for the motorists and those dealers of EWD will become instant millionaires because of such law. The Letter of Instruction was assailed by petitioner Leovillo Agustin to have violated the constitution guarantee of due process against Hon Edu.R. Because of such contentions. Wherefore. Juinio. G. the Vienna Convention also requires the use of EWD. Minister of Public Works. users or drivers shall have at all times one pair of early warning devise (EWD) in their cars acquire from any source depending on the owner’s choice. In cases where there is absence in the factual foundation. SY ’06-‘07 . Issue: Page 20 Section 1-C. HERNANDEZ [101 Phil 1117. such letter of instruction is intended to promote public safety and it is indeed a rare occurrence that such contention was alleged in a instruction with such noble purpose. Transportation and Communication and Hon. Aquino. our country must abide with the standards given as stated in our Constitution that “the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of International Law as part of the law of the land. This was protested by the petitioner in this case. Marcos on the other hand possesses vital statistics that will justify the need for the implementation of this instruction. Vehicle owners are not obliged to buy an EDW. it should be presumed that constitutionality shall prevail. the said law violates the international and treaty of the Philippines therefore it is unconstitutional. Hon. the Implementing Rules and Regulation was ordered to be suspended for a period of 6 months. the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China was violated according to him. Petitioner’s allegation against the manufacturers of EDW being millionaires is deemed to be an unfounded speculation. No. The said law provides for a prohibition against foreigners as well as corporations owned by foreigners from engaging from retail trade in our country.

— Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. Held: According to the Court. A month after the promulgation of the said Internal Revenue Code provided that: Presidential Decree. Lease or Disposition of Videograms. The Court also provided that RA 1180 was enacted to remedy a real and actual danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control. L-7859. the tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act is held to be constitutional. G. Since sugar production is one of the great industries of our nation. The tax under said Act is levied with a regulatory purpose. as the Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme Ledesma. TIO VS. it is only rational that the taxes be obtained from those that will directly benefit from it. pursuant to the Sugar Adjustment Act. taxes are levied on the owners or persons in control of the lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane. and advancement. “An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board" with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD [151 SCRA 208. If ever the law infringes upon the said treaty. the province shall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%) of the purchase price or rental rate. Held: The tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act is constitutional. to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. L-75697. thus this appeal before the Supreme Court. In addition. therefore redounds greatly to the general welfare. The Court of First Instance dismissed his petition. Section 6 states all the collections made under said Act shall be for aid and support of the sugar industry exclusively. Issue: Whether or Not the tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act ( Commonwealth Act 567) is unconstitutional. Under Section 3 of said Act. Hence. Tax on Sale. 134. Therefore.R. the latter is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law and the same may never curtain or restrict the scope of the police power of the state. Furthermore. G. the Collector of Internal Revenue. Taxation may be made with the implement of the state’s police power. seeks to recover from J. Provided. the sum of money paid by the estate as taxes. Antonio Araneta. That locally manufactured or imported blank video tapes shall be subject to sales tax. Lutz contends that such purpose is not a matter of public concern hence making the tax levied for that cause unconstitutional and void. ready for playback. No. RA 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. regardless of length. 1987. said objectives of the Act is a public concern and is therefore constitutional. an annual tax of five pesos. 18 Jun 1987] Facts: The case is a petition filed by petitioner on behalf of videogram operators adversely affected by Presidential Decree No. Video Tapes. its promotion.R. — There shall be collected on each processed video-tape cassette. 22 Dec 1955] Facts: Walter Lutz. the amended the National "SEC. no reason is seen why the state may not levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment." "Section 10. It follows that the Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is necessary for its protection and expedient for its promotion. No.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not Republic Act 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. ARANETA [98 Phil 148. SY ’06-‘07 . LUTZ VS. If objectives and methods are alike constitutionally valid. It was also then provided that police power can not be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract. protection. as the case may Page 21 Section 1-C.

EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. and these earnings have not been subjected to tax. have greatly prejudiced the operations of movie houses and theaters. SY ’06-‘07 ." WHEREFORE. b. ASSO. Issue: Whether or not tax imposed by the DECREE is a valid exercise of police power. and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes.” “Fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds of the tax collected shall accrue to the province. Page 22 Section 1-C. lease or disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any motion picture or audiovisual program. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. videotapes. thereby resulting in substantial losses estimated at P450 Million annually in government revenues. G. We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would justify us in pronouncing Presidential Decree No. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 14 JUL 1989] Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case: a. 1987 as unconstitutional and void. not to mention the fact that the activities of video establishments are virtually untaxed since mere payment of Mayor's permit and municipal license fees are required to engage in business. That in Metropolitan Manila. the tax remains a valid imposition. there is no question that public welfare is at bottom of its enactment. thereby depriving the Government of approximately P180 Million in taxes each year. PROVIDED. The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. the instant Petition is hereby dismissed.R. discs. 27. contractor's specific. the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights. The unregulated activities of videogram establishments have also affected the viability of the movie industry. the erosion of the moral fiber of the viewing public brought about by the availability of unclassified and unreviewed video tapes containing pornographic films and films with brutally violent sequences. considering "the unfair competition posed by rampant film piracy. While the underlying objective of the DECREE is to protect the moribund movie industry. No costs. among others. for every sale. particularly because of the rampant film piracy. It was imposed primarily to answer the need for regulating the video industry. amusement and other taxes. sales and disposition of videograms. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants. and losses in government revenues due to the drop in theatrical attendance. c.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests be. Whether or nor the DECREE is constitutional . NO. Held: Taxation has been made the implement of the state's police power. SEC. Such unregulated circulation have caused a sharp decline in theatrical attendance by at least forty percent (40%) and a tremendous drop in the collection of sales. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victoria’s Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislature’s power. Videogram(s) establishments collectively earn around P600 Million per annum from rentals. cassettes or any technical improvement or variation thereof.” The rationale behind the tax provision is to curb the proliferation and unregulated circulation of videograms including. And while it was also an objective of the DECREE to protect the movie industry. OF DAR [175 SCRA 343. the tax shall be shared equally by the City/Municipality and the Metropolitan Manila Commission. L-78742. Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. and the other fifty percent (50%) shall accrue to the municipality where the tax is collected.

there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. The state can do this in the exercise of its police power. 15972. No. Such motion was denied by the RTC. G. it can be outlawed and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. L-63419. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property. Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO’s. However. 11 Oct 1920] Facts: Page 23 Section 1-C. RA 6657 is likewise valid. What is required is the surrender of the title and the physical possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favour of the farmer. not malum in se but because of the harm that it inflicts on the community. No. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of the lawful subject and the method. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under Sec. Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent domain.R. but an offense against public order.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests d. The offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent Domain. CITY OF MANILA [41 Phil 103. hence. LOZANO VS. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. and RA were constitutional. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. KWONG SING VS. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares.R. commented that it was premature for the accused to elevate to the Supreme Court the orders denying their motions to quash. however what is to be determined is the method employed to achieve it. An act may not be considered by society as inherently wrong. SY ’06-‘07 . 18 Dec 1986] Facts: A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made. the Supreme Court finds it justifiable to intervene for the review of lower court's denial of a motion to quash. under pain of penal sanctions. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. Issue: Whether or not BP 22 is constitutional as it is a proper exercise of police power of the State. The Solicitor General. Held: The enactment of BP 22 a valid exercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. PD. MARTINEZ [146 SCRA 323. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed. Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid. as the statute is unconstitutional. The thrust of the law is to prohibit. The petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief. G. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. contending that no offense was committed.

Finding that the ordinance is valid. putting in mind that they are Chinese nationals. 532 is an act beyond the scope of police power Whether or Not the enforcement of the same is a class legislation that infringes property rights. The appellants claim is that Ordinance No. judgment is affirmed. No. paragraphs (l) and (ee) of the Administrative Code. this is an appeal with the Supreme Court. or any other nationality. dated 23 Page 24 Section 1-C. an additional burden will be imposed on the business and occupation affected by the ordinance such as that of the appellant by learning even a few words in Spanish or English. Although. the furtherance of the prosperity. G. even if private rights of person or property are subjected to restraint. (ee) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety. as amended by Act No. It unjustly discriminates between persons in similar circumstances.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Kwong Sing. 532 was to avoid disputes between laundrymen and their patrons and to protect customers of laundries who are not able to decipher Chinese characters from being defrauded. 78164. The permanent injunction was denied by the trial court. and MECS Order No. must comply with the ordinance. series of 1985. 2382. All. and impairs no personal privilege. 52. convenience. Issue: Whether or Not the enforcement of Ordinance no. 31 July 1987] Facts: The petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of Education. It applies to all public laundries without distinction. Held: Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible under the police power. 2744. 532 savors of class legislation. people of Manila are more familiar with Spanish and maybe English. Filipinos. in his own behalf and of other Chinese laundrymen who has general and the same interest. it seems that the same burdens are cast upon the them. GUTIERREZ [152 SCRA 730. and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property rights. an attempt is not made to violate personal property rights. (Considering that in the year 1920s. without exception. The court held that the obvious purpose of Ordinance No. Chinese. Yet. filed a complaint for a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs also questioned the validity of enforcing Ordinance No. 532 is based on Section 2444. good order. and each every one of them without distinction. TABLARIN VS. but mostly Arabic numbers in order to properly issue a receipt. comfort. Under the guise of police regulation. the court held that the ordinance invades no fundamental right. the Board of Medical Education and the Center for Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants. with costs against the appellants. and the promotion of the morality. this is not sufficient ground for failing to uphold the power of the legislative body. and even if loss will result to individuals from the enforcement of the ordinance.R. The very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for the public welfare. The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation. peace. and the petition for a preliminary injunction is denied. In view of the foregoing. Culture and Sports.) In whether the ordinance is class legislation. 532 requires that the receipt be in duplicate in English and Spanish duly signed showing the kind and number of articles delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments. authorizes the municipal board of the city of Manila. with the approval of the mayor of the city: (l) To regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for the following: xxxx xxxxxlaundries xxxx. They also contest that the enforcement of the legislation is an act beyond the scope of their police power. Ordinance No. as amended. whether they belong to Americans. 532 by the city of Manila. The police power of the City of Manila to enact Ordinance No. The obvious objection for the implementation of the ordinance is based in sec2444 (ee) of the Administrative Code. SY ’06-‘07 .

as amended.” Section 7 prescribes certain minimum requirements for applicants to medical schools: "Admission requirements. 1985. an aptitude test. known as the "Medical Act of 1959" defines its basic objectives in the following manner: "SECTION 1. other entrance requirements that may be deemed admissible. 52. The NMAT rating of each applicant. Nothing in this act shall be construed to inhibit any college of medicine from establishing.” MECS Order No. and MECS Order No. and (c) the supervision. and to collect from said applicants the amount of twenty-five pesos each which shall accrue to the operating fund of the Board of Medical Education. Issue: Whether or not Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. This Order goes on to state that: "2. s. The NMAT. it is commonplace learning. together with the other admission requirements as presently called for under existing rules. Republic Act 2382. — The medical college may admit any student who has not been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving moral turpitude and who presents (a) a record of completion of a bachelor's degree in science or arts. (c) a certificate of good moral character issued by two former professors in the college of liberal arts. Its functions as specified in Section 5 of the statute include the following: "(a) To determine and prescribe requirements for admission into a recognized college of medicine. 52. from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. 1985 are constitutional. among other things. The NMAT was conducted and administered as previously scheduled.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests August 1985 and from requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission. beginning with the school year 1986-1987. SY ’06-‘07 . created a Board of Medical Education. and (d) birth certificate. shall be determined every year by the Board of Medical Education after consultation with the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. The police power. Held: Yes. x x x (f) To accept applications for certification for admission to a medical school and keep a register of those issued said certificate. 2382. based on the scores on the NMAT. The trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987. Objectives. Culture and Sports and dated 23 August 1985. established a uniform admission test called the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) as an additional requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for admission into medical schools of the Philippines. the public order — of the general community. s. as amended by Republic Acts Nos. do not constitute an unconstitutional imposition. (b) the examination for registration of physicians. in addition to the preceding. The cutoff score for the successful applicants. An important component of that public order is the health and physical safety and well being of the population. is the pervasive and non-waivable power and authority of the sovereign to secure and promote all the important interests and needs — in a word." The statute. control and regulation of the practice of medicine in the Philippines. — This Act provides for and shall govern (a) the standardization and regulation of medical education. shall serve as a basis for the issuance of the prescribed certificate of eligibility for admission into the medical colleges. issued by the then Minister of Education. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring certain minimum scores therein as a condition for admission to medical schools in the Philippines. 4224 and 5946. the securing of which no one Page 25 Section 1-C. (b) a certificate of eligibility for entrance to a medical school from the Board of Medical Education. is considered as an instrument toward upgrading the selection of applicants for admission into the medical schools and its calculated to improve the quality of medical education in the country.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
can deny is a legitimate objective of governmental effort and regulation. Perhaps the only issue that needs some consideration is whether there is some reasonable relation between the prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition for admission to medical school on the one hand, and the securing of the health and safety of the general community, on the other hand. This question is perhaps most usefully approached by recalling that the regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985 articulates the rationale of regulation of this type: the improvement of the professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical schools, by upgrading the quality of those admitted to the student body of the medical schools. That upgrading is sought by selectivity in the process of admission, selectivity consisting, among other things, of limiting admission to those who exhibit in the required degree the aptitude for medical studies and eventually for medical practice. The need to maintain, and the difficulties of maintaining, high standards in our professional schools in general, and medical schools in particular, in the current stage of our social and economic development, are widely known. We believe that the government is entitled to prescribe an admission test like the NMAT as a means for achieving its stated objective of "upgrading the selection of applicants into [our] medical schools" and of "improv[ing] the quality of medical education in the country. We are entitled to hold that the NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate end of legislation and regulation in this area. That end, it is useful to recall, is the protection of the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our bodies and minds for disease or trauma. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED and the Order of the respondent trial court denying the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY VS. ERICTA [122 SCRA 759; G.R. No. L-34915; 24 Jun 1983] Facts: Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64, entitled "Ordinance Regulating The Establishment, Maintenance And Operation Of Private Memorial Type Cemetery Or Burial Ground Within The Jurisdiction Of Quezon City And Providing Penalties For The Violation Thereof" provides: Sec. 9. At least six (6) percent of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their death, to be determined by competent City Authorities. The area so designated shall immediately be developed and should be open for operation not later than six months from the date of approval of the application. For several years, the aforequoted section of the Ordinance was not enforced but seven years after the enactment of the ordinance, the Quezon City Council passed a resolution to request the City Engineer, Quezon City, to stop any further selling and/or transaction of memorial park lots in Quezon City where the owners thereof have failed to donate the required 6% space intended for paupers burial. The Quezon City Engineer then notified respondent Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. in writing that Section 9 of the ordinance would be enforced. Respondent Himlayang Pilipino reacted by filing a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction seeking to annul Section 9 of the Ordinance in question. Respondent alleged that the same is contrary to the Constitution, the Quezon City Charter, the Local Autonomy Act, and the Revised Administrative Code. Issue: Whether or Not Section 9 of the ordinance in question is a valid exercise of police power. Held: Section 9 of the City ordinance in question is not a valid exercise of police power. Section 9 cannot be justified under the power granted to Quezon City to tax, fix the license fee, and

Page 26 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
regulate such other business, trades, and occupation as may be established or practiced in the City. Bill of rights states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law' (Art. Ill, Section 1 subparagraph 1, Constitution). On the other hand, there are three inherent powers of government by which the state interferes with the property rights, namely-. (1) police power, (2) eminent domain, (3) taxation. The police power of Quezon City is defined in sub-section 00, Sec. 12, Rep. Act 537 that reads as follows: “To make such further ordinance and regulations not repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this act and such as it shall deem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, …, and for the protection of property therein; and enforce obedience thereto with such lawful fines or penalties as the City Council may prescribe under the provisions of subsection (jj) of this section.” The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit. The power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate. The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a memorial park cemetery, because under Section 13 of said ordinance, 'Violation of the provision thereof is punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment and that upon conviction thereof the permit to operate and maintain a private cemetery shall be revoked or cancelled’. The confiscatory clause and the penal provision in effect deter one from operating a memorial park cemetery. Moreover, police power is defined by Freund as 'the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property'. It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of property of the owner. If he is deprived of his property outright, it is not taken for public use but rather to destroy in order to promote the general welfare. It seems to the court that Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, Series of 1964 of Quezon City is not a mere police regulation but an outright confiscation. It deprives a person of his private property without due process of law, nay, even without compensation. MMDA Vs. Bel-Air Village [328 SCRA 836; G.R. No. 135962; 27 Mar 2000] Facts: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), petitioner herein, is a Government Agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA), respondent herein, received a letter of request from the petitioner to open Neptune Street of BelAir Village for the use of the public. The said opening of Neptune Street will be for the safe and convenient movement of persons and to regulate the flow of traffic in Makati City. This was pursuant to MMDA law or Republic Act No. 7924. On the same day, the respondent was appraised that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision and Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished. The respondent, to stop the opening of the said street and demolition of the wall, filed a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. Respondent claimed that the MMDA had no authority to do so and the lower court decided in favor of the Respondent. Petitioner appealed the decision of the lower courts and claimed that it has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic because it is an agent of the State that can practice police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. Issue: Whether or not the MMDA has the mandate to open Neptune Street to public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers. Held: The Court held that the MMDA does not have the capacity to exercise police power. Police power is primarily lodged in the National Legislature. However, police power may be delegated to government units. Petitioner herein is a development authority and not a political government unit. Therefore, the MMDA cannot exercise police power because it cannot be delegated to them.

Page 27 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
It is not a legislative unit of the government. Republic Act No. 7924 does not empower the MMDA to enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Manila. There is no syllable in the said act that grants MMDA police power. It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with various national government agencies, people’s organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. TATEL VS. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC [207 SCRA 157; G.R. No. 40243; 11 Mar 1992] Facts: Petitioner Celestino Tatel owns a warehouse in barrio Sta. Elena, Municipality of Virac. Complaints were received by the municipality concerning the disturbance caused by the operation of the abaca bailing machine inside petitioner’s warehouse. A committee was then appointed by the municipal council, and it noted from its investigation on the matter that an accidental fire within the warehouse of the petitioner created a danger to the lives and properties of the people in the neighborhood. Resolution No. 29 was then passed by the Municipal council declaring said warehouse as a public nuisance within a purview of Article 694 of the New Civil Code. According to respondent municipal officials, petitioner’s warehouse was constructed in violation of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, prohibiting the construction of warehouses near a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios without maintaining the necessary distance of 200 meters from said block of houses to avoid loss of lives and properties by accidental fire. On the other hand, petitioner contends that Ordinance No. 13 is unconstitutional. Issue: Whether or not petitioner’s warehouse is a nuisance within the meaning Article 694 of the Civil Code Whether or not Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952 of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void. Held: The storage of abaca and copra in petitioner’s warehouse is a nuisance under the provisions of Article 694 of the Civil Code. At the same time, Ordinance No. 13 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac in the exercise of its police power. It is valid because it meets the criteria for a valid municipal ordinance: 1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute, 2) must not be unfair or oppressive, 3) must not be partial or discriminatory, 4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade, 5) must be general and consistent with public policy, and 6) must not be unreasonable. The purpose of the said ordinance is to avoid the loss of property and life in case of fire which is one of the primordial obligation of government. The lower court did not err in its decision.

Page 28 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

the CMDC took possession of the property and erected buildings and other related facilities necessary for its operations. SY ’06-‘07 . Among the five (5) main programs of the proposed project was Program III (Construction Manpower Development) which involved the establishment of a Construction Manpower Development Center (CMDC). Benitez. to which CMDC is attached. as vendor. through the Department of Trade and Industry. and PHRDC and CMDC.490. The Philippine Government. which includes all the rights that may be exercised by an owner over the subject property. In exercising this power. Although eminent domain usually involves a taking of title. Dasmariñas. there may also be compensable taking of only some. Held: No. electrical and road network installations and other related works necessary to attain its objectives. PHRDC prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale with Benitez. In view of the agreement on the sale of the land in question. A Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession was granted by the court but quashed it subsequently. signed a Memorandum of Agreement which provides. dated June 25. as vendees. the trial court has a ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession. seeks to realize the same through its power of eminent domain. In the instant case. negotiated with the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Survey Team on the technicalities of the establishment of the ASEAN Human Resources Development Project in the Philippines. 1035. Benitez is the registered owner of two (2) parcels of land located in Barangay Salawag. it is manifest that the petitioner. No.00 which is equivalent to the assessed value of the property subject matter hereof based on defendant’s 1990 tax declaration. among others. petitioner intended to acquire not only physical possession but also the legal right to possess and ultimately to own the subject property.R. Cavite containing an area of 483. that Benitez undertakes to lease within the period of twenty (20) years and/or sell a portion of that property (which is no less than ten-hectares) in favor of PHRDC which likewise agrees to lease within a period of twenty (20) years and/or buy said property site. The Philippine Women’s University (PWU) and Benitez granted a permit to PHRDC to occupy and use the land in question and to undertake land development. when the government or its authorized agent makes the required deposit. 2 Dec 1998] Facts: Private respondent Helena Z. Benitez in her own capacity did not sign the deed of absolute sale. pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order No. duly represented by then Undersecretary Gloria M. The expropriation of real property does not include mere physical entry or occupation of land. through the Philippine Human Resources Development Center (PHRDC). petitioner. in pursuit of an objective beneficial to public interest. Failing to acquire the property involved through negotiated sale. Pursuant thereto. Arroyo. Page 29 Section 1-C. its mere physical entry and occupation of the property fall short of the taking of title. was made.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN REPUBLIC VS. instituted a complaint for Eminent Domain. Under Section 7 of EO 1035. 1985. PHRDC and private respondent Helena Z. not all. 129079. of the property interests in the bundle of rights that constitute ownership. Issue: Whether or Not the respondent judge may quash a writ of possession on the ground that the expropriating government agency is already occupying the property sought to be expropriated. A deposit made by the plaintiff with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the amount of P708. G. Hence.331 square meters more or less. TAGLE [299 SCRA 549. for the signature of Benitez.

and hear proof of the necessity of the expropriation. PEOPLE VS. Subsequently. through the BOT for the use of the facilities of PLDT's telephone system throughout the country under such conditions as the court may consider reasonable. it must comply with the conditions accompanying the authority. No. 31 Oct 1919] Facts: The City of Manila. Issue: Whether or Not PLDT may be compelled to enter into such agreement. the BOT set up its own government telephone system by utilizing its own appropriations and other equipment and by renting trunk lines of the PLDT to enable the govt offices to call privately. PLDT is a public service corporation holding a franchise to install operates and maintains a telephone system. in the interest of national welfare transfer utilities to public ownership upon payment of just compensation. The CFI rendered judgment stating that it could not compel PLDT to enter into such agreement. plaintiff herein. is a question that the courts have the right to inquire to.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests CITY OF MANILA VS. may. Held: The courts have the power of restricting the exercise of eminent domain to the actual reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by the law. PLDT [26 SCRA 320. 27 Jan 1969] Facts: The plaintiff Republic of the Philippines is a political entity exercising government powers through one of its branches.R. The lower court ruled that the said public improvement was not necessary on the particular-strip of land in question. G. prayed for the expropriation of a portion private cemetery for the conversion into an extension of Rizal Avenue. the state. After its creation. Defendants herein answered that the said expropriation was not necessary because other routes were available. BOT entered into an agreement with the RCA communications for joint overseas telephone service whereby BOT would convey overseas calls received by RCA to local residents. the plaintiff commenced suit against PLDT asking the court judgment be rendered ordering the PLDT to execute a contract with the plaintiff. The moment the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred. SY ’06-‘07 . L-18841. The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the legislature. Hence this petition. the same filed an appeal. 14355. FAJARDO Page 30 Section 1-C. Held: Yes. Issue: Whether or not the courts may inquire into. there is no reason why the state ma not require a public utility to render services in the general interest provided just compensation is paid. Herein defendant. Thus. CHINESE COMMUNITY [40 Phil 349. the Bureau of Telecommunication. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority. They further claimed that the expropriation of the cemetery would create irreparable loss and injury to them and to all those persons owing and interested in the graves and monuments that would have to be destroyed. Plaintiff herein assailed that they have the right to exercise the power of eminent domain and that the courts have no right to inquire and determine the necessity of the expropriation. No. REPUBLIC VS. PLDT complained to the BOT that it was a violation of the condition of their agreement since the BOT had used trunk lines only for the use of government offices but even to serve private persons or the general public in competition with the business of PLDT. Plaintiff claims that it is necessary that such public improvement be made in the said portion of the private cemetery and that the said lands are within their jurisdiction.

in effect. No. for the reason among others that the proposed building would destroy the view or beauty of the public plaza. L-12172. but in so doing does not confiscate them because it directs that they be paid with equal value of the assets of NAWASA. 31 Aug 1959] Facts: Plaintiff a municipal corporation filed a complaint against defendant a public corporation. The Baguio water works system is not like a public road. To legally achieve that result. It is not a valid exercise of police power. 1383 does not constitute a valid exercise of police power. The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive. Issue: Whether or Not there is a valid exercise of police power of eminent domain. The act does not confiscate. The request was denied. It contends that the said act does not include within its purview the Baguio Water Works system. The appellants would. The court holds that the water works system of Baguio belongs to private property and cannot be expropriated without just compensation. street other public property held in trust by a municipal corporation for the benefit of the public. it oversteps the bounds of police power. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss ion the ground that it is not a proper exercise of police power and eminent domain. Hence this appeal. NAWASA [106 Phil. But it is a property of a Page 31 Section 1-C. in that it operates to permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests [104 Phil 443. which will destroy the view of the plaza. It merely directs that all water works belonging to cities. every structure that may be erected on appellants' land. is unconstitutional because it deprives the plaintiff ownership. camarines sur stating among others that construction of a building. defendants were charged in violation of the ordinance and subsequently convicted.A. because they needed a place of residence very badly. G. Sec. being urban in character. We do not overlook that the modern tendency is to regard the beautification of neighborhoods as conducive to the comfort and happiness of residents. Held: No. 8 of R. The court denied the motion and ordered the defendants to file an answer. Whereupon. Defendants reiterated their request for a building permit. their former house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living on leased property. hence.1383 provides for the exchange of the NAWASA assets for the value of the water works system of Baguio is unconstitutional for this is not just compensation. Held: R. Herein appellant filed a written request with the incumbent municipal mayor for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station on a parcel of land registered in Fajardo's name. destroy or appropriate property belonging to a municipal corporation. assuming that it does. CITY OF BAGUIO V. The purpose is placing them under the control and supervision of an agency with a view to promoting their efficient management. regardless of its own beauty.R. No. created under Act. As the case now stands.R. enacted an ordinance. Issue: Whether or Not the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power. the municipality must give appellants just compensation and an opportunity to be heard. SY ’06-‘07 . Defendants motion for reconsideration was denied hence this appeal. but again the mayor turned down the request. the park.1383. shall not be allowed and therefore be destroyed at the expense of the owner. be constrained to let their land remain idle and unused for the obvious purpose for which it is best suited. municipalities and municipal districts in the Philippines to be transferred to the NAWASA. stands condemned under the ordinance in question. appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a permit. 29 Aug 1958] Facts: The municipal council of baao. Thereafter. located along the national highway and separated from the public plaza by a creek. control and operation of said water works without just compensation and due process of law. because it would interfere with the view of the public plaza from the highway.A. L-12032. and amounts to a taking of appellant’s property without just compensation. G.

3) it must be under warrant or color of authorities. the AFP refused. VS. 1959 when the complaint for eminent domain was filed. G. “just compensation” is to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. therefore. The “taking” of the Castelvi property for the purposes of determining the just compensation to be paid must. through the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). 18 Jan 1991] Facts: Petitioner filed an action to acquire a right of way over the land of Respondents for the construction of transmission lines. L-20620. water works cannot be taken away except for public use and upon payment of just compensation. it is undisputed that the Republic was placed in possession of the Castelvi property. Petitioner was adjudged to pay the full market value of land traversed by the transmission lines. There is no basis to the contention of the Republic that a lease on a year-to-year basis can give rise to permanent right to occupy since by express provision a lease made for a determinate time. New Civil Code). No. G. When Castelvi gave notice to terminate the lease in 1956. the just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests municipal corporation. GUTIERREZ [193 SCRA 1. The requisites for taking are: 1) the expropriator must enter a private property. or takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain. by authority of court. Petitioner argued that it was only asking for a right of way. Issue: Whether or Not the acquisition of the right of way constitutes "taking" and such the case will be entitled just compensation. NATIONAL POWER CORP. Under Sec. 1669. did not apply Art.R. It perpetually deprives Respondents of their proprietary rights. 2) the entry must be for more than a momentary period. Held: The acquisition of the right of way constitutes taking. without need of a demand (Art. be reckoned as of June 26. Judgment affirmed. 4) the property must be devoted for public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected. ceases upon the day fixed. danger to life and limbs cannot be discounted. DULAY [148 SCRA 305. and that just compensation should not be determined on the basis of the value of the property as of that year. SY ’06-‘07 . EPZA VS. L-59603. 4 Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. 60077. The Supreme Court has ruled that when the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. REPUBLIC VS. as was the lease of Castelvi land in the instant case.R. however. The owner of the property is entitled to just compensation. In 1959. 29 Apr 1987] Page 32 Section 1-C. however. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the “taking” should not be reckoned as of 1947. Because of high tension current conveyed through the transmission lines. G. the republic commenced the expropriation proceedings for the land in question. 1250 of the New Civil Code for the adjustment of the peso rate in times of extraordinary inflation or deflation because in eminent domain cases the obligation to pay arises from law independent of contract. She then instituted an ejectment proceeding against the AFP. entered into a lease agreement with Castelvi on a year-to-year basis. No plant higher than three meters is allowed below the transmission lines. on August 10. The Supreme Court. 1959. Issue: Whether or Not the compensation should be determined as of 1947 or 1959. CASTELVI [58 SCRA 336. 15 Aug 1974] Facts: In 1947. and 5) the utilization of the property for public use must be such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.R. No. No. the republic. In the instant case.

29 Feb. It was later found out that the payment of the government to San Antonio would be P15 per square meter. there was no annotation in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property. AMIGABLE VS. Amigable’s counsel wrote the President of the Philippines. requesting payment of the portion of the said lot. The valuation in the decree may only serve as guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation. The method of ascertaining just compensation constitutes impermissible encroachment to judicial prerogatives. in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery of ownership and possession of the lot. Issue: Whether or Not the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just compensation in PD 1533 is unconstitutional. Issue: Whether or Not. whichever is lower.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Facts: The four parcels of land which are the subject of this case is where the Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority in Cebu (EPZA) is to be constructed. in which these lands are registered under. G. and that plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants. the basis of just compensation shall be fair and according to the fair market value declared by the owner of the property sought to be expropriated. for brevity). At the back of her Transfer Certificate of Title (1924). which was objected to by the latter contending that under PD 1533. Petitioner then filed in the court a quo a complaint against the Republic of the Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca. According to the defendants. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of just compensation in PD 1533 is unconstitutional. but it may not substitute the court’s own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount. It was disallowed by the Auditor General in his 9th Endorsement. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determination but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that the private party may not be taken for public use without just compensation. under the facts of the case. Such objection and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration were denied and hearing was set for the reception of the commissioner’s report. the government used a portion of the lot for the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. Court of First Instance of Cebu. decree. SY ’06-‘07 . no statute. or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s findings. It tends to render the courts inutile in a matter in which under the Constitution is reserved to it for financial determination. Respondent Judge Dulay then issued an order for the appointment of the commissioners to determine the just compensation. appellant may properly sue the government. CUENCA [43 SCRA 360. On 1958. the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. In the case at bar. According to them. claimed that the lands were expropriated to the government without them reaching the agreement as to the compensation. the action was premature because it was not filed first at the Office of the Auditor General. EPZA then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus enjoining the respondent from further hearing the case. L-26400. the right of action for the recovery of any amount had already prescribed. Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale. since no annotation in favor of the government appears at the Page 33 Section 1-C. Private respondent San Antonio Development Corporation (San Antonio. that the Government had not given its consent to be sued.R. 1972] Facts: Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of a particular lot. or by the assessor. Held: In the case of Ministerio v. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the justness of the decreed compensation. No. it was held that when the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale.

as borne out by the ocular inspection conducted by the trial court which showed that most of the expropriated properties remain unoccupied. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. then she remains the owner of the lot. but not without payment of just compensation. free of charge. GR NO. which is allegedly different from the stated public purpose in the expropriation proceedings. No. The stated public purpose of the expropriation was the expansion of the Dasmariñas Resettlement Project to accommodate the squatters who were relocated from the Metropolitan Manila area. SY ’06-‘07 . The Comelec space shall be allocated by the Commission. because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. In the case at bench. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY [395 SCRA 494. a non-profit organization of newspaper and magazine publishers. A few years later. 2772 is unconstitutional. 147511. considering that the newspapers were not unwilling to sell advertising space. It held that to compel print media companies to donate “Comelec space” amounts to “taking” of private personal property without payment of the just compensation required in expropriation cases. Issue: Whether or not Comelec Resolution No. Also Resolution No. The Comelec space shall also be used by the Commission for dissemination of vital election information. 22 May 1995] Facts: Respondent Comelec promulgated Resolution No. COMELEC [244 SCRA 272. Moreover. She could then bring an action to recover possession of the land anytime. REYES VS. since such action is not feasible at this time since the lot has been used for other purposes. asks the Supreme Court to declare Comelec Resolution No. However. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of the police power of the state. The trial court rendered judgment ordering the expropriation of these lots and the payment of just compensation. Petitioners likewise question the public nature of the use by respondent NHA when it entered into a contract for the construction of low cost housing units. PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE VS. among all candidates to enable them to make known their qualifications. 119694. the element of necessity for the taking has not been established by respondent Comelec. the only relief left is for the government to make due compensation—price or value of the lot at the time of the taking. the Solicitor General claimed that the Resolution is a permissible exercise of the power of supervision (police power) of the Comelec over the information operations of print media enterprises during the election period to safeguard and ensure a fair. Petitioner Philippine Press Institute. On behalf of the respondent Comelec. G. petitioners contended that respondent NHA violated the stated public purpose for the expansion of the Dasmariñas Resettlement Project when it failed to relocate the squatters from the Metro Manila area. The taking of private property for public use is authorized by the constitution. it is claimed that respondent NHA has forfeited its rights Page 34 Section 1-C. (PPI). Held: The Supreme Court declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. 2772 directing newspapers to provide free Comelec space of not less than one-half page for the common use of political parties and candidates.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests back of the certificate of title and plaintiff has not executed any deed of conveyance of any portion of the lot to the government. 20 JAN 2003] Facts: Respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) filed complaints for the expropriation of sugarcane lands belonging to the petitioners. there is no showing of existence of a national emergency to take private property of newspaper or magazine publishers. 2772 unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates the prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Hence. Inc.R. their stand on public Issue and their platforms of government. impartial and credible election.

Issue: Whether or Not an LGU can exercise its power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution by its law-making body." Thus. SEC. 78742. a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. it is stated as the first requisite that LGUs can exercise its power of eminent domain if there is an ordinance enacted by its legislative body enabling the municipal chief executive. R. MUNICIPALITY OF PARAÑAQUE VS. whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. entertainment and service companies. commercials firms. 127820. and other private concerns. of the present Local Government Code (RA 7160). the former is only an opinion of a law-making body. G. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislature’s power. 27. which is obviously no longer in effect. which provides that a resolution authorizes a Local Government Unit to exercise eminent domain. Held: The Supreme Court held in favor of the respondent NHA. Moreover. Accordingly. 20 JUL 1998] Facts: Petitioner sought to exercise its power of eminent domain based on a resolution by the municipal council. NO. for the common good and in cooperation with the private sector. A resolution is not an ordinance.R. Petitioner also relies on the Implementing Rules." "public benefit. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. It is now settled doctrine that the concept of public use is no longer limited to traditional purposes. petitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of the eminent domain provision of the Constitution by contending that the contract for low cost housing is a deviation from the stated public use. Issue: Whether or not the judgment of expropriation was forfeited in the light of the failure of respondent NHA to use the expropriated property for the intended purpose but for a totally different purpose. Page 35 Section 1-C." "public welfare. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests and interests by virtue of the expropriation judgment and the expropriated properties should now be returned to herein petitioners. Held: Under Section 19. The case cited by Petitioner involves BP 337. ASLP VS. VM REALTY CORPORATION [292 SCRA 676. the former being the law itself and the latter only an administrative rule which cannot amend the former." and "public convenience. OF AGRARIAN REFORM [175 SCRA 343. The expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing for the marginalized sector is in furtherance of social justice. EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. G. the Constitution itself allows the State to undertake." In addition. the latter is a law. NO. Petitioner cites a previous case wherein a resolution gave authority to exercise eminent domain. which was the previous Local Government Code. the expropriation of private land for slum clearance and urban development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is later sold to private homeowners. RA 7160 prevails over the Implementing Rules. The term "public use" has now been held to be synonymous with "public interest. Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. SY ’06-‘07 . 14 JUL 1989] Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case: e.

is the project manager of NIA. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent Domain. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision of the RTC. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO’s. Eslaban jr. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed. however what is to be determined is the method employed to achieve it. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion. Petitioner states that the government had not consented to be sued and that the respondent is not entitled for compensation by virtue of the homestead patent under CA no. respondent demands that petitioner pay P111. Nino.55 for taking her property but the petitioner refused. 146062. After which. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victoria’s Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. SY ’06-‘07 . Rule 7 par 5 of the Rule of Civil Procedure provides that the certification against forum shopping should only be executed by the plaintiff or the principal. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares. 141. respondent executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees which waives her rights for the damage to the crops due to construction of the right of way. Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent domain. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Such land is the subject for the construction of an irrigation canal of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA). 517. Subsequently.60 as just compensation for the 24. A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of the lawful subject and the method. PD. there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. What is required is the surrender of the title and the physical possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favour of the farmer. The following are the points to be considered in arriving in this decision. G. South Cotabato.00 as right of way damages. 180.660 sq meters that have been used for the construction of the canal. Mr. NO. De Onorio is the owner of the land in Barangay M. g. Cesar Gonzales.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests f. and RA were constitutional. The parties agreed to the construction of the canal provided that the government will pay for the area that has been taken. Issue: Whether or Not the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC. RA 6657 is likewise valid. 28 JUN 2001] Facts: Clarita Vda. h.R. an Page 36 Section 1-C. 299. ESLABAN VS. Sto. Santiago Eslaban Jr. while the verification or certification were signed by Mr. ONORIO [360 SCRA 230. Roxas. First. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under Sec. Held: The CA is correct in affirming the decision of the RTC but modifications shall be made regarding the value of the just compensation. The petition for review was filed by Mr. The RTC held that the NIA should pay respondent the amount of P107. Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid. A right-of-way agreement was entered into by the parties in which respondent was paid the amount of P4.

The government gave out just compensation for the lands expropriated under B. In this case. The highest bidders were respondent Spouses Anastacio and Felisa Babiera (the Babieras) and respondent Spouses Alejandro and Flor Sangalang (the Sangalangs). 20 MAY 1998] Facts: The instant case is an unending sequel to several suits commenced almost twenty years ago involving a parcel of land located at the corner of the south end of EDSA and F. the order of dismissal became final and res judicata on the issue of ownership of the land. 340. The CA erred in this point by stating that the market value (just compensation) of the land is determined in the filing of the complaint in 1991. G. Third. Petitioners contended that they did not receive notice of their tax delinquency. KNECHT VS. Blg. Such waiver pertains only to the crops and improvements that were damage due to the construction of the right-of-way not the value of the land. NO. prior expropriation proceedings must be filed and just compensation shall be paid to the owner before the land could be taken for public use. Neither did they receive notice of the auction sale. COURT OF APPEALS [290 SCRA 223. or any government canal where the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries thereof have been pre-determined. 340. On February 17. the Batasang Pambansa passed B.P. On the land. this question has been previously raised in the cases which have been already set aside. As defense. The court is not a trier of Page 37 Section 1-C. Blg. 1529 provides that the owner is required to recognize in favor of the government the easement of a “public highway. Sangalang and Babiera sold the land to respondent Salem Investment Corporation.P. The Municipal Trial Court however ordered the Knechts' ejectment thus their residence was demolished. 108015. Salem was included and received partial payment. private way established by law. the irrigation canal was constructed on Oct 1981 after the property had been registered in May of 1976. 340 authorizing the national government to expropriate certain properties in Pasay City for the EDSA Extension. Blg.B. Since the Knechts refused to vacate their one remaining house. As a consequence of this deficiency. the government filed for the expropriation of Knechts’ property. The government wanted to use the land for the completion of the Manila Flood Control and Drainage Project and the extension of the EDSA towards Roxas Boulevard.61 per hectare. Issue: Whether or not Knechts are the lawful owners of the land at subject. SY ’06-‘07 . just compensation is defined as not only the correct amount to be paid but the reasonable time for the Government to pay the owner. Harrison in Pasay City. Such case is a sufficient ground for dismissing this petition. Neither of the two has the authority to sign such certificate for they are not the plaintiff or principal.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests administrator of the agency. Lastly. Seven of the eight houses of the Knechts were demolished and the government took possession of the portion of land on which the houses stood. The property of the Knechts was part of those expropriated under B.R. In this case. decision of CA affirmed with modification regarding the just compensation in the amount of P16. Subsequently.P. In the case at bar. way. Wherefore. the Knechts constructed eight houses. The Knechts' right to the land had been foreclosed after they failed to redeem it one year after the sale at public auction. Since the petitions questioning the order of dismissal were likewise dismissed by the Court of Appeals and this Court. the City Treasurer sold the property at public auction for the same amount of their deficiency taxes. 1983. leased out the seven and occupied one of them as their residence. 047. In 1979. the City Treasurer of Pasay discovered that the Knechts failed to pay real estate taxes on the property from 1980 to 1982. PD NO.The determination of such value should be from the time of its taking by the NIA in 1981. Held: The Supreme Court held that the Knechts were not the owners anymore of the said land. the Knechts claimed ownership of the land and building. In 1982. Second. However. Rene Knecht. the petitioner cannot argue that the Affidavit of waiver of rights and fees executed by the respondent pertains to the payment of the value of the land therefore exempting NIA to pay the value of the land taken. The Knechts continuously claimed ownership of the property and allege that they must be given just compensation. The land was owned by petitioners Cristina de Knecht and her son. Salem filed a case against them for unlawful detainer.

Petitioners argued that the expropriation was not for a public purpose. public policy and necessity. On this matter. For the purpose of appraisal. 106440. NO. The Knechts therefore are not the lawful owners of the land and are not any longer accountable for just compensation given by the government. represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways alleging that just compensation for site must be reduced. the fair market value of the property is taken into account and such value refers to the highest price in terms of money which a property will bring if exposed for sale in the public market. 136171. However. G. Petitioner needed the parcels of land for the widening of the road component of J. 29 JAN. Laurel-Buhangin Interchange in Davao City. it was challenged by Petitioner Republic of the Philippines. and is based upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law — one. To follow a contrary doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the gratification of the litigious disposition of the parties to the preservation of the public tranquility. Issue: Whether or Not the taking or exercise of eminent domain may be granted. MANOSCA VS. Note: Res judicata is a ground for dismissal of an action. SY ’06-‘07 .R. NO. the individual should not be vexed twice for the same cause. because it was the site of the birth of Felix Manalo. COURT OF APPEALS [252 SCRA 412. Held: The Supreme Court held that the valuation for the lot Sites are excessive and unreasonable. 1996] Facts: The National Historical Institute declared the parcel of land owned by Petitioners as a national historical landmark. (4) there is between the first and second actions. the appellate court is correct in disregarding petitioner's claim. of subject matter and of cause of action. 4 Section 4. 2 JULY 2002] Facts: Petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City a petition for expropriation of portions of two parcels of land owned by respondent. identity of parties. REPUBLIC VS. When a right of fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that just compensation is to be determined as of the date of the taking or the filing of the complaint whichever came first. or an opportunity for such trial has been given. the judgment of the court. Res judicata applies when: (1) the former judgment or order is final. (2) the judgment or order is one on the merits. The Regional trial court rendered decision of a fair just compensation for defendant Ker Corporation. The Republic of the Philippines filed an action to appropriate the land. Just compensation cannot be measured by the assessed value of the property as stated in the tax declaration and schedule of market values. (3) it was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Petitioner alleged that when the petition for expropriation was filed. it is the value of the land at the time of the taking or at the time of the filing of the complaint not at the time of the rendition of judgment which should be taken into consideration. should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate. G. so long as it remains unreversed. Issue: Whether or not respondent Ker Company was given a decision for fair just compensation.P. Res judicata has already set it. In computing just compensation for expropriation proceedings. It pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests facts. It is a rule that precludes parties from relitigating Issue actually litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment. the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo. the tax declaration of the property indicated its assessed value at a lower price. KER [383 SCRA 584. that there should be a limit to litigation. and another.R. Page 38 Section 1-C.

The taking is for a public use because of the contribution of Felix Manalo to the culture and history of the Philippines. SY ’06-‘07 .San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Held: Public use should not be restricted to the traditional uses. Page 39 Section 1-C.

NO. The taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only and the money raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private individuals. Issue: Whether or Not the ordinance and law authorizing it constitute class legislation. filed an action for declaratory relief with injunction on the ground that RA 920. which prompted Zuleta to write a letter to the district engineer calling attention the approval of RA 920. OF PUBLIC WORKS [110 PHIL 331. Petitioner. providing P85. Petitioners. NO. G.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE POWER OF TAXATION PASCUAL VS. the governor of the Province of Rizal.R. Antonio Subdivision is owned by the respondent. on the other hand. subject to a condition that the donor would submit plan of the roads and an agreement to change the names of two of the street. extension and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals. did not endorse the letter that inasmuch the feeder roads in question were private property at the time of passage and approval of RA 920. Respondent offered to donate the said feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig and the offer was accepted by the council.L-4817. SY ’06-‘07 . reconstruction. SEC. 3398 together with the law authorizing it (Section 18 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila). assail Ordinance No. the appropriation for the construction was illegal and therefore. The ordinance imposes a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the city and penalizes nonpayment of the same. The donation did not cure the nullity of the appropriation. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA [95 PHIL 46.000 for the construction. Jose Zulueta. Act appropriating funds for public works. repair. were nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads within Antonio Subdivision. paid the tax under protest as imposed by Ordinance No. The decision appealed from is reversed. 29 DEC 1960] Facts: Petitioner. However. void ab initio. The land which was owned by Zulueta. the legality of the appropriation of the feeder roads depend upon whether the said roads were public or private property when the bill was passed by congress or when it became effective. In the case at bar. PUNSALAN VS. prayed for RA 920 be declared null and void and the alleged deed of donation be declared unconstitutional. a member of the Senate of the Philippines. having already paid their occupation tax under section 201 of the National Internal Revenue Code. the donation was not executed. Held: Page 40 Section 1-C. therefore a judicial nullification of a said donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of the said appropriation. The law authorizing said ordinance empowers the Municipal Board of the city to impose a municipal occupation tax on persons engaged in various professions. Issue: Whether or Not the deed of donation and the appropriation of funds stipulated in RA 920 are constitutional. Lower court dismissed the case and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction. The lower court declared the ordinance invalid and affirmed the validity of the law authorizing it. and authorize what amounts to double taxation. Held: The ruling case law rules that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but public purpose. the appropriation sought a private purpose and hence. The district engineer. who are professionals in the city. null and void. 26 MAY 1954] Facts: Petitioners. 3398.L-10405.

of P. if any. and ordered released from the National Treasury to the Ministry of Energy. within specified limits. SY ’06-‘07 . and not channeled to another government objective.' not as a 'trust account' or a 'trust fund. that is. Page 41 Section 1-C.D. viz. the revenue generated therefrom shall 'be treated as a special fund' to be used only for the purpose indicated.D. created pursuant to § 8. expanding the grounds for reimbursement to oil companies for possible cost underrecovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. 1024. No. 137 on February 27.D. "said creation of a trust fund being contrary to Section 29 (3). and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. It is widely recognized that there is nothing inherently terrible in the requirement that taxes be exacted with respect to the same occupation by both the state and the political subdivisions thereof. The argument against double taxation may not be invoked if one tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the city. 1956. 1956 creating a Special Account in the General Fund. who (shall) be taxed (and) what the tax is for. tonnage and wharfage dues. P. such amounts belong to the State. in its discretion. The petition avers that the creation of the trust fund violates 29(3). 99886." in virtue of E. by law. authorize the President to fix. .O. the Office of Energy Affairs). and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. Article VI of the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution. and leave others untaxed. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned. inasmuch as the delegation relates to the exercise of the power of taxation. the law must not only specify how to tax. She promulgated Executive Order No. ORBOS [220 SCRA 703. That matter is within the domain of political departments." Petitioner further points out that since "a 'special fund' consists of monies collected through the taxing power of a State. paragraph 1.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The Legislature may. must be treated as a 'SPECIAL FUND. Marcos issued P. 1984. 31 MAR 1993] Facts: On October 10. the OPSF was reclassified into a "trust liability account. the amount of the underrecovery being left for determination by the Ministry of Finance.: (2) The Congress may. OSMEÑA VS. designated as the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). tariff rates. The OPSF was designed to reimburse oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and imported petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustments and from increases in the world market prices of crude oil. Pres. Judgment of the lower court is reversed with regards to the ordinance and affirmed as to the law authorizing it. 1987. as amended. select what occupations shall be taxed.R. Article VI of the Constitution. 1956. G. import and export quotas. and. and in its discretion may tax all. shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. reading as follows: (3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purposes only. "the limits. Aquino. although the use thereof is limited to the special purpose/objective for which it was created. as amended." He also contends that the "delegation of legislative authority" to the ERB violates 28 (2)." 12 Issue: Whether or Not the invalidity of the "TRUST ACCOUNT" in the books of account of the Ministry of Energy (now. It is not for the courts to judge which cities or municipalities should be empowered to impose occupation taxes aside from that imposed by the National Government. but also impose a specific limit on how much to tax. The petitioner argues that "the monies collected pursuant to . the balance. or select classes of occupation for taxation. Pres. amended P. limitations and restrictions must be quantitative.D.' and that "if a special tax is collected for a specific purpose. Subsequently. 1956. NO.

this is not the case. NO. or "a specific limit on how much to tax. as amended by Executive Order No. but as already discussed. 1956 expressly authorizes the ERB to impose additional amounts to augment the resources of the Fund. do not conveniently permit the setting of fixed or rigid parameters in the law as proposed by the petitioner. To do so would render the ERB unable to respond effectively so as to mitigate or avoid the undesirable consequences of such fluidity. LLADOC VS." The Court is cited to this requirement by the petitioner on the premise that what is involved here is the power of taxation." Under P. § 8(c) of P. the Court finds that the provision conferring the authority upon the ERB to impose additional amounts on petroleum products provides a sufficient standard by which the authority must be exercised. it seems clear that while the funds collected may be referred to as taxes.D. as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy.O. 16 JUN 1965] Page 42 Section 1-C. Hence. taking account of the circumstances under which it is to be exercised.D.L-19201. c) Any additional amount to be imposed on petroleum products to augment the resources of the Fund through an appropriate Order that may be issued by the Board of Energy requiring payment of persons or companies engaged in the business of importing. that the OPSF is a special fund is plain from the special treatment given it by E." Indeed. quantitative restriction. SY ’06-‘07 . the practice is not without precedent. and while it is placed in what the law refers to as a "trust liability account. What is here involved is not so much the power of taxation as police power. the standard as it is expressed suffices to guide the delegate in the exercise of the delegated power. for "being an undue and invalid delegation of legislative power to the Energy Regulatory Board. 137. this Trust Account may be funded from any of the following sources: a) Any increase in the tax collection from ad valorem tax or customs duty imposed on petroleum products subject to tax under this Decree arising from exchange rate adjustment. Held: The OPSF is a "Trust Account" which was established "for the purpose of minimizing the frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustment and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum products. 1956. as amended by Executive Order No. Although the provision authorizing the ERB to impose additional amounts could be construed to refer to the power of taxation. With regard to the alleged undue delegation of legislative power. 137 dated 27 February 1987. they are exacted in the exercise of the police power of the State.D." the fund nonetheless remains subject to the scrutiny and review of the COA. It is segregated from the general fund. d) Any resulting peso cost differentials in case the actual peso costs paid by oil companies in the importation of crude oil and petroleum products is less than the peso costs computed using the reference foreign exchange rate as fixed by the Board of Energy. as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy. No. 1956. What petitioner would wish is the fixing of some definite. manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE [14 SCRA 292. b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations. paragraph 1 (c) of P. The interplay and constant fluctuation of the various factors involved in the determination of the price of oil and petroleum products. As such. In addition to the general policy of the law to protect the local consumer by stabilizing and subsidizing domestic pump rates. and the frequently shifting need to either augment or exhaust the Fund. it cannot be overlooked that the overriding consideration is to enable the delegate to act with expediency in carrying out the objectives of the law which are embraced by the police power of the State. Moreover. No. The Court is satisfied that these measures comply with the constitutional description of a "special fund. 137.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not the unconstitutionality of 8.

No. The obligation of which contract was impaired by the enactment of sec. A gift tax is not a property by way of gift inter vivos.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Facts: Sometime in 1957. for the construction of a new Catholic church in the locality.000. the donor M. Crispin Ruiz. Negros Occidental. Issue: Whether or not the imposition of gift tax despite the fact the Fr. Lladoc.B. Lladoc was not the Parish priest at the time of donation.00 pesos in cash to Fr. and predecessor of Fr. so the plaintiff appealed. 164 is void or valid.B. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. On March 3.. 134 of the Internal Revenue Law infringing sec. Judgment reversed. of Bacolod City. SY ’06-‘07 . Held: Yes. Estate filed the donor's gift tax return. HORD [8 Phil 125. Page 43 Section 1-C. Sec. The Collector of Internal Revenue imposed tax on the properties. 5 of the Act of Congress which provides that “no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted”. Catholic Parish priest of Victorias did not have juridical personality as the constitutional exemption for religious purpose is valid. Under date of April 29. The plaintiff paid under protest. 600 paid by him as taxes. Issue: Whether or Not Sec. M. 134 of the Internal Revenue Law of 1904 is void because it impairs the obligation of contracts contained in the concessions of mine made by the Spanish Government. Estate Inc. 1960. under Section 22(3) Article VI of the Constitution contemplates exemption only from payment of taxes assessed on such properties as Property taxes contra distinguished from Excise taxes The imposition of the gift tax on the property used for religious purpose is not a violation of the Constitution. 9. CASSANOVAS VS. by virtue of a royal decree granted the plaintiff certain mines. Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued an assessment for the donee's gift tax against the Catholic Parish of Victorias of which petitioner was the parish priest. He brought an action against the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue to recover the sum of Php. 22 Mar 1907] Facts: The Spanish Govt. contending that they were valid perfected mine concessions and it falls within the provisions of sec. The plaintiff is now the owner of those mines. 1958. donated 10. 1189 known as Internal Revenue Act. The head of the Diocese and not the parish priest is the real party in interest in the imposition of the donee's tax on the property donated to the church for religious purpose. The donated amount was spent for such purpose. Held: The deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and the plaintiff. 3473. imposition of the gift tax was valid.134 of Act No. the parish priest of Victorias.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE BILL OF RIGHTS Page 44 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 .

The councilors must.. in the very nature of things. VS. 4760. has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people x x x . on the ground that in the revised charter of the City of Manila or in any other law. As underlying questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character. be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action. 4760 against the respondent Mayor of the City of Manila who was sued in his capacity as such charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the execution and enforcement of such ordinances. It was alleged that the petitioner non-stock corporation is dedicated to the promotion and protection of the interest of its eighteen members operating hotels and motels. and Go Chiu. law…” “No person shall be deprived of life." No such factual foundation being laid in the present case. Primarily what calls for a reversal of such a decision is the absence of any evidence to offset the presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute or ordinance. Held: A decent regard for constitutional doctrines of a fundamental character ought to have admonished the lower court against such a sweeping condemnation of the challenged ordinance. G. Issue: Whether or Not Ordinance No.L-24693. The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. 4760 of the City of Manila is unconstitutional. NO. The lower court on July 6. or property without due process of ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSO. There was the assertion of its being beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila to enact insofar as it regulate motels. 1963. the resumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute. We are asked to declare it void on the ground that the specific method of regulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due process of law. the presumption of validity must prevail and the judgment against the ordinance set aside. 4760 from and after July 8.R. Its decision cannot be allowed to stand. 1963 issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering respondent Mayor to refrain from enforcing said Ordinance No. no reference is made to motels. motels and lodging houses would be open for inspection either by the City Mayor.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests DUE PROCESS OF LAW Art 3. As was expressed categorically by Justice Malcolm: "The presumption is all in favor of validity x x x . or their duly authorized representatives. filed a petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. approved on June 14. where the American Supreme Court through Justice Brandeis tersely and succinctly summed up the matter thus: The statute here questioned deals with a subject clearly within the scope of the police power. 1. by enacting the ordinance. It was alleged that on June 13. MAYOR OF MANILA [20 SCRA 849. The principle has been nowhere better expressed than in the leading case of O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. 31 JULY 1967] Facts: Petitioners Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association with one of its members. The local legislative body. therefore. Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga. unless the statute or ordinance is void on its face which is not the case here. Page 45 Section 1-C. the president and general manager of the second petitioner. consistently with what has been the accepted standards of constitutional adjudication. the necessity for evidence to rebut it is unavoidable. The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation. or the Chief of Police. 1963. After which the alleged grievances against the ordinance were set forth in detail. SY ’06-‘07 . 1963 by the then acting City Mayor. it also being provided that the premises and facilities of such hotels. Sec. null and void. It admits of no doubt therefore that there being a presumption of validity. Hotel del Mar Inc. the lower court deciding the matter on the pleadings and the stipulation of facts. liberty. in both procedural and substantive aspects. the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. characterized as legitimate businesses duly licensed by both national and city authorities and regularly paying taxes.

COMELEC.R. hence constituting a violation of the due process principle. once an alien is admitted he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. It is an ordinance making it unlawful for any person not a citizen of the Philippines to be employed in any place of employment or to be engaged in any kind of trade business or occupation within the city of Manila without securing an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and for other purposes. the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Palimbang. as ruled in Fariñas vs. Held: It is a revenue measure. SY ’06-‘07 . Also it does not lay down any standard to guide the City Mayor in the issuance or denial of an alien employment permit fee. Issue: Whether or Not due the COMELEC has the power to suspend a proclamation or the effects thereof without notice and hearing. Hence. Furthermore. the second part which requires the payment of a sum of 50. Upon receipt of such letter. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho. 2001. While it is true that the first part which requires the alien to secure an employment permit from the Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in processing and approval or disapproval of application is regulatory in character. the Regional Election Registrar and the Provincial Elections Supervisor to submit their reports on the matter. 150540. Issue: Whether or Not Ordinance no. NAMIL VS. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on February 22. NO. COMELEC [414 SCRA 553. 2001 enjoys the presumption of regularity and validity since no contest or protest was even filed assailing the same. 1968 and signed by Mayor Villegas. Hence. the Commissioner-in-charge for Region XII asked the Law Department. Ordinance no. who was employed in Manila filed a petition praying for the writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of said ordinance.L-29646. The petitioners cannot be removed from office without due process of law. herein private respondents were proclaimed winners as well. 6537 is void and unconstitutional. The COMELEC is without power to partially or totally annul a proclamation or suspend the effects of a proclamation without notice and hearing. and not the petitioners. Sultan Kudarat proclaimed the petitioners as winning candidates for their Sangguniang Bayan. 28 OCT 2003] Facts: On May 20. The proclamation on May 20. This is tantamount to denial of the basic human right of the people in the Philippines to engaged in a means of livelihood. the COMELEC issued a Resolution ordering the immediate installation of the private respondents as the newly elected members of the Sangguniang Bayan.6537 violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests VILLEGAS VS. HIU CHIONG [86 SCRA 270.00 pesos to enable aliens generally to be employed in the city of Manila is not only for the purpose of regulation. 10 NOV 1978] Facts: The controverted Ordinance no. While it is true that the Philippines as a state is not obliged to admit aliens within it's territory. Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings before the COMELEC requires due notice and hearing. the proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be annulled if he has not been notified of any motion to set aside his proclamation. NO. Held: No. Private respondents claimed that they should be recognized as the winners. Page 46 Section 1-C. Petitioners contend that such Resolution is null and void because they were not accorded due notice and hearing. G. The following day.00 pesos is not a regulatory but a revenue measure. The city ordinance which imposes a fee of 50. This guarantee includes the means of livelihood. All of them found the second proclamation valid. even though petitioners herein have already taken their oath and have assumed office.

According to him. as petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to present its side. accountants. RA 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. the latter is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law and the same may never curtain or restrict the scope of the police power of the state. Inc. hence. NO. Specifically. PHIL. the COMELEC is without power to partially or totally annul a proclamation or suspend the effects of a proclamation without notice and hearing. G.98050. alleging that as a supervisory union duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment it was seeking to represent the supervisory employees of Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation. if it so desired. Issue: Whether or Not there was denial of due process. If ever the law infringes upon the said treaty. Held: There was no denial of due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or. professional (engineers. HERNANDEZ [101 PHIL 1155. analysts. 17 MAR 1994] Facts: Philphos Movement for Progress. PHILPHOS moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process. the instant petition alleging denial of due process on the part of the DOLE to which the mediator-arbiter was under. the PMPI filed an amended petition with the Mediator-Arbiter wherein it sought to represent not only the supervisory employees of petitioner but also its professional/technical and confidential employees.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Reyes vs. SY ’06-‘07 . filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner. an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of petitioner PHILPHOS agreed to file its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter and to consider the case submitted for decision on the basis of the position papers filed by the parties. the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China was violated according to him. technical. Besides. mechanics. (PMPI for brevity). Milado issued an order directing the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner. It was also then provided that police power can not be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract. and confidential employees. The Court also provided that RA 1180 was enacted to remedy a real and actual danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control.). This was protested by the petitioner in this case. Held: According to the Court. But it did not. petitioner could have. 31 MAY 1957] Facts: Republic Act 1180 or commonly known as “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” was passed. TORRES [231 SCRA 335. COMELEC and Gallardo vs. Mediator-Arbiter Rodolfo S. Moreover. COMELEC. as applied to administrative proceedings. PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORP. Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an order granting the petition and directing the holding of a certification election among the "supervisory. the said law violates the international and treaty of the Philippines therefore it is unconstitutional.R. Issue: Whether or Not Republic Act 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. L-7995. nurses. etc. midwives. Page 47 Section 1-C. ICHONG VS. The parties therein agreed to submit their respective position papers and to consider the amended petition submitted for decision on the basis thereof and related documents. The said law provides for a prohibition against foreigners as well as corporations owned by foreigners from engaging from retail trade in our country. PHILPHOS appealed the order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment who rendered a decision through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma dismissing the appeal. However. insisted on a hearing to confront and examine the witnesses of the other party. instead it opted to submit its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter. petitioner had all the opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its appeal to the Secretary of Labor. excluding therefrom the superintendents and the professional and technical employees. VS.

NO. 25 which states that “provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) are found is authorized. were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao. Naujan Lake. Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Solicitor-General adds the following. the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is Page 48 Section 1-C. G. somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States. against their will. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code.R. 7 MAR 1919] Facts: This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. all the Mangyans in the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests RUBI VS. the provincial governor of Mindoro issued executive order No. and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away form the reservation. Further. and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. But a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy. SY ’06-‘07 . (3) The protection of the Manguianes. 2. It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. Mindoro. The Court is further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. the following: (1) The failure of former attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao. to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board”. that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days. which says that the provincial governor has selected a site in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. In that case. Also. Thereafter. It is. Said resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam. The preamble of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro which set apart the Tigbao reservation. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO [39 PHIL 660. Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law. indeed. Considered purely as an exercise of the police power. in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. an unusual exercise of that power. (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam. 14078. and to introduce civilized customs among them. (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. assigned as reasons fort the action. Held: The Court held that section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws. and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. it will be read. It appeared that Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be punished. Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor.

KWONG SING VS. All. it seems that the same burdens are Page 49 Section 1-C. whether they belong to Americans. G. a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation. the furtherance of the prosperity. petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. It applies to all public laundries without distinction. peace. and each every one of them without distinction. putting in mind that they are Chinese nationals. CITY OF MANILA [41 PHIL 103. an attempt is not made to violate personal property rights. Held: Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible under the police power. an additional burden will be imposed on the business and occupation affected by the ordinance such as that of the appellant by learning even a few words in Spanish or English. 11 OCT 1920] Facts: Kwong Sing. 15972. It unjustly discriminates between persons in similar circumstances. The Manguianes. as we have said. None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. NO. therefore. Although. The permanent injunction was denied by the trial court. (ee) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety. and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants. 2744. and impairs no personal privilege. (Considering that in the year 1920s. in his own behalf and of other Chinese laundrymen who has general and the same interest. The Plaintiffs also questioned the validity of enforcing Ordinance No. but mostly Arabic numbers in order to properly issue a receipt. Therefore. Chinese. Issue: Whether or Not the enforcement of Ordinance no." as has been often held. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed. 532 requires that the receipt be in duplicate in English and Spanish duly signed showing the kind and number of articles delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments.) In whether the ordinance is class legislation. as amended by Act No. The obvious objection for the implementation of the ordinance is based in sec2444 (ee) of the Administrative Code. SY ’06-‘07 . They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines.R. The police power of the City of Manila to enact Ordinance No. for their own good and the good of the country. In some instances. 532 was to avoid disputes between laundrymen and their patrons and to protect customers of laundries who are not able to decipher Chinese characters from being defrauded. comfort. 532 is based on Section 2444. good order. people of Manila are more familiar with Spanish and maybe English. and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property rights. must comply with the ordinance. or any other nationality. The court held that the obvious purpose of Ordinance No. paragraphs (l) and (ee) of the Administrative Code. The appellants claim is that Ordinance No.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests considered. and the promotion of the morality. 532 by the city of Manila. must be confined for a time. even a hearing and notice are not requisite a rule which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases. Ordinance No. in order to fulfill this governmental policy. The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to benefit the Filipino people as a whole. Filipinos. convenience. To constitute "due process of law. authorizes the municipal board of the city of Manila. this is an appeal with the Supreme Court. Habeas corpus can. the court held that the ordinance invades no fundamental right. In view of the foregoing. without exception. Under the guise of police regulation. with the approval of the mayor of the city: (l) To regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for the following: xxxx xxxxxlaundries xxxx. The idea of the provision in question is to unify the people of the Philippines so that they may approach the highest conception of nationality. 532 is an act beyond the scope of police power Whether or not the enforcement of the same is a class legislation that infringes property rights. filed a complaint for a preliminary injunction. 532 savors of class legislation. They also contest that the enforcement of the legislation is an act beyond the scope of their police power. not issue.

NO. and the trial was about to proceed. when he and the other petitioner. or partnership or corporation engaged in commerce. promulgating rules and regulations on bearing. even if private rights of person or property are subjected to restraint. 20479. Arellano was apprehended and detained. wrote petitioner for the return of the two firearms issued to him by the House of Representatives. Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives. Petitioner also explained that Arellano was only complying with the firearms ban. YU CONG ENG VS. and that he was not a security officer or a bodyguard.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests cast upon the them. The Philippine government may make every reasonable requirement of its taxpayers to keep proper records of their business transactions in English or Spanish or Filipino dialect by which an adequate measure of what is due from them in meeting the cost of government can be had. 6 FEB 1925] Facts: The petitioner. 2327 providing for the summary disqualification of candidates engaged in gunrunning. NO. Later. Pursuant to the “Gun Ban”. according to petitioner. Spanish or any local dialect. on their own behalf. which provides that (Section 1) it shall be unlawful for any person. G. and on behalf of all the other Chinese merchants in the Philippines. and the collector of internal revenue engaged in the prosecution. the COMELEC issued Resolution No. using or transporting firearms or similar weapons” and other acts mentioned in the resolution are not within the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. company. Serrapio Taccad. The very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for the public welfare. Petitioner then instructed his driver. 2323. “Gun Ban”. or prosecuting attorney of Manila. in accordance with existing law. SY ’06-‘07 .R. and thus prevent them from keeping advised of the status of their business and directing its conduct. TRINIDAD [47 PHIL 385. and for petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified from running for an elective position. 7 OCT 1994] Facts: In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections. COMELEC also issued Resolution No. and in the Chinese characters. using and transporting of firearms. Yet. organizing special strike forces. and establishing spot checkpoints. to keep its account books in any language other than English. with costs against the appellants. because it would be oppressive and arbitrary. ANIAG VS. to pick up the firearms from petitioner’s house and return them to Congress. He then explained the order of petitioner. He argues that “gunrunning. this is not sufficient ground for failing to uphold the power of the legislative body. Co Liam. judgment is affirmed. and the petition for a preliminary injunction is denied. Yu Cong Eng. Mr. filed the petition against the fiscal. Issue: Whether or Not Act 2972 is unconstitutional.R. with a violation of Act 2972. Held: Yes. He was arrested. and against the judge presiding. industry or any other activity for the purpose of profit in the Philippine Islands. Resolution No. Issue: Page 50 Section 1-C. Finding that the ordinance is valid. 2327 is unconstitutional. COMELEC [237 SCRA 194. the PNP searched the car and found the firearms. carrying and transporting of firearm or other deadly weapons on security personnel or bodyguards. 2327. But we are clearly of opinion that it is not within the police power of the Philippine Legislature. When the car driven by Arellano approached the checkpoint. The PNP set up a checkpoint. was charged by information in the court of first instance of Manila. Thus. The issue on the disqualification of petitioner from running in the elections was rendered moot when he lost his bid for a seat in Congress in the elections. COMELEC issued Resolution No. his books were seized. G.92-0829 directing the filing of information against petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Arellano. Petitioner then questions the constitutionality of Resolution No. 104961. and organization or maintenance of reaction forces during the election period. on bearing arms by members of security agencies or police organizations. to prohibit all Chinese merchants from maintaining a set of books in the Chinese language. and even if loss will result to individuals from the enforcement of the ordinance.

Held: This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" as the indispensable imperative of due process. 1984. Issue: Whether or Not the Second Division of the Commission on Elections authorized to promulgate its decision of July 23. arguing that the proclamation was void because made only by a division and not by the Commission on Elections en banc as required by the Constitution. Consequently. proclaiming the private respondent the winner in the election. 22 SEPT 1986] Facts: The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 elections. the guns were not tucked in Arellano’s waist nor placed within his reach. we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. Meanwhile. Seven suspects. However. 1984. They must believe in his sense of fairness. G. allegedly by the latter's men. Hence.R. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. JAVIER VS. His complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Second Division of the said body. otherwise they will not seek his judgment. NOS. it cannot be contended that petitioner was fully given the opportunity to meet the accusation against him as he was not informed that he was himself a respondent in the case. They must trust the judge. Given these circumstances. SY ’06-‘07 . the private respondent took his oath as a member of the Batasang Pambansa. on the strength of his proclamation. including respondent Pacificador. On May 13. There cannot be equal Page 51 Section 1-C. Absent any justifying circumstance specifically pointing to the culpability of petitioner and Arellano. The petitioner thereupon came to this Court. L-68379-81. It was also shown in the facts that the PNP had not informed the public of the purpose of setting up the checkpoint. the search could not have been valid. set aside. They should be sure that when their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. Without such confidence. otherwise they will not go to him at all. Resolution No. the bitter contest between the two came to a head when several followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed. and therefore. The former appeared to enjoy more popular support but the latter had the advantage of being the nominee of the KBL with all its perquisites of power. To bolster that requirement. the firearms obtained from the warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. Fair play cans for equal justice.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not petitioner can be validly prosecuted for instructing his driver to return the firearms issued to him on the basis of the evidence gathered from the warrant less search of his car Held: A valid search must be authorized by a search warrant issued by an appropriate authority. Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. COMELEC [144 SCRA 194. 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. the warrantless search conducted by the PNP is declared illegal and the firearms seized during the search cannot be used as evidence in any proceeding against the petitioner. He was not informed by the City Prosecutor that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation. In the case at bar. the petitioner went to the Commission on Elections to question the canvass of the election returns. are now facing trial for these murders. 92-0829 is unconstitutional. Owing to what he claimed were attempts to railroad the private respondent's proclamation. the eve of the elections. Thus. the PNP could not have thoroughly searched the car lawfully as well as the package without violating the constitutional injunction. there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect. as they were neatly packed in gun cases and placed inside a bag at the back of the car. Petitioner was also not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Such constituted a violation of his right to due process.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
justice where a suitor approaches a court already committed to the other party and with a judgment already made and waiting only to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. Judicial (and also extra-judicial) proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which the parties are supposed to make the motions and reach the denouement according to a prepared script. There is no writer to foreordain the ending. The judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed, on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent law. YNOT VS. IAC [148 SCRA 659; G.R. NO. 74457; 20 MAR 1987] Facts: Executive Order No. 626-A prohibited the transportation of carabaos and carabeef from one province to another. The carabaos of petitioner were confiscated for violation of Executive Order No 626-A while he was transporting them from Masbate to Iloilo. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A. The government argued that Executive Order No. 626-A was issued in the exercise of police power to conserve the carabaos that were still fit for farm work or breeding. Issue: Whether or Not EO No. 626-A is a violation of Substantive Due Process. Held: The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of police power, because it is not reasonably necessary for the purpose of the law and is unduly oppressive. It is difficult to see how prohibiting the transfer of carabaos from one province to another can prevent their indiscriminate killing. Retaining the carabaos in one province will not prevent their slaughter there. Prohibiting the transfer of carabeef, after the slaughter of the carabaos, will not prevent the slaughter either. PHILCOMSAT VS. ALCUAZ [180 SCRA 218; G.R. NO.84818; 18 DEC 1989] Facts: Herein petitioner is engaged in providing for services involving telecommunications. Charging rates for certain specified lines that were reduced by order of herein respondent Jose Alcuaz Commissioner of the National Telecommunications Commission. The rates were ordered to be reduced by fifteen percent (15%) due to Executive Order No. 546 which granted the NTC the power to fix rates. Said order was issued without prior notice and hearing. Issue: Whether or Not E.O. 546 is unconstitutional. Held: Yes. Respondents admitted that the application of a policy like the fixing of rates as exercised by administrative bodies is quasi-judicial rather than quasi-legislative. But respondent’s contention that notice and hearing are not required since the assailed order is merely incidental to the entire proceedings and temporary in nature is erroneous. Section 16(c) of the Public Service Act, providing for the proceedings of the Commission, upon notice and hearing, dictates that a Commission has power to fix rates, upon proper notice and hearing, and, if not subject to the exceptions, limitations or saving provisions. It is thus clear that with regard to rate-fixing, respondent has no authority to make such order without first giving petitioner a hearing, whether the order be temporary or permanent, and it is immaterial whether the same is made upon a complaint, a summary investigation, or upon the commission's own motion as in the present case. WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is GRANTED and the order of respondents is hereby SET ASIDE. EASTERN BROADCASTING CORP (DYRE) V. DANS JR.

Page 52 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
[137 SCRA 628; L-59329; 19 JUL 1985] Facts: A petition was filed to reopen the Radio Station DYRE. DYRE was “summarily closed” on grounds of national security. The radio station was allegedly used to incite people to sedition. Petitioner, DYRE contends that they were denied due process. There was no hearing to establish factual evidence for the closure. Furthermore, the closure of the radio station violates freedom of expression. Before the court could even promulgate a decision upon the Issue raised, Petitioner, through its president Mr. Rene Espina, filed a motion to withdraw the petition. The rights of the station were sold to a new owner, Manuel Pastrana; who is no longer interested in pursuing the case. Despite the case becoming moot and academic, (because there are no longer interested parties, thus the dismissal of the case) the Supreme Court still finds that there is need to pass a “RESOLUTION” for the guidance of inferior courts and administrative tribunals in matters as this case. Issue: Whether or not due process was exercised in the case of DYRE. Whether or not the closure of DYRE is a violation of the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Expression. Held: The court finds that the closure of the Radio Station in 1980 as null and void. The absence of a hearing is a violation of Constitutional Rights. The primary requirements in administrative proceedings are laid down in the case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relation (69 Phil.635). The Ang Tibay Doctrine should be followed before any broadcast station may be closed. The Ang Tibay Doctrine provides the following requirements:

(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

The right to hearing, includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence presented. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented The decision must have something to support itself. Evidence must be substantial (reasonable evidence that is adequate to support conclusion) Decision must be based on the evidence presented at hearing The tribunal body must act on its own independent consideration of law and facts and not simply accept subordinate’s views Court must render decision in such a manner that the proceeding can know the various issued involved and reasons for decisions rendered.

The court stresses that while there is no controlling and precise definition of Due Process, it gives an unavoidable standard that government actions must conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty and property is valid. The closure of the radio station is like wise a violation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression. The court stresses that all forms of media, whether print or broadcast are entitled to this constitutional right. Although the government still has the right to be protected against broadcasts which incite the listeners to violently overthrow it. The test for the limitation of freedom of expression is the “clear and present danger” rule. If in the circumstances that the media is used in such nature as to create this danger that will bring in such evils, then the law has the right to prevent it. However, Radio and television may not be used to organize a rebellion or signal a start of widespread uprising. The freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. The people continues to have the right to be informed on public affairs and broadcast media continues to have the pervasive influence to the people being the most accessible form of media. Therefore, broadcast stations deserve the the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution. ANG TIBAY VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CIR) [69 PHIL 635; G.R. NO. 46496; 27 FEB 1940] Facts: There was agreement between Ang Tibay and the National Labor Union, Inc (NLU). The NLU alleged that the supposed lack of leather material claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme

Page 53 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
adopted to systematically discharge all the members of the NLU, from work. And this averment is desired to be proved by the petitioner with the records of the Bureau of Customs and Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather. That National Worker's Brotherhood Union of Ang Tibay is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, which was alleged by the NLU as an illegal one. The CIR, decided the case and elevated it to the Supreme Court, but a motion for new trial was raised by the NLU. But the Ang Tibay filed a motion for opposing the said motion. Issue: Whether or Not, the motion for new trial is meritorious to be granted. Held: To begin with the issue before us is to realize the functions of the CIR. The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation which is the Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the government. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the CIR, as will appear from perusal of its organic law is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or quasijudicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter controversy or disputes arising between, and/ or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulates the relations between them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of CA 103. As laid down in the case of Goseco v. CIR, the SC had the occasion to point out that the CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.

The fact, however, that the CIR may be said to be free from rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: (1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's cause and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) The decision must have something to support itself; (4) The evidence must be substantial; (5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing; or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue involved, and the reason for the decision rendered. The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to the parties adversely affected by the result. Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should be, and the same is hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the CIR, with instruction that it reopen the case receive all such evidence as may be relevant, and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth. So ordered. ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY VS. HON. JUDGE IGNACIO CAPULONG [222 SCRA 644; G.R. 99327; 27 MAY 1993] Facts: Leonardo H. Villa, a first year law student of Petitioner University, died of serious physical injuries at Chinese General Hospital after the initiation rites of Aquila Legis. Bienvenido Marquez was also hospitalized at the Capitol Medical Center for acute renal failure occasioned by the serious

Page 54 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

Thereafter the US government. to avoid flight. 24 SEPT 2002] Facts: The United States of America. the Board left the imposition of the penalty to the University Administration. pursuant to the existing RP-US extradition treaty. SY ’06-‘07 . 148571. such as petitioner university herein. Fr. Present is the twin elements of notice and hearing. copies of the charges. Petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee which was tasked to investigate and submit a report within 72 hours on the circumstances surrounding the death of Lennie Villa. Instead of filing a reply. In the meantime." Respondent students were then required to file their written answers to the formal charge. Before the RTC could render its decision. A day after the expiration of the temporary restraining order. thus: (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them. more particularly procedural due process. Held: There was no denial of due process. they were placed on preventive suspension. US GOVERNMENT VS. It is accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is when the case involves a question of law. if desired: (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf. The nature and cause of the accusation were adequately spelled out in petitioners' notices. This was requested to be stricken out by the respondents and argued that the creation of the Special Board was totally unrelated to the original petition which alleged lack of due process. In such event. Dean of the Ateneo Law School. Issue: Was there denial of due process against the respondent students. filed Petition for Extradition and Jimenez’s immediate arrest. Upon receipt of the request. Respondent students argue that petitioners are not in a position to file the instant petition under Rule 65 considering that they failed to file a motion for reconsideration first before the trial court. Respondent students filed with RTC Makati a TRO since they are currently enrolled. Dean del Castillo created a Special Board to investigate the charges of hazing against respondent students Abas and Mendoza. where the issue is whether or not respondent students have been afforded procedural due process prior to their dismissal from Petitioner University. JUDGE PURUNGAN [389 SCRA 623. respondent students requested through their counsel. Jimenez filed an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion. through DOJ. as in this case. This was granted. the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action. they failed to file a reply. thereby by passing the latter and the Court of Appeals. G. and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. NO. Said notice also required respondent students to submit their written statements within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt. A TRO was also issued enjoining petitioners from dismissing the respondents. The Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee. Jimenez.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests physical injuries inflicted upon him on the same occasion. found a prima facie case against respondent students for violation of Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline. notified and required respondent students to submit their written statement on the incident." praying that his application for Page 55 Section 1-C. Petitioner Dean created a Disciplinary Board to hear the charges against respondent students. Bernas imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students. in view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal. Although respondent students received a copy of the written notice.R. (2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel. requested the extradition of Mark B. after receiving the written statements and hearing the testimonies of several witness. However. Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions. The Board found respondent students guilty of violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing activities. This was granted and reinstatement of the students was ordered. Accordingly. the RTC held that Jimenez shell be deprived of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.

Consequently. Having once escaped the jurisdiction of the requesting state. After being taken into custody. 2001 Order. Issue: Whether or not Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued. the reasonable prima facie presumption is that the person would escape again if given the opportunity. available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary nature of extradition.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests an arrest warrant be set for hearing. Whether or not he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending. extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which guilt or innocence is determined. During which. Indeed. an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. they have the burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community. he immediately Issue a warrant for the arrest of the potential extraditee and summons him or her to answer and to appear at scheduled hearings on the petition. and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody. Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order. SY ’06-‘07 . it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. bail is not a matter of right. Page 56 Section 1-C. humanitarian or compelling circumstances. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to fundamental fairness. the cancellation of the bond. Held: By nature. he was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4. the lower court issued its questioned July 3. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. and (b) there exist special. In extradition cases. Thus. 2001. potential extraditees may apply for bail. which was granted. Hence. if the judge is convinced that a prima facie case exists. Since the applicants have a history of absconding. directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. After Jimenez had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond.

Sec. Order No. CAYAT [68 PHIL 12. one of which is that the classification under the law must rest on real or substantial distinctions. 1. Issue: Whether or Not the law denies equal protection to one prosecuted and sentenced for violation of said law. Act No. Held: No. DRILON [163 SCRA 386. is engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers. Issue: Page 57 Section 1-C. it also being an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. exempts only the so-called native wines or liquors which the members of such tribes have been accustomed to take. PASEI VS. It is intended to apply for all times as long as those conditions exists. Phil association of Service Exporters.. providing for worker participation in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. 30 JUN 1988] Facts: Petitioner. male and female of overseas employment. Inc.” It claims that such order is a discrimination against males and females. NO. It is designed to insure peace and order in and among the non. This law is not limited in its application to conditions existing at the time of the enactment. 1 (1998) of DOLE entitled “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers. receive. L-81958.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests EQUAL PROTECTION Art 3. The classification between the members of the non. any intoxicating liquors of any kind. Thereafter the Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE submitting to the validity of the challenged guidelines involving the police power of the State and informed the court that the respondent have lifted the deployment ban in some states where there exists bilateral agreement with the Philippines and existing mechanism providing for sufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare and protection of the Filipino workers. SY ’06-‘07 .Christians by reason of their degree of culture is not an argument against the equality of its operation nor affect the reasonableness of the classification thus established. The Order does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills. It challenges the constitutional validity of Dept. That it may be unfair in its operation against a certain number of non. The Act applies equally to all members of the class.Christian tribes has often resulted in lawlessness and crime thereby hampering the efforts of the government to raise their standards of life and civilization. The term ‘non-Christian tribes’ refers to a geographical area and more directly to natives of the Philippines of a low grade civilization usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities. 45987.” PEOPLE VS. The distinction is reasonable. 1639.Christian and the members of the Christian tribes is not based upon accident of birth or parentage but upon the degree of civilization and culture. The distinction is reasonable for the Act was intended to meet the peculiar conditions existing in the non. “…nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. 5 MAY 1939] Facts: “Law prohibits any member of a non-Christian tribe to buy. It satisfies the requirements of a valid classification. G. have in his possession. and that it is in violation of the right to travel. PASEI invokes Sec 3 of Art 13 of the Constitution.” The law.R.Christian tribes” The prohibition is germane to the purposes of the law. Further. or drink.

Police power as been defined as the state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote general welfare. to the requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by law. rest on substantial distinctions. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution.52 is unconstitutional being contrary to the equal protection and due process rights. NO. Inc. Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No.1 applies only to female contract workers but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. The consequence of the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right. Retirement is not a reasonable disqualification for elective local officials because there can be retirees who are even younger and a 65 year old retiree could be as good as a 65 year old official who is not a retiree. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILS. the Filipino female domestics working abroad were in a class by themselves. The guarantee of equal protection is subject to rational classification based on reasonable and real differentiations. Section 4 provided that any retired municipal or provincial city official that already received retirement benefits and is 65 years of age shall not be qualified to run for the same local elective office from which he has retired. 1 does not impair the right to travel.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or not there has been a valid classification in the challenged Department Order No. because of the special risk to which their class was exposed. Issue: Whether or Not Sec. employees 65 years of age have been classified differently from younger employees. the classifications made. 2. 4 of BP. 1. as the right to travel is subjects among other things. DUMLAO VS. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392. But there is reason to disqualify a 65 year old elective official who is trying to run for office because there is the “need for new blood to assume relevance”. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE with rule making powers. VS.R. It is well settled hat equality before the law under the constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and women. the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid. 4. L-52245. COMELEC [289 SCRA 337. Such classification rests on substantial distinctions That they are germane to the purpose of the law They are not confined to existing conditions They apply equally to al members of the same class In the case at bar. 3. Held: SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid classification. provided that: 1. It admits of classification. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. Order No. There is no question that Order No. Held: No. It was declared to be Page 58 Section 1-C. 132922. SY ’06-‘07 . Deployment ban of female domestic helper is a valid exercise of police power. WHEREFORE. The former are subject to compulsory retirement while the latter are not. 22 JAN 1980] Facts: Petitioner questions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. In the present case. Dept. 21 APR 1998] Facts: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines. When an official has retired he has already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same government work. G.

The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time as against newspapers and magazines which require payment of just compensation for the print space they may provide is likewise without merit. Thus. it stands to lost P58. No. For this purpose. Whether or not Section 92 of B.P.498. free of charge. NO. 881 which provides: “Comelec Time. which are given franchises. Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running to several million pesos in providing COMELEC Time in connection with the 1992 presidential election and 1995 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even more should it be required to do so again this year. Regulation of the broadcast industry requires spending of public funds which it does not do in the case of print media.The Commission shall procure radio and television time to be known as the “Comelec Time” which shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within the area of coverage of all radio and television stations. Page 59 Section 1-C. it was not able to show that it was to suffer from actual or threatened injury as a result of the subject law. in this year’s elections. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast that there are frequencies to assign.850. B. were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). among other reasons. 128096. the state spends considerable public funds in licensing and supervising them. To require the broadcast industry to provide free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the industry gets. such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service.560. Petitioner operates radio and television broadcast stations in the Philippines affected by the enforcement of Section 92. on the other hand. Petitioners claim that the primary source of revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air time to advertisers and to require these stations to provide free air time is to authorize unjust taking of private property. All broadcasting. 881 constitutes taking of property without due process of law and without just compensation. According to petitioners. Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and petitioner-intervenors. whether radio or by television stations. during the period of campaign. SY ’06-‘07 .00 in view of COMELEC’s requirement that it provide at least 30 minutes of prime time daily for such. B. LACSON VS. Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92. Section 92 provides that air time shall be procured by COMELEC free of charge. No. had the requisite standing to bring the constitutional challenge. do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images. 20 JAN 1999] Facts: Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. the franchise of all radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or television time.P.R. an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies. 881 denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws. No. They are merely given the temporary privilege to use them. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [301 SCRA 298. in 1992 it lost P22. As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves. No.00 in providing free air time for one hour each day and.P. G. no private property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the COMELEC.” Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the same law requires COMELEC to procure print space in newspapers and magazines with payment.980. Held: Petitioner’s argument is without merit. Radio and television broadcasting companies. 881. Thus it contends that Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time. Petitioner GMA Network. In granting the privilege to operate broadcast stations and supervising radio and television stations. Issue: Whether of not Section 92 of B.P.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests without legal standing to sue in this case as. is licensed by the government.

8249 is not a penal law. all of which are present in this case. (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law. After a reinvestigation. it was held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it is intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions.” There is nothing ex post facto in R. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators to investigate the said incident. as regards the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Every classification made by the law is presumed reasonable and the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness.A. including Section 7 which provides that the said law shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Held: Petitioner and intervenors’ posture that Sections 4 and 7 of R.A.A.A. However. Issue: Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R. pending resolution of their motions. Montejo. a member of the Criminal Investigation Command. asserting that under the amended informations. upon examination of the amended information.A. They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or ore of the “principal accused” are government officals with Salary Grade 27 or higher. the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 of R. 7975. Such intimate relation must be alleged in the information which is essential in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the law is too shallow to deserve merit. or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. the Ombudsman filed amended informations before the Sandiganbayan. one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and provide for their punishment. and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto statute. a review board modified the panel’s finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six respondents including herein petitioner. 7975. they did not qualify under said requisites. 8249 violate the petitioners’ right to due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution as the provisions seemed to have been introduced for the Sandiganbayan to continue to acquire jurisdiction over the Kuratong Baleleng case. R. but clearly a procedural statute. In People vs. Thus. where petitioner was charged only as an accessory. Not being a penal law.A.A.A. (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only. SY ’06-‘07 . there was no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their Page 60 Section 1-C. R. The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in “any court. Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police operation. R. and herein petitioner-intervenors.” Contrary to petitioner and intervenors’ argument. has been declared by the Court as not a penal law. 8249 was approved amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused” in Section 2 of R. the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. charged as principal. to “all cases pending in any court. However. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. that what actually transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG. 8249. the retroactive application of R. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when the following concur: (1) it must rest on substantial distinction. Whether or not the multiple murder of the alleged members of the Kuratong Baleleng was committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers which is essential to the determination whether the case falls within the Sandiganbayan’s or Regional Trial Court’s jurisdiction. However. provides retroactive effect of penal laws. generally. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant such a declaration. charged as accessories. Ex post facto law.A. its mode of appeal and other procedural matters. 8249. Paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply “to all cases involving” certain public officials and under the transitory provision in Section 7. 7975.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes.

If the employer pays one employee less than the rest." The State." "to afford labor full protection. for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers. such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending their employment. While we recognize the need of the School to attract foreign-hires. skill. within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not the Sandiganbayan. INT'L. Private respondent International School. G. The stringent requirement that the charge set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was not established. cry discrimination. it is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests official duties as police officers. These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with Page 61 Section 1-C. The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. therefore. and home leave travel allowance. This presumption is borne by logic and human experience. of course. taxes. the amended information does not indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody. Held: The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of "equal pay for equal work. The School contends that petitioner has not adduced evidence that local-hires perform work equal to that of foreign-hires. (the School. SY ’06-‘07 . The employer has discriminated against that employee. That the local-hires are paid more than their colleagues in other schools is. 128845. That would be adding insult to injury. The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. 1 JUN 2000] Facts: Receiving salaries less than their counterparts hired abroad. Inc. except laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees. We agree. SCHOOL ALLIANCE VS. For the same reason. has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital. the School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty. Issue: Whether or Not the grants provided by the school to foreign hires and not to local hires discriminative of their constitutional right to the equal protection clause. If an employer accords employees the same position and rank. the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. its "international character" notwithstanding. transportation. under similar conditions. should be paid similar salaries. salaries should not be used as an enticement to the prejudice of local-hires. The local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires and they ought to be paid the same salaries as the latter. beside the point. is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. effort and responsibility. the local-hires of private respondent School. These include housing. therefore. namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. Accordingly. NO. the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and. from Philippine or other nationalities. This rule applies to the School. The Court finds this argument a little cavalier. classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.R. The School justifies the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure. pursuant to Presidential Decree 732. The point is that employees should be given equal pay for work of equal value. QUISUMBING [333 SCRA 13. Consequently. Section 2(c) of the same decree authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad." Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications. for short). the "dislocation factor" and the foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. To enable the School to continue carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction. Likewise. mostly Filipinos. it is not for that employee to explain why he receives less or why the others receive more. shipping costs.

On June 1. must yield to the common good. Issue: Whether or Not the ordinance is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause under Sec. should be in terms applicable to future conditions as well. Art. 17 FEB 1968] Facts: On January 29. 4. with service of a copy upon the Solicitor General. (4) the classification applies only to those who belong to the same class. Art. 1 [1]. Series of 1964. Ormoc Sugar Company. and a classification is reasonable where (1) it is based on substantial distinctions which make real differences. rendered a decision that upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance and declared the taxing power of defendant chartered city broadened by the Local Autonomy Act to include all other forms of taxes. the defendants asserted that the tax ordinance was within defendant city's power to enact under the Local Autonomy Act and that the same did not violate the afore-cited constitutional limitations. (2) these are germane to the purpose of the law. was the only sugar central in the city of Ormoc. 22[1]). The orders of the secretary of labor and employment dated June 10. courts will not hesitate to strike down these stipulations. on August 6. the Court of First Instance. Inc. Constitution). . We ruled that the equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subject of legislation. as the entity to be levied upon.. 1[1]. 087. III. 1964 for P7. Held: The Constitution in the bill of rights provides: ". 1964 for P5. In this case. As it is now. to be reasonable. Constitution) and the rule of uniformity of taxation (Sec.50. The petition is hereby granted in part. are hereby reversed and set aside insofar as they uphold the practice of respondent school of according foreign-hires higher salaries than local-hires. 22[1]. Inc. or a total of P12. After pre-trial and submission of the case on memoranda. Salas. ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY VS. by Ormoc Sugar Company.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests public interest that labor contracts. licenses or fees not excluded in its charter. Answering." Payments for said tax were made. 087. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. for the coverage of the tax. Art. 000. imposing "on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company. it cannot be subject to the tax because the ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc City Sugar Company. Should such contracts contain stipulations that are contrary to public policy. it is true. in Ormoc City a municipal tax equivalent to one per centum (1%) per export sale to the United States of America and other foreign countries. and none other. VI. under protest.50 and on April 20. the Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed Ordinance No. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. 1964." (Sec. collective bargaining agreements included. filed before the Court of First Instance of Leyte. III) In Felwa vs. Inc. (3) the classification applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the present. the classification. Municipal Board and Mayor. Wherefore. VI. on March 20. III. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY [22 SCRA 603. Inc. alleging that the afore-stated ordinance is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause (Sec. the petition is given due course. a complaint against the City of Ormoc as well as its Treasurer. 1996 and march 19. even if later a similar company is set up. Constitution. Ormoc Sugar Company. At the time of the taxing ordinance's enactment. Whether or not it was violative of the rule of uniformity of taxation under the Bill of Rights. L-23794. Page 62 Section 1-C. A perusal of the requisites instantly shows that the questioned ordinance does not meet them. SY ’06-‘07 . Inc. 1964. for it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company. 1964. we find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. Art. Inc. Constitution. 1[1]. Still. of the same class as plaintiff. Art. .. The taxing ordinance should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar central. Sec. 1997.

on the refund because the taxes were not arbitrarily collected (Collector of Internal Revenue v. the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause. the ordinance provided a sufficient basis to preclude arbitrariness. MeTCs. 92-28 to implement Section 35 of RA 7354 withdrawing the franking privilege from the SC. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. RTCs. CA. G. as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. What the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike.087. No costs.R. Section 35 of RA 7354 is declared unconstitutional. MTCs and Land Registration Commission and with certain other government offices. 11 NOV 1993] Facts: The Philippine Postal Corporation issued circular No. Senator & members of the House of Representatives. it retains the same for the President & Vice-President of the Philippines. 6 At the time of collection. the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. The respondents counter that there is no discrimination because the law is based on a valid classification in accordance with the equal protection clause. the same being then presumed constitutional until declared otherwise. is not entitled to interest. COMELEC. Issue: Whether or Not Section 35 of RA 7354 is constitutional. VS.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Appellant. Held: The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process. So ordered. It is alleged that RA 7354 is discriminatory becasue while withdrawing the franking privilege from judiciary. National Census & Statistics Office and the general public. NO. SY ’06-‘07 . 92-28 is set aside insofar Page 63 Section 1-C. PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSO. It has nonetheless been embodied in a separate clause in Article III Section 1 of the Constitution to provide for amore specific guarantee against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government. the challenged ordinance is declared unconstitutional and the defendants-appellees are hereby ordered to refund the P12. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Binalbagan).50 plaintiff-appellant paid under protest. Wherefore. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice. PRADO [227 SCRA 703. Circular No. however. 105371.

the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. 2. the husband totally opened the packages. can accused/appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure has been violated. “The law enforcers testified that accused/appellant was informed of his constitutional rights. 18 JAN 1991] Facts: Accused-appellant went to a forwarding agency to send four packages to a friend in Zurich. after examination by forensic chemists. “The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person. the husband of the proprietress opened said boxes for final inspection.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Art 3.” PEOPLE VS.” No. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Having observed that which is open. where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof. The contents . the NBI took custody of said packages. 5(m). It is presumed that they have regularly performed their duties (See. the accused was asked by the proprietress if the packages can be examined. Second. Whether or Not custodial investigation properly applied. Stated otherwise. Issue: Whether or Not the items admitted in the searched illegally searched and seized. SY ’06-‘07 . From that inspection. NO. Held: No. be invoked against the State. was invited by the agents for questioning. Sec. MARTI [193 SCRA 57. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. he refused. papers. there being no evidence to the contrary. while claiming his mail at the Central Post Office. The appellant. 81561. allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional rights. Rule 131) and their testimonies should be given full faith and credence. In the absence of governmental interference. or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. Job Reyes. Under the circumstances. It was Mr. In their presence. Later on. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons. may an act of a private individual. Afterwards.” Page 64 Section 1-C. He brought a letter and the said sample to the National Bureau of Investigation. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Sec. G. the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Before delivering said packages to the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Posts. included in the standard operating procedure and out of curiosity. “(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court. three agents went back with him. However. the trial court found him guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.” Art 3. he took several grams of its contents. When the NBI was informed that the rest of the shipment was still in his office. the proprietor of the forwarding agency. acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation of State authorities. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. houses. Whether or Not the trial court not give credence to the explanation of the appellant on how said packages came to his possession. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. is not search.R. Initially. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts. were found to be marijuana flowering tops. who made search/inspection of the packages. 3.

explained that the check she received from YSP was a Christmas gift and not a "refund of overprice. On 31 July 1989. Nevertheless. Catolico requested access to the file containing Sales Invoice No. she was informed that effective 6 February 1990 to 7 March 1990. WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda Bautro. appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise. In its decision of 30 September 1993. Page 65 Section 1-C. as this would impair the company's control of purchases and. SY ’06-‘07 . On the same date. It found that petitioner's evidence consisted only of the check of P640. Petitioners seasonably appealed from the decision and urged the NLRC to set it aside because the Labor Arbiter erred in finding that Catolico was denied due process and that there was no just cause to terminate her services. respondents' case falls apart as it is bereft of evidence which cannot be used as a legal basis for complainant's dismissal. Catolico filed before the Office of the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor practice.R. WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda E. are owned by him (Sec. However. she would be placed on preventive suspension to protect the interests of the company. the dismissal was without just cause and due process. 5 [j]." since fellow employee Irene Soliven "obtained the medicines in bad faith and through misrepresentation when she claimed that she was given a charge slip by the Admitting Dept. within twenty-four hours. Co issued another memorandum to Catolico warning her not to negotiate with suppliers of medicine without consulting the Purchasing Department. In a letter dated 2 February 1990. Catolico received a memorandum from WATEROUS Vice President-General Manager Emma R. At this point. On 5 May 1990. Catolico. through her counsel. In a memorandum dated 21 November 1989.” WATEROUS DRUG VS. Catolico did not deny her responsibility but explained that her act was "due to negligence. Inc. “Appellant signed the contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving more weight to the presumption that things which a person possesses." and to show that any investigation was conducted. Forthwith. and she was granted a 48-hour extension from 1 to 3 February 1990. In said letter she protested Saldaña's invasion of her privacy when Saldaña opened an envelope addressed to Catolico. in her memorandum dated 37 January 1990. G." Catolico then asked the company to look into the fraudulent activities of Soliven. he decided in favor of Catolico because petitioners failed to "prove what alleged as complainant's dishonesty. Irene Soliven.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests No. Catolico asked for additional time to give her explanation. her side of the reported irregularity. But. the NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter on the ground that petitioners were not able to prove a just cause for Catolico's dismissal from her employment. In a letter to Co dated 10 February 1990. issued a memorandum notifying Catolico of her termination. In his decision of 10 May 1993. As regards the first memorandum. by virtue of the constitutional right invoked by complainants. Co warning her not to dispense medicine to employees chargeable to the latter's accounts because the same was a prohibited practice." She also averred that the preventive suspension was ill-motivated. Hence.NO. 266 for her to be able to make a satisfactory explanation. illegal dismissal. Co asked Catolico to explain. It concluded: With the smoking gun evidence of respondents being rendered inadmissible. or exercises acts of ownership over. on 2 February 1990." On 29 January 1990. WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals. 16 OCT 1997] Facts: Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner Waterous Drug Corporation on 15 August 1988. Labor Arbiter Alex Arcadio Lopez found no proof of unfair labor practice against petitioners. and illegal suspension. He thus declared the dismissal and suspension illegal but disallowed reinstatement. NLRC [280 SCRA 735 . which her co-employee saw when the latter opened the envelope. besides she was not authorized to deal directly with the suppliers. Rule 131). On 5 March 1990. 113271.00 drawn by YSP in favor of complainant. Bautro warned Catolico against the "rush delivery of medicines without the proper documents. as it sprang from an earlier incident between her and Co's secretary. it declared that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution.

and assisted by a representative if the employee so desires. that the evidence against private respondent was inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of her constitutional rights of privacy of communication and against unreasonable searches and seizures which is hereby set aside. As regards the constitutional violation upon which the NLRC anchored its decision. however. to which class of employees the term "trust and confidence" is restricted. or suspicion. Catolico was not shown to be a managerial employee. that the citizens have no recourse against such assaults. the check was discovered in violation of the constitutional provision on the right to privacy and communication. such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. whims.401.. respectively. and she had no duty to turn it over to her employer. petitioners insist that Catolico had been receiving "commissions" from YSP. that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals. given reasonable time to answer the charge. Besides. Held: As to the first and second grounds. the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the challenged decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 30 September 1993 and 2 December 1993. and its failure to discharge that burden would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified. caprices. we will uphold the award of separation pay as fixed by the Labor Arbiter. which in no case can justify an employee's dismissal. including legal representation. but modified the dispositive portion of the appealed decision by deleting the award for illegal suspension as the same was already included in the computation of the aggregate of the awards in the amount of P35. Catolico's dismissal then was obviously grounded on mere suspicion. in NLRC-NCR CA No. she was dismissed from the service in the memorandum of 5 March 1990 issued by her Supervisor after receipt of her letter and that of her counsel. Catolico was given ample opportunity to explain her side of the controversy. and even the dismissal of an employee for loss of trust and confidence must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness. or probably from other suppliers. It clearly appears then that Catolico's dismissal was based on hearsay information. except as to its reason for upholding the Labor Arbiter's decision. and as said counsel admits. as correctly held by the NLRC.86. aggravated by her "propensity to violate company rules. Besides. and there is no indication in the contentious check that it was meant as a refund for overpriced medicines. DIOKNO Page 66 Section 1-C. Company rules do not prohibit an employee from accepting gifts from clients. And contrary to the findings of NLRC. hence.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The NLRC then dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. although Catolico was given an opportunity to explain her side. As such. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is computed at one month's salary for every year of service. Ample opportunity connotes every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense. he correctly awarded separation pay to Catolico. allowed ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself." constituted breach of confidence. it was inadmissible in evidence. 005160-93 are AFFIRMED. Finally. On the contrary. In her Comment. Labor Arbiter Lopez computed the separation pay at one-half month's salary for every year of service. It is settled that the burden is on the employer to prove just and valid cause for dismissing an employee. Procedural due process requires that an employee be apprised of the charge against him. Catolico asserts that petitioners' evidence is too "flimsy" to justify her dismissal. In the case at bar. as counsel for Catolico claims. The check in issue was given to her. STONEHILL VS. Catolico was also unjustly dismissed. It is not true. Issue: Whether or Not the dismissal of the private respondent is in violation of the Constitution. and that the check issued to her on 9 November 1989 was not the first or the last. viz. under the Bill of Rights. They also maintained that Catolico occupied a confidential position and that Catolico's receipt of YSP's check. In this case. Catolico was denied due process. since it has been determined by the Labor Arbiter that Catolico's reinstatement would not be to the best interest of the parties. Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided by the Labor Code for the termination of employment. No hearing was ever conducted after the issues were joined through said letters. SY ’06-‘07 . Catolico did not oppose or raise an objection. WHEREFORE.

papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants. Whether or not those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein are obtained legally. typewriters. were actually seized. Issue: Whether or not those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations are obtained legally.5 directed to the any peace officer. 1962. Held: The petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof. as "the subject of the offense. were cured by petitioners' consent. L-19550. 19 JUN 1967] Facts: Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin1 — hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Prosecutors — several judges2 — hereinafter referred to as RespondentsJudges — issued. and whatever the offices they hold therein may be. in effect. and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts. the aforementioned resolution of June 29." which is described in the applications adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws. it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. thereby. and (3) that.3 a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein4 and/or the corporations of which they were officers. namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations. and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. restraining herein Respondents-Prosecutors from using them in evidence against petitioners herein. Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code. and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities. balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers). and (b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein. correspondence. journals. to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision. and to seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit: Books of accounts. namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. credit journals. ledgers. separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners. papers. receipts. not mentioned in the warrants. (2) cash money. stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense. and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question may be split into two (2) major groups. vouchers. With respect to the documents. None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures. Indeed. The documents. and (5) the documents. papers and things seized in the residences of petitioners herein. SY ’06-‘07 ." Petitioners contentions are: (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents. the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had Page 67 Section 1-C. in any event." or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense. to be disposed of in accordance with law — Respondents-prosecutors contentions (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance with law. portfolios. to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices. if any. on different dates. financial records. warehouses and/or residences.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests [20 SCRA 383. (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them. Tariff and Customs Laws. Indeed. Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate. lifted the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued by this Court. (2) that the defects of said warrants. the effects seized are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners. regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said corporations. books and things to be seized. (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner.

Jr. Articles belonging to his co-petitioners were also seized although the warrants were only directed against Jose Burgos. Eulogio Mencias. he is stopped from challenging the validity of the search warrants.. Diokno. CHIEF OF STAFF. were seized.R. General Agricultural Corporation. Page 68 Section 1-C. and Assistant Fiscal Maneses G. 5 U. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper. Investment Inc. City of Manila. Quezon Avenue. in his capacity as Secretary of Justice. Brooks and Karl Beck. respectively. It would be the legal heresy. The Philippine Tobacco-FlueCuring and Redrying Corporation. American Asiatic Oil Corporation. Damian Jimenez. Amado Roan. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Hon. could or should have been done earlier. 4 Harry S. from the Metrocom Intelligence and Security Group could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a probable cause upon which a warrant may be validly issued in accordance with Section 3. Jose W. Quezon City. 4. Industrial Business Management Corporation. warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it). Industrial and Business Management Corporation. 5. Tariff and Customs Laws. by exercising due diligence. Jose Lukban. Special Prosecutors Pedro D. books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos. 3. it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause. Stonehill. or committed specific omissions. Robert P. 4. 2. 1982 by respondent Judge Cruz-Pano of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal. Holiday Hills. 3 Covering the period from March 3 to March 9. as mandated by the above-quoted constitutional provision as well as Sec." — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without reference to any determinate provision of said laws or __________________________ Hon. SY ’06-‘07 . paraphernalia. violating a given provision of our criminal laws. Road 3. Tobacco Corporation. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. SR. 64261." In other words. G. Investment Management Corporation. Judge of the Municipal (now City) Court of Manila. business addresses of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers. Respondents contend that petitioners should have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the court that issued them before impugning the validity of the same before this Court. equipment. motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing. Atlas Cement Corporation. Quezon City. under which the premises known as No. Republic Glass Corporation. As a consequence of the search and seizure. Respondents also assail the petition on ground of laches (Failure or negligence for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which. Quezon City Branch. documents.S. Project 6. and Hon. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. publication and distribution of the said newspapers. AFP [133 SCRA 800. Petitioners submit the following reasons to nullify the questioned warrants: 1. Jr. Plana and Manuel Villareal. As a consequence. and office and printing machines. of the highest order. V. As a matter of fact. Judge of the Municipal (now City) Court of Quezon City. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time. The application along with a joint affidavit. NO. 19.. Cenzon. National Bureau of Investigation. RMS Building. 1 BURGOS. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws. Brooks. Roman Cansino. these premises were padlocked and sealed. 1962. The search warrants pinpointed only one address which would be the former abovementioned address. as well as numerous papers. Jr. Judge of the Municipal (now City) Court of Manila. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. Republic Real Estate Corporation and Merconsel Corporation. upon which the warrants were issued. Far East Publishing Corporation (Evening News). no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers were discontinued. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws. Real properties were seized. Inc. Pasig Branch. Hon. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Atlas Development Corporation. the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. in his capacity as Acting Director. and 784 Units C & D. Reyes. Hon. United Housing Corporation. Hermogenes Caluag. Respondents further state that since petitioner had already used as evidence some of the documents seized in a prior criminal case. 26 DEC 1984] Facts: Petitioners assail the validity of 2 search warrants issued on December 7. 2 Hon. John J. Efren I. Respondent Judge failed to conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses. were searched. Tariff and Customs Laws.

With regard to the respondents invoking PD 885. The broad statements in the application and joint affidavit are mere conclusions of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Furthermore. NO. Deficient of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause. The existence of this special circumstance justifies this Court to exercise its inherent power to suspend its rules. 2. It would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place. the machineries in question. this Court takes cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional Issue raised. 4. 3. of the existence of probable cause. hand grenades. Natuel applied for issuance of search warrant alleging that he received information that Petitioner had in his possession at his house “M-16 Armalite rifles. said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave error for respondent judge to have done so. .R. In September. negating the presumption that they have abandoned their right to the possession of the seized property. pistols." Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. this Court ruled that "the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. The application was granted. Issue: Whether or Not the 2 search warrants were validly issued and executed. This objection may properly be considered moot and academic. The search warrants are declared null and void. which authorizes sequestration of the property of any person engaged in subversive activities against the government in accordance with implementing rules and regulations as may be issued by the Secretary of National Defense. as amended. Abadilla and his witnesses. as petitioners themselves conceded during the hearing on August 9.45 Cal. With the contention pertaining to laches. transceiver with antennae. G. Section 2. dynamite sticks and subversive documents”. while in fact bolted to the ground. It may or may not be owned by him. SY ’06-‘07 . On the enumerated reasons: 1. regulator supply. In Alvarez v. Precisely. 5. President Marcos himself denies the request of military authorities to sequester the property seized from petitioners. searched the house of petitioner and seized “2 envelopes containing P14000. P/Sgt. the petitioners gave an explanation evidencing that they have exhausted other extra-judicial efforts to remedy the situation. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Respondents justify the continued sealing of the printing machines on the ground that they have been sequestered under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. Held: In regard to the quashal of warrants that petitioners should have initially filed to the lower court. TAMBASEN VS. 89103. 885. Rule 126. Court of First Instance. there is an absence of any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the Minister of National Defense. not to mention the public interest generated by the search of the "We Forum" offices which was televised in Channel 7 and widely publicized in all metropolitan dailies. a police team. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. The closure of the premises subjected to search and seizure is contrary to the freedom of the press as guaranteed in our fundamental law. remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. 1983. academy Page 69 Section 1-C. which were “used or intended to be used” for illegal purposes. The description of the articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in question are too general. This being the case. Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. PEOPLE [246 SCRA 184. that an examination had indeed been conducted by respondent judge of Col. two search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct premises. handset with antennae. of the Rules of Court. 14 JUL 1995] Facts: In August 1988.

If on the face of the information.R. NOS. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the articles which were not mentioned in the search warrant was legal. Torres to return the money seized to petitioner ruling that any seizure should be limited to the specified items covered thereby. They contended that the fiscal’s certification in the informations of the existence of probable cause constitutes sufficient justification for the judge to issue warrants of arrest.R. In October. But. SolGen petitioned with the RTC for the annulment of the order of MTCC citing that pending the determination of legality of seizure of the articles. and (2) whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were Page 70 Section 1-C. issue a warrant of arrest. they should remain in custogia legis. in its order. Petition dismissed. RTC granted the petition. respondent issued an order requiring petitioners to submit to the court affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence in support of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by petitioners. MTCC. directed Lt. People of the Philippines is ordered to return the money seized. the judge finds no probable cause. petitioner moved that the search and seizure be declared illegal and that the seized articles be returned to him. to leave the officers of the law with no discretion. by the President. SY ’06-‘07 . it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of issuing magistrate. respondent judge set the hearing of the criminal cases to determine propriety of issuance of warrants of arrest. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function. In December. NO. that unreasonable search and seizure may not be made and that abuses may not be committed. for the purpose of issuing warrants of arrest. L-60349-62. Col. The police acts beyond the parameters of their authority if they seize articles not described in the search warrants. 29 DEC 1983] Facts: Petitioners filed informations in the city court and they certified that Preliminary Investigation and Examination had been conducted and that prima facie cases have been found. Held: Section 2 Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires that a search warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized. Petition granted. Issue: Whether or Not respondent city judge may. the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. Under Section 6 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners petitioned for certiorari and mandamus to compel respondent to issue warrants of arrest.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests notebook and assorted papers and handset battery pack”. three principal issues were raised: (1) whether or not petitioners were denied due process when informations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and. JUDGE VILLANUEVA [126 SCRA 463. PLACER VS. Upon receipt of said informations. G. SOLIVEN VS. 82585. 14 NOV 1988] Facts: In these consolidated cases. G. The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized. Held: Judge may rely upon the fiscal’s certification for the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof. MAKASIAR [167 SCRA 393. he may disregard the fiscal’s certification and require submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at the conclusion as to existence of probable cause. subsequently. After the hearing. such certification does not bind the judge to come out with the warrant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons. Following established doctrine and procedure. SY ’06-‘07 . houses. Whether or Not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses. Sound policy dictates this procedure. Sec. if any. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. This is not an accurate interpretation." in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits. gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. the President. he filed a "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed. 1988. On appeal. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. on the basis thereof. issue a warrant of arrest. On March 30. raised by petitioner Beltran.affidavits. Page 71 Section 1-C. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination nder oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. All that is required is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded. the allegation of denial of due process of law in the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter. to determine probable cause. The second issue. petitioners' contention that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law has lost factual support. the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue. through their separate acts. The pertinent provision reads: Art. affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on May 2. A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice on April 7. by the President. 2. through the Executive Secretary. a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained. calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. The petitions fail to establish that public respondents." has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. Issue: Whether or Not petitioners were denied due process when informations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the Executive Secretary on May 16. III. It has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. 1988. the Secretary of Justice denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration and upheld the resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice sustaining the City Fiscal's finding of a prima facie case against petitioners. The addition of the word "personally" after the word "determined" and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to "other responsible officers as may be authorized by law. With these developments. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. with regard to the issuance of the warrants of arrest. otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts. subsequently. 1988. 1988. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Hence.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses. to determine probable cause Held: With respect to petitioner Beltran. if any. Due process of law does not require that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed completed. Subsequent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic. Thus. he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.

of the Labor Code. Nos. It (the power to order arrests) cannot be made to extend to other cases. it is the sole domain of the courts. after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency. WHEREFORE. The team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties. Chan Sau Page 72 Section 1-C. because it must identify specifically the things to be seized. (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. 30 JUN 1967] Facts: Chan Sau Wah. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. obviously. Public respondent Atty. and the properties were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation. a Chinese citizen born in Fukien. we declare Article 38. Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code Held: Under the new Constitution.R. accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen. The Supreme Court held. went to petitioner’s residence. the authorities must go through the judicial process. . ACHACOSO [183 SCRA 145. the petition is GRANTED. L-22196. no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. For a Salazar. may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. 82585. SALAZAR VS. “. To that extent. On the same day. G. unconstitutional and of no force and effect… The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is. The Order to maintain the status quo contained in the Resolution of the Court en banc dated April 7. finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents. SY ’06-‘07 . The said Order violated due process. Samuel Lee Malaps. 82827 and 83979. public respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. who let them in. 14 MAR 1990] Facts: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA. not being a judge. in the care of neighbors in Fukien. It stated that there will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint against him. Under the Constitution. the search and seizure order was in the nature of a general warrant. paragraph (c). . NO. Article 38.” Furthermore. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests WHEREFORE. 1988 and reiterated in the Resolution dated April 26. Hence.R. because she was not given prior notice and hearing. The court held that the warrant is null and void. 81510. G. exceptional. R. A team was then tasked to implement the said Order. it having verified that petitioner has— (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment. 1205. VIVO [20 SCRA 562. China arrived in the Philippines on November 1961 to visit her cousin. The Closure and Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. like the one at bar. MORANO VS. the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions in G. 1205 to petitioner. paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. “We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor. They served the order to a certain Mrs. She left China and her children by a first marriage: Fu Tse Haw and Fu Yan Kai both minors. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of Rights. 1988 is LIFTED. China. The group. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest.

to leave the country on or before September 10. she must thereafter undergo examination by the officials of the Bureau of Immigration at the port of entry for determination of her admissibility in accordance with the requirements of the immigration Act. 58. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO [162 SCRA 840. Proof: She left two of her children by the first marriage.Recently we confirmed the rule that an alien wife of a Filipino may not stay permanently without first departing from the Philippines.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests wah arrived in the Philippines with Fu Yan Fun. NO. a woman of undesirable character may enter this country. They were apprehended 17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID in Pagsanjan. To prolong their stay in the Philippines. the wording of the statute heretofore adverted to is a forbidding obstacle which will prevent this Court from writing into the law an additional provision that marriage of a temporary alien visitor to a Filipino would ipso facto make her a permanent resident in his country. Also. Dutch Citizen Adriaan Van Den Elshout. G.Then. Fu Yan Fun. Page 73 Section 1-C. Born to this union on September 1962 was Esteban Morano. she may therefore be admitted if she were a qualified and desirable alien and subject to the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 9. All reside at Pagsanjan Laguna respondent Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago issued Mission Orders to the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) to apprehended petitioners at their residences. her minor son also by the first marriage. seemingly is not one who has a high regard for such solidarity. married in Manila a native-born Filipino. and consistently too. is impermissible. he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond. it would be an easy matter for an alien woman to enter the Philippines as a temporary visitor. We cannot insulate her from the State's power of deportation. Richard Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room. Petitioners are the following: American nationals Andrew Harvey. in the care of neighbors in Fukien. On January 1962. SY ’06-‘07 .69 of Revised Administrative Code. Laguna. 1962.000 pesos. In a letter dated August 31. the Commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her son. Such a flanking movement. Jr. Chan Sau Wah and Fu Yan Fun obtained several extensions. go through a mock marriage. 1962. 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. another charged not for pedophile but working with NO VISA. marry a Filipino. Reason: Discourage entry under false pretenses. a native-born Filipino citizen. Chan Sau Wah married Esteban Morano. deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under Sec. On 4 March1988. The last extension expired on September 10. we are confident. and thereby skirt the provisions of our immigration law. No breadth of discretion is allowed. Issue: Whether or Not the issuance of the warrant of arrest is unconstitutional. Esteban Morano. Therefore. 1962 with a warning that upon failure so to do. Chan Sau Wah and her minor son Fu Yan Fun were permitted only into the Philippines under a temporary visitor's visa for two months and after they posted a cash bond of 4.R. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also found. she must depart voluntarily to some foreign country. the 3 petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. It will not particularly help analysis for petitioners to appeal to family solidarity in an effort to thwart her deportation. since her entry. This is a field closed to judicial action. One released for lack of evidence. ply a pernicious trade. Held: Chan Sau Wah entered the Philippines on a tourist-temporary visitor's visa. China. This Court in a number of cases has ruled. and again throw overboard Sections 9 and 13 of the Act. Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles. The gravamen of petitioners' argument is that Chan Sau Wah has. she must procure from the appropriate consul the proper visa. She is a nonimmigrant. 82544. Chan Sau Wah. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation. both minors. but actually live with another man as husband and wife. While Van Den Elshout in the “after Mission Report” read that two children of ages 14 and 16 has been under his care and subjects confirmed being live-in for sometime now. that an alien admitted as a temporary visitor cannot change his or her status without first departing from the country and complying with the requirements of Section 9 of the Immigration Act. HARVEY V. 28 JUN 1988] Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. The “Operation Report” read that Andrew Harvey was found together with two young boys. first. Under Section 13 just quoted. second. and third. Seized during the petitioner’s apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in scandalous poses as well as boys and girls engaged in sex.

4 April1988 Petitioners filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court heard the case on oral argument on 20 April 1988.e. There are at least three exceptions to this rule.R. The filing of the petitioners for bail is considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them from questioning its validity. The deportation charges instituted by the Commissioner of Immigration are in accordance with Sec37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 in relation to sec69 of the Revised Administrative code. Deportation proceedings are administrative in character and never construed as a punishment but a preventive measure. He did it the following day.) Search in a moving vehicle. Issue: Whether or Not the Commissioner has the power to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of existence of probable cause. It a police measure against the undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and tranquility of the people. Lastly. spiritual and social well being of the youth. Petition for bail was filed 11March 1988 but was not granted by the Commissioner of Immigration.) Search is incidental to the arrest. Trial by the Board of Special Inquiry III commenced the same date.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Warrants of Arrest were issued 7March1988 against petitioners for violation of Sec37. therefore the articles are admissible evidences (Rule 126. Whether or Not there was unreasonable searches and seizures by CID agents. A fair hearing must also be conducted with assistance of a counsel if desired. although such confinement was illegal at the beginning. Section12 of Rules on Criminal Procedure). SY ’06-‘07 . it violates the declared policy of the state to promote and protect the physical. the deportation charges and the hearing presently conducted by the Board of Special Inquiry made their detention legal. The judge after conducting the preliminary examination (p. the power to deport aliens is an act of the State and done under the authority of the sovereign power. Held: While pedophilia is not a crime under the Revised Penal Code. After the shooting. What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be arrested and deported. moral. he surrendered himself and hence the police inspector and wife of the victim filed a criminal complaint for murder against him. affidavit of witnesses and other supporting documents. 143802. it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. he filed a petition for Page 74 Section 1-C. 45 and 46 of Immigration Act and sec69 of Revised Administrative Code. The arrest of petitioners was based on the probable cause determined after close surveillance of 3 months. for brevity). for brevity) found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. the search done was incidental to the arrest. 2.) Seizure of evidence in plain view. It is a fundamental rule that habeas corpus will not be granted when confinement is or has become legal. In view of the foregoing. 3. 1. Benemerito. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and seizure of articles linked to the offense. Therefore. he issued a resolution forwarding the case to the prosecutor for appropriate action. Petitioner received a subpoena directing him to file his counter affidavit. the incumbent mayor of Pagudpud Ilocos Norte. 16 NOV 2001] Facts: The petitioner. SANDIGANBAYAN [369 SCRA 293 G. Whether or Not the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to petitioners. Section 37 (a) provides that aliens shall be arrested and deported upon warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation against them. SALES VS. The rule that search and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. NO. The articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest. shot the former mayor and his political rival Atty. Also after conducting the preliminary investigation (p.i. Furthermore. While proceedings are ongoing.

then the presiding judge of RTC of Dumaguete issued Search Warrant No. the preliminary investigation was conducted by 3 different investigators. cigarette and joint. The OMB directed the petitioner to submit his counter affidavit.A.A alleging that: the warrant was null and void because the judge who issued it was a relative by affinity of the private respondent and the p. Judge Nickarter Ontal. The filing of the motion for reconsideration is an integral part of the preliminary investigation proper.231. chief of the PC Narcom Detachment in Dumaguete City filed an "application for search warrant" and "Deposition of witness" against petitioner Nicomedes Silva and Martin Silva. But the prosecution instead of conducting p. Villamor to make an immediate search at any time of the room of Mr. He conducted the requisite investigation prior to the issuance of warrant of arrest. Such warrant states that there is a probable cause to believe that Mr. the last one being the OMB throwing the buck to the Sandiganbayan. Tama Silva has the possession and control of marijuana dried leaves. This is now a petition for review on the decision of the Sandiganbayan. The denial thereof is tantamount to the denial of the right itself to a preliminary investigation. The gravity of the offense alone should have merited a deeper and more thorough preliminary investigation. the p. Held: The proper procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation was not followed because of the following reasons. He only examined the witness of the complainant.i. granted the petition holding that the judge was a relative by affinity by 3rd degree to the private respondent and the p. of his own forwarded the records to the Ombudsman (OMB for brevity) for the latter to conduct the same.40. SY ’06-‘07 . Whether or Not petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to submit controverting evidence. The warrant authorizes Sgt. Secondly.i.1 pursuant to the said applications for violation of RA 6425 Dangerous Drugs ACT of 1972. 81756. it was patent error for the Sandiganbayan to have relied purely on the OMB’s certification of probable cause given the prevailing facts of the case much more so in the face of the latter’s flawed report and one side factual findings. Thirdly. Tama Silva at the residence of his father Comedes Silva and to open aparadors. Firstly.i. cases of passing the buck. This fact alone renders preliminary investigation conducted in this case incomplete. but he did not comply with it finding the same superfluous.e. G. SILVA VS. The OMB did nothing of the sort but wallowed the resolution of the graft investigator.e. The graft investigator recommended the filing of information for murder which the OMB approved.i. Villamor. The proceeding now consists only of one stage. cabinets. No. the charge of murder is a non bailable offense. proper. The court cannot accept the Sandiganbayan’s assertion of having found probable cause on its own. ordering the Sandiganbayan to quash the warrant of arrest and remanding the OMB for completion of the preliminary investigation. In the course of the search. PRESIDING JUDGE [203 SCRA 140.R. by actually adopting the resolution of the graft investigator without doing anything and threw everything to the Sandiganbayan for evaluation. were illegal and irregular as the judge doesn’t have jurisdiction on the case. 21 Oct 1991] Facts: Sgt. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion. Petitioner received a copy of the resolution but prevented seeking reconsideration thereof he filed a motion to defer issuance of warrant of arrest pending the determination of probable cause. and the p. Petitioner filed a motion to quash Search Warrant No. the officers seized money belonging to Antonieta Silva in the amount of P1.1 on the ground that 1) it was issued on the sole basis of mimeographed 2) the judge failed to personally examine the complainant and witness by searching questions and answers. Judgment is rendered setting aside the resolution of the Sandiganbayan. a person under preliminary investigation by the OMB is entitled to a motion for reconsideration. which merely rekied on the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and disregarded the evidence for the defense. and the p. Moreover he did not complete it. none of whom completed the preliminary investigation There was not one continuous proceeding but rather. The C.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests habeas corpus with the C. lockers. considering the OMB’s defective report and findings. cartons and containers to look for said illegal drugs. Issue: Page 75 Section 1-C. he conducted has 2 stages. He did a worse job than the judge. as maintained by the Rules of Procedure by the OMB. And lastly. Issue: Whether or Not the OMB followed the procedure in conducting preliminary investigation.

. Capt. Obrero and Major Macasaet met at the house of herein petitioners in Skyline Village to conduct the search pursuant to the authority granted by petitioner Ma. Obrero to ask permission to search the house in Davao City as it was reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment center of rebel soldiers. 18 Jun 1992] Facts: Petitioners are husband and wife who owned and formerly resided at No. an officer of the PC/INP. WON the officers abused their authority in seizing the money of Antonieta Silva. LAYAGUE [210 SCRA 97. Jimmy Favia and Eric Burgos. East Kamias. record -the judge before issuing the warrant. 1 is invalid due to the failure of the judge to examine the witness in the form of searching questions and answers. Capt. Luisa Veroy responded that she is flying to Davao City to witness the search but relented if the search would not be conducted in the presence of Major Ernesto Macasaet. Sgt. was entrusted to Edna Soguilon to give her access in case of an emergency. Such questions are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause. Search Warrant No. a small black bag. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. Petitioner Ma. Skyline Village. sweat shirt. a locksmith by the name of George Badiang had to be employed to open the padlock of the door leading to the children's room. The questions asked were leading as they are answerable by mere yes or no. two (2) pairs men's socks. Obrero recovered a . The Veroys would occasionally send money to Edna Soguilon for the salary of the said houseboys and other expenses for the upkeep of their house. A search of the children's recreation and study area revealed a big travelling bag containing assorted polo shirts. No. a towel made in U. two (2) pieces polo barong and short sleeve striped gray polo. a road map of the Philippines. Police Officers had an information that the petitioner’s residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. SY ’06-‘07 . VEROY VS. Hence. he and his family transferred to 130 K-8th St. When petitioner Leopoldo Veroy was promoted to the position of Assistant Administrator of the Social Security System sometime in June. men's brief. The warrant did not indicate the seizure of money but only for marijuana leaves.S. The questions were already mimeographed and all the witness had to do was fill in their answers on the blanks provided. The care and upkeep of their residence in Davao City was left to two (2) houseboys. 1988.A.R.45 cal. Quezon City. Held: Search Warrant No. a plastic bag containing assorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the master's bedroom. Capt. G. the key to the master's bedroom as well as the keys to the children's rooms were retained by herein Petitioners so that neither Edna Soguilon nor the caretakers could enter the house. who had their assigned quarters at a portion of the premises. containing a book entitled "Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nation". 1 is declared null and void.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not Search Warrant No. in writing and under oath the complainant and any witness he may produce the facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with their affidavits. Leo Justalero was instructed by Capt.1 is invalid. Obrero and Major Macasaet then entered the children's room and conducted the search.etc. Davao City. cigarettes.. a telescope. However. Petitioner Ma. Page 76 Section 1-C.. in the house. since 1988. They were able to enter the yard with the help of the caretakers but did not enter the house since the owner was not present and they did not have a search warrant. The caretakers facilitated their entry into the yard. where they are presently residing. 13 Isidro St. The following day. and using the key entrusted to Edna Soguilon. Davao City and a long time family friend of the Veroys. *** Sec 4 Rule 126 Rules of Court Examination of the complainant.. Luisa Veroy. Obrero to make an inventory and receipt of the articles seized. only the key to the kitchen. Three (3) half-full jute sacks containing printed materials of RAM-SFP were also found in the children's room. While the Veroys had the keys to the interior of the house. one blanket. Luisa was contacted by telephone in her Quezon City residence by Capt. Judge Ontal is guilty of grave abuse of discretion when he rejected the motion of Antonieta Silva seeking the return of her money. Catalunan Grande. where the circuit breakers were located. The officers who implemented the search warrant clearly abused their authority when they seized the money of Antonieta Silva. Gandhi brand. 95630. they were able to gain entrance into the kitchen. handgun with a magazine containing seven (7) live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an unlocked drawer.

hence. Fiscal Ponferrada recommended the filing of an information against herein petitioners for Violation of Presidential Decree No. "acquire". 1990. 83341. Obrero was able to enter the compound. and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view (People v. its meaning and the intention of the legislature must be determined from the language employed. the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one. "dispose" or "possess" are capable of various interpretations such that there is no definiteness as to whether or not the definition includes "constructive possession" or how the concept of constructive possession should be applied. 1866 has been laid to rest in the case of Misolas v. Petitioners question the admissibility in evidence of the articles seized in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The case was referred for preliminary investigation to Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor Rodolfo Ponferrada who was designated Acting Provincial Prosecutor for Davao City. where this Court held that the declaration of unconstitutionality of the third paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No.R. 1866. Permission was indeed granted by Ma. No bail was recommended. G. is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. The permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. (Roan v. Gonzales. This shows that he himself recognized the need for a search warrant. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of Rebellion). They were in Quezon City while the prohibited articles were found in Davao City. 1991 [193 SCRA 122]). Hence. they are inadmissible in evidence against them. The items taken were. Undeniably. No. Petitioners aver that while they concede that Capt. houses. 145 SCRA 689-690 [1986]). 1990 (181 SCRA 648). G. Petitioners contend that Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum but it does not follow that the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Among the recognized exceptions thereto are: (1) a search incidental to an arrest. he did not enter the house because he did not have a search warrant and the owners were not present. Obrero had permission from Ma. While Capt. there is no room for construction. therefore. The reason for searching the house of herein petitioners is that it was reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers. Held: The issue of constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. violative of their constitutional rights As such. January 21. or at least the third paragraph of Section 1 thereof. the rule having been violated and no exception being applicable. Panga. SY ’06-‘07 . Yet they were being charged under Presidential Decree No. However. 1866 upon the sole circumstance that the house wherein the items were found belongs to them. and where there is no ambiguity in the words. he did not persist in entering the house but rather contacted the Veroys to seek permission to enter the same. 1866 is couched in general or vague terms. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. 88017. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III. Besides. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. A search warrant is still necessary. Lo Ho Wing. In a resolution dated August 6. January 30. Petitioners' contention that Republic Act 6968 has repealed Presidential Decree No. it was merely for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged "rebel" soldiers. products of an illegal search. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution). Luisa Veroy to break open the door of their residence. Issue: Whether or Not Presidential Decree No. None of these exceptions pertains to the case at bar. They cannot be used as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms. 1866 is bereft of merit. (2) a search of a moving vehicle. The terms "deal in". Petitioners were not found in actual possession of the firearm and ammunitions.R. still in mala Page 77 Section 1-C. 1866 is wanting in legal basis since it is neither a bill of attainder nor does it provide a possibility of a double jeopardy. the articles seized were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. assuming that there was indeed a search warrant. Under the circumstances it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous. No. Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers.

PREMISES CONSIDERED. They confronted the accused and insisted that the bags belonged to her. when the police arrived at her house. Accused denied the accusation and told them that she doesn’t know anything about it. in the morning of Nov. 17. 1986. 20 JUL 1994] Facts: Accused was charged and convicted by the trial court of illegal possession of firearms and illegal possession and sale of drugs. NO. The accused begged the police not to search and to leave the house. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the firearms was proper. About 2pm that day. which authorized the search and seizure of an undetermined quantity of methamphetamine and its paraphernalia’s. 89373. In herein case. G. She pointed a metal basin on top of a table as the hiding place of died marijuana flowering tops contained in a plastic bag marked ISETANN. According to the accused. While inside the house Yte showed the accused something he claimed as a search warrant. The court renders judgment finding the accused guilty. She was made to sign a prepared document. there must be knowledge that the same existed. He actually saw the accused selling marijuana to his civilian informer and that same day Luciano applied for a search warrant. Issue: Page 78 Section 1-C. She was brought to the police station and was detained. Wherefore the decision is reversed and the accused is acquitted.R. a police raiding team armed with a search warrant went to the Brgy captain for them to be accompanied in serving the said warrant at the residence of the accused. GESMUNDO [219 SCRA 743. NO. Sec 2 art. an entrapment was planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario and to the seizure of the shabu. its paraphernalia’s and of a . SY ’06-‘07 . the petition as granted and the criminal case against the petitioners for illegal possession of firearms is DISMISSED. Yte and PFC Jose Luciano. PEOPLE VS. when someone coming from the kitchen uttered “eto na” They proceeded to the kitchen and saw Luciano holding a plastic bag with four other companions. The police still searched the house and was led to the kitchen. while there is no need of criminal intent.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests prohibita. The police was allowed to enter the house upon the strength of the warrant shown to the accused. The police also recovered from a native “uway” cabinet dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in 3 pieces of komiks paper. Held: No. 19 MAR 1993] Facts: According to the prosecution. After the issuance of the search warrant. particularly methamphetamine or shabu.R. She invited Sgt. III of the constitution specifically provides that a search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. 109633.22 caliber pistol with 3 live ammunition. Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime. DEL ROSARIO [234 SCRA 246. G. The seizure of the firearms was unconstitutional. Yte to enter her house while Luciano was left in the jeep that was parked near the house. PEOPLE VS. the only objects to be seized that the warrant determined was the methamphetamine and the paraphernalia’s therein. PO Jose Luciano gave money and instructed his civilian informer to buy marijuana from the accused at the Cocoland Hotel. she saw Sgt.

3 OCT 1991] Facts: On 1 February 1988. Remorosa. The crimes rebellion. Biñan. the arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested. In view of this verification. There were inconsistencies insofar the prosecution is concerned. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon. Subversion being a continuing offense. The claim that the marijuana was planted was strengthen as the police violated sec 7. Not only does the law require the presence of witnesses when the search is conducted. South City Homes.. to verify a confidential information which was received by their office. There must sufficient evidence that the marijuana was actually surrendered by the accused. Held: In the investigation report prepared by Luciano stated that during the search they discovered a hole at the backyard of the house of the suspect. together with a true and accurate inventory thereof duly verified under oath. Violation of said rule is in fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised Penal Code. Roosevelt Avenue. military agents were dispatched to the St. 81567. there was no mention of any marijuana obtained from a flower pot in any of their testimonies. Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested.R. the trial court concluded that these inconsistencies are trivial. Quezon City. He is likewise required to deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant. these duties are mandatory and are required to preclude substitution of the items seized by interested parties. room or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter. Agnes Hospital. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. The document (PAGPAPATUNAY) was inadmissible to the court as the accused was not informed of her right not to sign the document neither was she informed that she has the right to the assistance of a counsel and the fact that it may be used as evidence against her. in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. As held in PP vs. but it also imposes upon the person making the search the duty to issue a detailed receipt for the property seized. However. about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. UMIL VS." twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10. for security reasons. The guilt of the accused was has not been established. Again. NO. Lot 4. It was not proved that the marijuana belonged to her. or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon. Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM. and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing crimes. Held: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA. as to what was recovered and where. Judgment is reversed. an outlawed subversive organization. Bagong Barrio. Irreconcilable and unexplained contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the guilt of appellant and his culpability to the crime charged. Laguna however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. there was a big biscuit can inside the hole and on top of the cover a flower pot was placed wherein the marijuana was kept. RAMOS [187 SCRA 311. he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not the evidence was properly obtained by the police. While confined thereat. before a road hump along Macanining St. Caloocan City. rule 126 rules of the court provides no search of a house. This requirement is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant. G. subversion. That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before. SY ’06-‘07 . Page 79 Section 1-C.

Seraspi proceeded to the area. Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie Macabante.R. The accused was found positive of ultraviolet powder. Issue: Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful. met with him and “a certain object wrapped in a plastic” later identified as marijuana was given in exchange for P200. Sucro was monitored to have talked and exchanged things three times. G. RODRIGUEZA [205 SCRA 791.R. The lower court. Quimpo to monitor activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). The agent went back to headquarters and made a report. Castiller) The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge required from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance. based on which. found him guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. after gaining information that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas. the Don. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. There was no authorization by any search warrant. without a search warrant. 95902. Quimpo and Veterans. G. Albay. SY ’06-‘07 .(People v. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt. Issue: Whether or Not the lower court was correct in its judgment. it is presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties. P/Lt. warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. During the raid. Rule 126. One of the agents went to said location. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. Seraspi. PEOPLE V. the NARCOM agents were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe among others. Macabante admitted buying the marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel. The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Fulgencio told Lt. herein accused. which may be used as proff of the commission of an offense. Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from Regalado’s house. The participating agents were given money treated with ultraviolet powder. However. No. a team was subsequently organized and a raid was conducted in the house of the father of the accused. Held: The NARCOM agents’ procedure in the entrapment of the accused failed to meet the qualification that the suspected drug dealer must be caught red-handed in the act of selling marijuana to a Page 80 Section 1-C. Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. 18 Mar 1991] Facts: Pat. From that moment. SUCRO [195 SCRA 388. Held: Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. considering the evidences obtained and testimonies from the prosecution. Seraspi to intercept. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s house at C. Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible. 93239. Thereafter.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests PEOPLE VS. asked for a certain Don. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance. 4 Feb 1992] Facts: NARCOM agents staged a buy-bust operation. Macabante saw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground. No. The police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from the surveillance of the activities of the accused.

what were submitted to and examined by the PCCL and thereafter utilized as evidence against the appellant were the following items: One (1) red and white colored plastic bag containing the following: Exh. because they easily could. SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag hurriedly accosted him and introduced themselves as police officers. when it involves prohibited articles in plain view. Exh. since the operation was conducted after the actual exchange. After accused-appellant alighted from the car carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box. SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag received a report from their confidential informant that accusedappellant was about to deliver drugs that night at the Thunder Inn Hotel in Balibago. Conviction is reversed and set aside and accused is acquitted. the existence thereof must be proved with certainty and conclusiveness.e. then they should. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid. SPO2 Nulud and the other police operatives who arrived at the scene brought the confiscated items to the office of Col. Forthwith. 6425. the twenty (20) pieces of . and for Illegal Possession of Ammunitions and Illegal Possession of Drugs in two separate Informations. G. The other group acted as their back up. SPO2 Nulud instantly confiscated the small transparent plastic bag. Angeles City. SY CHUA [396 SCRA 657.136066-67. when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest.22 caliber firearm bullets from his left back pocket. fronting the hotel. The Court further notes the confusion and ambiguity in the identification of the confiscated marijuana leaves and other prohibited drug paraphernalia presented as evidence against appellant: CIC Taduran. and no plausible explanation has been advanced therefor. i. Rubio. 7659. Guttierez at the PNP Headquarters in Camp Pepito. Exh. "A"—Thirty (30) grams of suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops contained inside a transparent plastic bag.A. So. who acted as the poseur buyer. have first secured a search warrant during that time. testified that appellant sold him 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic bag. Angeles City. When SPO2 Nunag peeked into the contents of the Zest-O box. PEOPLE VS. "D"— Five (5) small transparent plastic bags each containing suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of seventeen grams. Exh. Afterwards. SPO2 Nulud subjected him to a body search which yielded twenty (20) pieces of live . as the situation did not fall in the circumstances wherein a search may be validly made even without a search warrant. The NARCOM agents could not have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already been put under surveillance for quite some time.22 caliber firearm bullets and the car used by accused-appellant. as amended by R. SY ’06-‘07 . Page 81 Section 1-C. 4 Feb 2003] Facts: Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua was charged with violation of Section 16. "B"— Fifty (50) grams of suspected dried marijuana leaves and seeds contained inside a white colored plastic labelled "Robertson". this Court had the occasion to rule that the plastic bag and the dried marijuana leaves contained therein constitute the corpus delicti of the crime. Exh. The group positioned themselves across McArthur Highway near Bali Hai Restaurant. Evidently.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests person posing as a buyer. their informer pointed to a car driven by accused-appellant which just arrived and parked near the entrance of the hotel. he saw that it contained a crystalline substance. a small transparent plastic bag with a crystalline substance protruded from his right back pocket. No. The unanswered question then arises as to the identity of the marijuana leaves that became the basis of appellant's conviction. the PNP Chief formed a team of operatives. As accused-appellant pulled out his wallet. Said raid also violated accused’ right against unreasonable search and seizure.R. the Zest-O juice box.A. Surprisingly. As such. In People vs. "C"— Four (4) aluminum foils each containing suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of seven grams then further wrapped with a piece of aluminum foil. Article III of R. Failure to do so would be fatal to the cause of the prosecution. these prohibited articles were among those confiscated during the so-called follow-up raid in the house of Rodrigueza’s father. "E"— One plastic syringe.

so the policeman took his car keys and proceeded to search his car.. Accused-appellant did not act in a suspicious manner. and (2) the interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. the man immediately pulled out a . who ordered his men to call the media. e. Held: The lower court believed that since the police received information that the accused will distribute illegal drugs that evening at the Thunder Inn Hotel and its vicinities. the law requires that there first be arrest before a search can be made—the process cannot be reversed. The lower court acquitted Sy Chua for the Illegal Possession of Ammunitions. Thereafter. The search is valid being akin to a “stop and frisk”. for this exception to apply. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest. SY ’06-‘07 . whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. this appeal to the Court. In the presence of reporters. and (2) WON the search of his person and the subsequent confiscation of shabu allegedly found on him were conducted in a lawful and valid manner. The Page 82 Section 1-C. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope. The foregoing circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. He felt sleepy. Accordingly. Guttierez arrived. With regard to the concept of “stop-and frisk”: mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stopand-frisk”. A stop-and-frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street. During the course of the arrest. there was no overt manifestation that accused-appellant has just committed. so he decided to take the old route along McArthur Highway. It should also be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply. to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. the policeman took out his wallet and instructed him to open his car. Col. while the others searched his car. the police officer’s companions arrived at the scene in two cars. The trial court confused the concepts of a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. For all intents and purposes. two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. When he called the attention of the onlooker. We find the two aforementioned elements lacking in the case at bar. in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusation against him and narrated a different version of the incident. While at the store. or is attempting to commit a crime. and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. is actually committing.g. Finally. PO2 Nulud. Accused-appellant alleged that he was driving the car of his wife to follow her and his son to Manila. Guttierez opened the box and accused-appellant was made to hold the box while pictures were being taken. The man later on identified himself as a policeman.45 caliber gun and made him face his car with raised hands. he was brought to a police station and was held inside a bathroom for about fifteen minutes until Col. yet convicted him for Illegal Possession of 1.955. accused-appellant was first arrested before the search and seizure of the alleged illegal items found in his possession. A genuine reason must exist. Hence. is actually committing. he noticed a man approaches and examines the inside of his car. a “stop-and-frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause. At this time. pulled him away from his car in a nearby bank. or is attempting to commit a crime. He refused. who just arrived at the scene. the legality of the arrest is questioned.815 grams of shabu. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Issue: Whether or Not the arrest of accused-appellant was lawful. interrogate him. absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers. In this instance. To reiterate. is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. The police officer had to act quickly and there was no more time to secure a search warrant. He stopped in front of a small store near Thunder Inn Hotel to buy cigarettes and candies. “Reliable information” alone.

20 JUN 1977] Facts: Two complaints for grave oral defamation were filed against Faustina Callanta. 11 FEB 1992] Facts: Petitioner. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car. Thus. as when he walked in the police station. subversion.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests apprehending police operative failed to make any initial inquiry into accused-appellant’s business in the vicinity or the contents of the Zest-O juice box he was carrying. Felipe Villanueva. Petitioner questions the validity of the issuance of warrant of arrest by respondent. CALLANTA VS. NO. G. The City Judge of Dagupan City. Section 7. preliminary investigation should have been scheduled to determine probable cause.” i. Rule 113 and Section 7. Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond. GO VS. Petitioner was not arrested at all. There was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5. neither the in flagrante delicto nor the “stop and frisk” principles is applicable to justify the warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure made by the police operatives on accused-appellant. falls under Section 5. 6 days after the shooting. This is because the arresting officers were not actually there during the incident. Petitioner in his petition for certiorari assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary investigation. accompanied by 2 lawyers. Rule 112. denied the motions to quash the complaints. which however constituted “continuing crimes. Rule 112 of The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests. In the case at bar. necessarily in a criminal charge. Ramos. he neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime. where the same is required appear thereat. Wherefore.e. arguing that the City Fiscal should have conducted the preliminary investigation. VILLANUEVA [77 SCRA 377. does not apply. Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right to preliminary investigation as bail has been posted and that such situation. Petition granted. SY ’06-‘07 . accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua is hereby Acquitted.R. almost had a collision with another vehicle. petitioner Callanta brought the suits for certiorari in the Supreme Court. NOS. G. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him. while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street. Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. Further. prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary investigation. setting and commencing trial without preliminary investigation. etc. After the issuance of the warrants of arrest and the bail fixed at P600. petitioner presented himself in the police station. 101837. there was jurisdictional infirmity. the prosecutor filed the case to the lower court. According to petitioner’s counsel. Prosecutor made a substantive error. the police detained him. wherein the Court upheld the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of the offenses. The apprehending police officers only introduced themselves when they already had custody of accused-appellant. Petitioner posted bail. that petitioner has been arrested without a warrant lawfully. membership in an outlawed organization. 24646 & L-24674. Issue: Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. petitioner posted Page 83 Section 1-C. trial for the criminal case is suspended pending result from preliminary investigation. COURT OF APPEALS [206 SCRA 138. shot the driver of the other vehicle. and drove off. who subsequently ordered a manhunt for petitioner. thus they had no personal knowledge and their information regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. Rule 113. petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation.R. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down petitioner’s plate number and reported the same to the police.

Ursicio Ungab and Pat. 89139.38 caliber gun. Held: Based on many precedent cases of the Supreme Court. 2 AUG 1990] Facts: Members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force. “the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense. Davao City. POSADAS VS. It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the purpose. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same. if any. it is futile for the petitioner to question the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Issue: Whether or Not the warantless search is valid. a smoke (tear gas) grenade. They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. without regard to the limits of punishment. because she posted the bail bond. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. The City Fiscal in this case did not disagree with the judge’s investigation. he has waived whatever defect. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s contentions are to be given merit. Page 84 Section 1-C. It is further alleged that the arrest without a warrant of the petitioner was lawful under the circumstances.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests the bail bond. and agreed with the complaints filed.R. “where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper. and may release. NO. While in the vicinity of Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber . Rule 136 of the Rules of Court a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything used as proof of a commission of an offense without a search warrant. two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a . there is no question that. They brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation. Restraining order issued by the Court is lifted and set aside. Umbra Umpar conducted surveillance along Magallanes Street. Pat. Petitioner also erred in arguing that only the City Fiscal can conduct a preliminary investigation. it is reasonable considering that it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. Didoy the officer then on duty. indeed. in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest”.38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was unsuccessful. futile and much too late. the petitioner was asked to show the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his possession but he failed to do so. or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court”. According to the Charter of the City of Dagupan. In the case at bar. thus obtaining her provisional liberty. 770196. and two (2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. G. Such an exercise may prove to be useless. Held: In justifying the warrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the petitioner. in the case at bar. COURT OF APPEALS [188 SCRA 288. argues that under Section 12. Petition for certiorari is denied. SY ’06-‘07 . In the course of the same.

PEOPLE VS. At the time of the arrest in question.4 art. and hence. The TC found Tangliben guilty of violating sec. PEOPLE V. At around 9:30pm they noticed a person. and there they found marijuana leaves. Medel Tangliben. according to the arresting officers themselves. SY ’06-‘07 . 87059. NO. III sec 32 of the Constitution. is actually committing. G.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Clearly. provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has committed. They confronted him. One of them the accused-appellant was found with a . Accused-appellant is acquitted. whereupon the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen surrounded them. In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and therefore the fruit of a poisonous tree. the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions heretofore discussed. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. one of whom holding his abdomen.D. Moreover a person may not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion. or is attempting to commit an offense. while his companion had a fan knife. For his part. He was convicted for violation of P. inspected his bag. The accused was then taken to the Police Headquarters for further investigations. (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed.38 caliber with live ammunitions in it. Held: An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. TANGLIBEN [184 SCRA 220. A witness testified that the weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead. The patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side. MENGOTE [210 SCRA 174. Manila.R. There was apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence. he claimed that the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest. Issue: Whether or Not there was an unlawful search due to lack of search warrant. An information was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. They approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen. 22 JUN 1992] Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo. and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the person arrested has committed it and (c) the person to be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. These requirements have not been established in the case at bar.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The weapons were taken from them and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation. 6 Apr 1990] Facts: Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conducting surveillance at the San Fernando Victory Liner Terminal.R. Page 85 Section 1-C. Judgment is reversed and set aside. No. the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen. carrying a traveling bag who acted suspiciously. The suspects were then searched. Rule 113 sec. which he reported to the police including the revolver. G. 2 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place.L-63630. the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures has not been violated.5 of the Rules of Court.

In the present case. The two (2) NARCOM officers started their inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus. Captain Alen Vasco. When accused failed to comply. as ordered.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Held. the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist. 91107. It was only after the officers had opened the bags that accused finally presented his passport. as amended. Moreover. The group composed of seven (7) NARCOM officers. PEOPLE VS. is committing. that same morning that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. The order to establish a checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. During the inspection. Representative samples were taken from the hashish found among the personal effects of accused and the same were brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. No. II of Republic Act 6425. In the chemistry report. CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's waist. Tublay. Mountain Province. ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14. a prohibited drug which is a derivative of marijuana. the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. Thus. Art. it was established that the objects examined were hashish. La Trinidad. In the evening of 7 May 1989. accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. Feeling the teddy bears. The police officers had to act quickly and there was not enough time to secure a search warrant. MALMSTEDT [198 SCRA 401. Then in the 7 in the morning of May 11.R. accused left for Baguio City.appellant Mikael Malmstead was charged before the RTC of La Trinidad. prompting the officer to open one of the wrapped objects. 19 Jun 1991] Facts: In an information filed against the accused. he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for two (2) days. Accused Mikael Malmstedt. Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa. G. for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. as amended. 5 provides the a peace officer or a private person may w/o a warrant arrest a person when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed. Acop. Thereafter. It was found out that an informer pointed to the accused telling the policemen that the accused was carrying marijuana. 1989. for violation of Section 4. the accused was found to have been committing possession of marijuana and can be therefore searched lawfully even without a search warrant. the officer noticed that there were bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam stuffing. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and when accused opened the same bag. otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. accused stopped to get two (2) travelling bags from the luggage carrier. He had visited the country sometime in 1982 and 1985. the accused went to Nangonogan bus stop in Sagada. Upon stepping out of the bus. entered the Philippines for the third time in December 1988 as a tourist. At about 8: 00 o'clock in the morning of that same day (11 May 1989). At the investigation room. Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to be a gun. Accused who was the sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof. A teddy bear was found in each bag. Another reason is that this case poses urgency on the part of the arresting police officers. a Swedish national. Benguet for further investigation. ACCUSED’S DEFENSE Page 86 Section 1-C. an information was filed against accused for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish. Rule 113 sec. the officers got the bags and opened them. No. or is attempting to commit an offense. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day. the Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa. a derivative of marijuana. Benguet. the officer asked for accused's passport and other identification papers. SY ’06-‘07 . in coordination with Tublay Police Station. information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM. But before he alighted from the bus. the officer noticed four (4) suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. set up a checkpoint at the designated area at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning and inspected all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region.

where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused. Held: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. and that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station. they decided to take the next ride and asked accused to take charge of the bags. However. Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers simply accosted him. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Thus. While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search warrant when the search was made over the personal effects of accused. in his presence. 5 Arrest without warrant. the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing. He also claimed that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the two (2) travelling bags were not owned by him. 6 Jul 1988] Facts: Idel Aminnudin.R. houses. because of existence of probable cause. inspected his bag Page 87 Section 1-C.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests During the arraignment. PEOPLE VS. AMMINUDIN [163 SCRA 402. under the circumstances of the case. therefore. shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening. SY ’06-‘07 . without a warrant. where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest. L-74869. but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. accused-appellant was arrested on June 25. when lawful. G. there is no need to obtain a search warrant. 11 and attempted to flee. or is attempting to commit an offense. The appealed judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby affirmed. and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. Sec. the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him. –– A peace officer or a private person may. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 1984. the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances. A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. The trial court found the guilt of the accused Mikael Malmstedt established beyond reasonable doubt. there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. in Iloilo City." For his defense. accused argues that the search of his personal effects was illegal because it was made without a search warrant and. accused entered a plea of "not guilty. and therefore the RTC ruling be reversed. he raised the issue of illegal search of his personal effects. Seeking the reversal of the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of the crime charged. arrest a person: (a) When. and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. however. He further claimed that the Australian couple intended to take the same bus with him but because there were no more seats available in said bus. Issue: Whether or Not the contention of the accused is valid. Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). 10 or where the accused was acting suspiciously. which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Costs against the accused-appellant. Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by this Court as valid.

It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. at about 6:00 in the morning. An information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Saycon merely bowed his head.R. PEOPLE VS." Issue: Whether or Not the warrantless search was valid. and Senior Police Officers Ruben Laddaran and Winifredo Noble of NARCOM posted themselves at the gate of Pier 1. Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. and trial proceeded only against the accusedappellant. SAYCON [236 SCRA 325. consisted of methamphetamine hydrochloride. who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. The PNP's Forensic Analyst declared in court that she had conducted an examination of the specimens and found out that the specimens weighed 4. When police officer Winifredo Noble asked Saycon whether the Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu" was his. To all appearances. averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Issue: Whether or not search of defendant’s bag is legal. Alvaro Saycon alighted from the boat carrying a black bag and went through the checkpoint manned by the Philippine Coastguard where he was identified by police officer Winifredo Noble of NARCOM. Held: The search was illegal. 110995. that same morning at Pier 1 in Dumaguete City. 5 SEPT 1994] Facts: On or about 8 July 1992. NO. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. more widely known as "shabu. Upon receipt of the information. two shirts and two pairs of pants.m. However the RTC rejected his allegations. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against the defendant. When Alvaro Saycon was arrested. the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a 'thorough investigation. he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana. At the headquarters.2 grams in total. Then Saycon. Held: Page 88 Section 1-C. he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed. which was arriving at that moment in Dumaguete City. At the PC headquarters. The MV Doña Virginia docked at 6:00 a. A combined team of NARCOM agents and Philippine Coastguard personnel consisting of CPO Tolin. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. who was eventually convicted . there was a Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu". and the latter willingly obliged." The motion was granted. and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto. the Coastguard personnel received information from NARCOM agent Ruben Laddaran that a suspected "shabu" courier by the name of Alvaro Saycon was on board the MV Doña Virginia. G. At the moment of his arrest. a certain Miagme. Subsequently. In it were personal belongings and a maong wallet. instructed them to intercept the suspect. the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen. his bag and the suspected "shabu" were brought to the NARCOM office for booking. which could allow warrantless arrest or search. Later. Saying that he only has two watches during that time and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained. Inside that maong wallet. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. Saycon was then invited to the Coastguard Headquarters at the Pier area. he was not committing a crime. SY ’06-‘07 . the Coastguard chief officer CPO Tolin. the coastguard asked Saycon to open his bag. He willingly went with them. the NARCOM agents did not have a warrant of arrest. In his defense.

but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. NO. to conduct a surveillance and test buy on Musa. a buy-bust was planned. INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila. the NARCOM team positioned themselves about 90 to 100 meters away. pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila. 80806. Furthermore.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The warrantless search was valid. In the case at bar. and the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the house.R. The plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to Article III Section 3 (2) of the Constitution. the plastic bag was not in the ‘plain view’ of the police. They arrested the accused in the living room and moved into the kitchen in search for other evidences where they found the plastic bag. Sgt. He raised his right hand as a signal to the other NARCOM agents. Auxilliary Services Bureau. T/Sgt. The ‘plain view’ doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused. Therefore. hence. Belarga frisked Musa in the living room but did not find the marked money (gave it to his wife who slipped away). NO. MUSA [217 SCRA 597. seized and Page 89 Section 1-C. Musa went into the house and came back. Drug couriers do not go about their trade with some external sign indicating that they are transporting prohibited drugs. It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not be admitted as evidence. elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group. Held: Yes. Western Police District. as the accused was a passenger of a motor vehicle. Belarga could see what was going on. This must be taken into account in determining probable cause. Three weeks earlier.’ They asked Musa about its contents but failed to get a response. As Ani proceeded to the house. Ramon D. giving Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana.00 marked money. The civilian informer guided Ani to Musa’s house and gave the description of Musa. So they opened it and found dried marijuana leaves inside. COURT OF APPEALS [178 SCRA 362. An agent of the Narcotics Command reported that the accused would be arriving on board the vessel and carrying methamphetamine hydrochloride with him. 96177. Belarga and Sgt.00. There was probable cause to believe that the accused was carrying prohibited drugs. Ani was ordered by NARCOM leader T/Sgt. SY ’06-‘07 . Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10. may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. the marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the ‘plain view’ of said object. The next day. From his position. 1983. Zamboanga City. PITA VS. PEOPLE VS..R. G. Musa was then placed under arrest. Belarga. inadmissible as evidence. Ani said he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20. Bagatsing. Objects in the ‘plain view’ of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana inside it is unreasonable. It will not justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the ‘plain view’ of the object. as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest. Ani was to raise his right hand if he successfully buys marijuana from Musa. The warrantless search and seizure. G. Lego went to the kitchen and found a ‘cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen. agents of the Narcotics Command bought methamine hydrochloride from him. 27 JAN 1993] Facts: A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in Suterville. Musa came out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted. 5 OCT 1989] Facts: On December 1 and 3. the ‘plain view’ does not apply. Ani opened and inspected it.

The question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge’s sound discretion. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed obscene. probable cause exists.M. The aerial target zoning were intended to flush out subversives and criminal elements coddled by the communities were the said drives were conducted. Plaintiff also filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against indiscriminate seizure. Plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera. The court provides the following guidelines to be observed: 1. newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks. Any conviction is subject to appeal. and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and members of various student organizations. artistic and educational magazine which is not per se obscene.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests confiscated from dealers.R. spot-beatings and maltreatment. confiscation and burning of plaintiff's "Pinoy Playboy" Magazines. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure was illegal. pending hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction. Some of their money and valuables had disappeared after the operation. Manila. 3. RTC ruled that the seizure was valid. The proper suit is then brought in the court under Article 201 of the RPC (Obscene publications). if in their opinion an obscenity seizure is in order. The residents complained that they're homes were ransacked. they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography. G. Among the publications seized. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are obscene and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action. The appellate court may assess whether or not the properties seized are indeed obscene. 5. and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure. was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. tossing their belongings and destroying their valuables. pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public at the University belt along C. by way of a search warrant. 30 JAN 1990] Facts: The 41 petitioners alleged that the "saturation drive" or "aerial target zoning" that were conducted in their place (Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional. as superintendent of Western Police District of the City of Manila. distributors. First of all. They alleged that there is no specific target house to be search and that there is no search warrant or warrant of arrest served. The residents were rudely rouse from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of their houses. The authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge. 4. 80508. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for the police to examine their tattoo marks. DE VILLA [181 SCRA 623. SY ’06-‘07 . Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and without nameplates or identification cards. publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene. The respondents said that such accusations were all lies. magazines. The case was set for trial upon the lapse of the TRO. 6. The residents also reported incidents of maulings. Those who were detained also suffered mental and physical torture to extract confessions and tactical informations. If in the opinion of the court. They said that they have intelligently and carefully planned months ahead for the actual operation and that local and Page 90 Section 1-C. Respondents contends that the Constitution grants to government the power to seek and cripple subversive movements for the maintenance of peace in the state. 2. The Court granted the temporary restraining order. Recto Avenue. seeking to enjoin said defendants and their agents from confiscating plaintiff’s magazines or from preventing the sale or circulation thereof claiming that the magazine is a decent. GUANZON VS. and later burned. This was affirmed by the CA. Held: The Court ruled that the government authorities have not shown the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature. it shall issue the search warrant prayed for. The residents were at the point of high-powered guns and herded like cows.

PEOPLE VS. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder bag. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash katutak”. 3.Based on the facts stated by the parties. SY ’06-‘07 . 1988. the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity. 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence Seizure of evidence in "plain view. the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. 6. Instead of presenting its evidence. 13 APR 1998] Facts: On Dec. the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. P/Lt. Consented warrantless search. 5.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests foreign media joined the operation to witness and record such event. In the meantime where there is showing that some abuses were committed. there is no erring soldier or policeman whom the court can order prosecuted.R. In the circumstances of this taxpayers' suit. Held: It is not the police action per se which should be prohibited rather it is the procedure used or the methods which "offend even hardened sensibilities" . and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. She has no knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found. In the absence of clear facts no permanent relief can be given. In her testimony. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626. Petition is remanded to the RTC of Manila. Customs search. 7. Highly regulated by the government. Issue: Whether or Not the saturation drive committed consisted of violation of human rights. the accused claimed that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a movie “Balweg”. 4. G. when she was later on arrested by the police. The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972 Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from the accused. 120515. no search warrant was presented. Also. when the informer pointed out who “Aling Rosa” was. Stop and Frisk. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. NO. the remedy should not be brought by a tazpaer suit where not one victim complaints and not one violator is properly charged. Held: The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law: 1. at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus coming from Baguio. Search of a moving vehicle. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are. However. When Abello asked “aling Rosa” about the contents of her bag. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain “Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana and assembled a team. it appears to have been no impediment to securing search warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested." the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. 13. Page 91 Section 1-C. Rule 2. There is no showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the "aerial zoning" could not be achieved even as th rights of the squatters and low income families are fully protected. the court temporary restraint the alleged violations which are shocking to the senses. the latter handed it out to the police. The next day.

SY ’06-‘07 . Right to break door or window to effect search. — An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. Section 7. when lawful. RULE 113. together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending. the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. RULES OF COURT Section 2. The seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence. The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above. (b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant. if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority. If the return has been made. there was no probable cause and the accused was not lawfully arrested. or is attempting to commit an offense. Arrest without warrant. if the criminal action has already been filed. RULES OF COURT Section 5. may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. in his presence. and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. — The officer. without a warrant.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known. she was merely crossing the street and was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude that she was committing a crime. and if none. the result. Page 92 Section 1-C. (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return. (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant. arrest a person: (a) When. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. — A peace officer or a private person may. Section 12. the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complained with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. the person to be arrested has committed. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and they did not do so. However. and other actions of the judge. b) For compelling reasons stated in the application. return and proceedings thereon. (b) When an offense has just been committed. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. RULE 126. is actually committing. the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made. or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. There was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s bag.

“The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence. the victim is entitled to the protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by duress or physical coercion.R. He likewise prayed for the issuance of the appropriate writ commanding the Immigration Commissioner and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM) to clear him for departure. to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851. which was disallowed by the employment agency. as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission. "motion for permission to leave the country. owned by Julia Salazar. both trial judges denied the same. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another." The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing. "relative to his business transactions and opportunities. Petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled. 30 MAY 1986] Facts: Petitioner was charged with estafa. L-62100.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF TRAVEL Art 3. NO. SY ’06-‘07 . G. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. 1 JAN 1949] Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita Flores who was employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau. regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid. The fact that no physical force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent does not make less real the deprivation of her personal freedom of movement. Sec. COURT OF APPEALS [142 SCRA 149.” CAUNCA VS. 6. However. as may be provided by law. of Judges Camilon and Pronove. to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave. respondent herein. He posted bail. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency. Issue: Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to restrain and detain a maid without returning the advance payment it gave? Held: An employment agency. Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. public safety." stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security. NO. freedom to choose one’s residence.L-2690. freedom to transfer from one place to another. denying his leave to travel abroad. MANOTOC VS. 1982. respectively. or public health. to founded or groundless fear. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals seeking to annul the orders dated March 9 and 26. Page 93 Section 1-C. for her to work as a maid.

SY ’06-‘07 . Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. However. their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. NO. G. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. the Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any country. Essentially. in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution. There is no indication that the business transactions cannot be undertaken by any other person in his behalf. Held: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. Issue: Whether or not. independent from although related to the right to travel. MARCOS VS. They further assert that under international law. if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason. They contended that Pres. Page 94 Section 1-C. To issue a travel documents to former Pres. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Petitioner has not shown the necessity for his travel abroad. MANGLAPUS [177 SCRA 668. On the other hand. he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. Aquino is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so within the limits prescribed by law. a distinct right under international law. Issue: Whether or Not his constitutional right to travel has been violated. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. right to enter one's country cannot be arbitrarily deprived.R. 15 SEPT 1989] Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs. 88211. specifically Sections 1 and 6. Such rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the national security. Held: "It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. etc. It would be therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to ones country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. public health or morals or the separate rights of others. The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel. the President (Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. as a generally accepted principle of International Law and under our Constitution as part of the law of the land. The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of the Former Pres. including his own. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state. What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state". neither the courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has no jurisdiction over his liberty could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel. public order. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. but it is a well considered view that the right to return may be considered.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right. Nor the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. which has been ratified by the Philippines. President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime. the right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to one's country. the right to leave the country. Indeed. and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. Thus.

000. COURT OF APPEALS [195 SCRA 760 . the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. 20 [2nd par. 53622. 1987. 97 SCRA 121). G. Page 95 Section 1-C. Isagani A. p. 1987 Edition." a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution. VASQUEZ [217 SCRA 633. if abroad.C. the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing Center.. No. Respondent filed to cancel the passport of the petitioner and to issue a hold departure order. 138). G. 15. 94284. the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.S. On the same day the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution authorizing the petitioner to post cash bond which the later filed in the amount of Php. NOS. Bernas.. Vol. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security. SILVERIO VS. p. 99289-90. but petitioner asked for the cancellation of her bail bond and that she be allowed provisional release on recognizance. Joaquin G. by reason of the announcement she made that she would be leaving for the U. Cruz. The Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure order against petitioner. she argues that her right to travel is impaired. First Edition. 263). Her arraignment was set. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality without undue delay. Held: The bail bond posted by petitioner has been cancelled and warrant of arrest has been issued by reason that he failed to appear at his arraignments. to accept a fellowship a Harvard. or public health" and "as may be provided by law.R.. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the Philippines. Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. The Sandiganbayan deferred it. which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party (See Salonga vs. it is imposed that the accused must make himself available whenever the court requires his presence.R. 25 April 1980. Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the Philippines. In the instant motion she submitted before the S. Hermoso & Travel Processing Center. SY ’06-‘07 . based on the finding that the petitioner has not been arraigned and there was evidence to show that the accused has left the country with out the knowledge and the permission of the court. 27 JAN 1993] Facts: An information was filed against petitioner with the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.J. Sec. The RTC ordered the DFA to cancel petitioner’s passport..000 so she filed a motion for acceptance of cash bail bond.15. Apparently. The order of arrest was issued with bail for release fixed at Php. A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the Court from leaving the country or. with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS. 8 APR 1991] Facts: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 2 (4) of the revised securities act. There is a valid restriction on the right to travel. So it is also that "An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior permission of the Court where the case is pending (ibid. I. compelled to return (Constitutional Law. Issue: Whether or Not the right to travel may be impaired by order of the court.S. public safety. ]). Article III.

and later wrote him a letter. Patacsil. G. 9 AUG 1995] Facts: This is a petition for certiorari to set aside as arbitrary and in grave abuse of discretion resolutions of the Sandiganbayan's First Division denying petitioner's motion for leave to travel abroad for medical treatment. NO. Gregorio B. decisions or orders or any judicial action of respondent court. What would be objectionable would be if respondent court obtained information without disclosing its source to the parties and used it in deciding a case against them. This was supported by several medical reports that were prepared by her doctor Roberto Anastacio.A.R." Attached was a recent medical report and letters of Vice President Joseph E. She holds herself amenable at all times to the orders and process of eth court. The court still found no merit to allow the petitioners motion to leave and denied all of the motions. when she posted bail bond. Marcos to US and Europe for treatment of several Heart diseases alleging that the tests were not available here. C. Page 96 Section 1-C. (Manotoc v. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a "Motion to Admit Clinical Summary and to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or Not the petitioner’s right to travel is impaired. After conviction she filed a "Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad" to seek diagnostic tests and treatment by practitioners of oriental medicine in China allegedly because of "a serious and life threatening medical condition" requiring facilities not available in the Philippines that was denied. The former first lady Imelda Marcos was found guilty by the First Division of the Sandiganbayan of violating 3 of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The contention of the petitioner that was invalid to contact a third party asking the latter to give an opinion on petitioner's motion and medical findings was erroneous. Also. She may legally be prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case. that she he every intension of leaving the country to pursue higher studies abroad. This was also denied by the Court also stating their express disapproval of the involvement of the VP and the Cabinet members so as to influence the resolutions. The presiding justice. 115132-34. Held: The petitioner does not deny and as a matter of fact even made a public statement. contacted Dr. Then she again filed an "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Permission to Travel Abroad" to undergo diagnosis and treatment in China.) MARCOS VS. the petitioner assumed obligations. The court could not be expected to just accept the opinion of petitioner's physician in resolving her request for permission to travel. Held: No. Estrada offering to be guarantor for the return of petitioner and those of twenty four members of the House of Representatives requesting the court to allow petitioner to travel abroad. SANDIGANBAYAN [247 SCRA 127. Garchitorena. Again another Motion to leave was filed by Mrs. Respondent court had to seek expert opinion because petitioner's motion was based on the advice of her physician. SY ’06-‘07 . Issue: Whether or Not the Sandiganbayan erred in disallowing the Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad because it (1) disregarded the medical findings (2) it motu propio contacted a third party asking the latter to give an opinion on petitioner's motion and medical findings (3) said that there was no necessity to get medical treatment abroad. The court upholds the course of action of the Sandiganbayan in taking judicial notice of such fact of petitioners pal to go abroad and in thereafter issuing a sua sponte the hold departure order is but an exercise of respondent court’s inherent power to preserve and to maintain effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. asking for "expert opinion on coronary medicine". Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Heart Center.

and to introduce civilized customs among them.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests In disregarding the medical reports. Thus. should petitioner still desire. Further. On the third issue. RUBI VS. Assigned as reasons for the action: (1) attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province. (3) The protection of the Manguianes. were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao. NO. in two of which she was convicted although the decision is still pending reconsideration. the Court ordered petitioner to undergo several tests which summarily states that the required medical treatment was available here in the Philippines and that the expertise and facilities here were more than adequate to cater to her medical treatment. that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. Wherefore. Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty pf abode. the petitioner failed to prove the necessity for a trip abroad. and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away form the reservation. The heart ailments of the petitioner were not as severe as that was reported by Dr. Page 97 Section 1-C. against their will. Naujan Lake. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao. The Court is further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. petitioner did not have an absolute right to leave the country and the burden was on her to prove that because of danger to health if not to her life there was necessity to seek medical treatment in foreign countries. Held: The Court held that section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty of abode and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws. Mindoro. the petitioner is Dismissed without prejudice to the filling of another motion for leave to travel abroad. In such an event the determination of her medical condition should be made by joint panel of medical specialists recommended by both the accused and the prosecution. SY ’06-‘07 . It appeared that Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be punished. In that case. It should be emphasized that considering the fact that she is facing charges before the courts in several cases. pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code. (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. all the Mangyans in the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan. It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam. The Solicitor-General adds the following. and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. WON Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. 7 MAR 1919] Facts: The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code. and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO [39 PHIL 660. 25 wherein non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) will be directed to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands. Also. Said resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam. 14078. based on her heart condition. 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. Anastacio.

Therefore. “Liberty regulated by law": Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general well-being. not issue. SY ’06-‘07 . No man can do exactly as he pleases. petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Page 98 Section 1-C. Habeas corpus can. None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. therefore. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered.

Father Sergio Marilao Osmeña refused to return the image to the barangay council. any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the Government. 5. 6. They were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests FREEDOM OF RELIGION Art 3. The issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. b. GARCES VS. NO. Resolution No. The phrase in Act No. shall forever be allowed. Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion. Page 99 Section 1-C. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. or vice versa. The image was temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of the barangay. And in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality. 45459. RUIZ [64 PHIL 201. and said projects were implemented. Sec. etc. Respondent contends that such issuance is in accordance to Act No. 25 MAY 1981] Facts: Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia.” the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance. Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church. G. SY ’06-‘07 . 4052 “advantageous to the government” does not authorize violation of the Constitution. It is however not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. 13 MAR 1937] Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress. system of religion. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. Ormoc City were passed: a.R. Resolution No. 4052. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. without discrimination or preference. This provision is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state. L-53487. as a weapon to further their ends and aims.Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration every fifth of April. with the words “Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress. Petitioner contends that such act is a violation of the Constitutional provision stating that no public funds shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any church.R. This was to “to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists. ESTENZO [104 SCRA 510. for the purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church. Funds for the said projects will be obtained through the selling of tickets and cash donations. Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not mere religious toleration. This provided for the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed. “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. The image would be made available to the Catholic Church during the celebration of the saint’s feast day. being the seat of that congress. 5. as it was the church’s property since church funds were used in its acquisition. However.” AGLIPAY VS. G. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters.” The focus of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of Manila. providing for the appropriation funds to respondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the government. The postage stamps. instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally planned. its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated.The chairman or hermano mayor of the fiesta would be the caretaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and that the image would remain in his residence for one year and until the election of his successor. after a mass. contains a map of the Philippines and the location of Manila.

since private funds were used. NO. for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. The Appellate Division reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint since the appellant have no standing. The New York Court of Appeals. in his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. ruled that the appellants have standing but the law is not unconstitutional. An order barring the Commissioner of Education (Allen) from removing appellant’s members from office for failure to comply with the requirement and an order preventing the use of state funds for the purchase of textbooks to be lent to parochial schools were sought for. The priest with Andres Garces. provides that: (7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. The Board of Education contended that said statute was invalid and violative of the State and Federal Constitutions. Not every government activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state. Practically. Held: No. there is no violation of the Constitution. Captain Veloso as a representative to the case.R. nor tax the exercise of religious practices. and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property. The Court believe that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. The priest. cannot be applied to appellant. 9637. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. the image was placed in a layman’s custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in connection with prayers and novena. G. Held: Section 1. the Court do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution. Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint(such as the acquisition) is not illegal. 8 Article IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the replevin case against the priest for the recovery of the image. without discrimination or preference. The provision aforequoted is a constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. The trial court held the statute unconstitutional. It was the council’s funds that were used to buy the image. Page 100 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 . Resolution No. a member of the Aglipayan Church. subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution. CITY OF MANILA [101PHIL 386. shall forever be allowed. as amended. It may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the bibles and other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said "merchandise" for profit. therefore it is their property. which carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. 12 appointed Brgy. Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over the custody of the image. 30 APR 1957] Facts: New York’s Education Law requires local public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in grade 7 to 12. Issue: Whether or Not the said ordinances are constitutional and valid (contention: it restrains the free exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship of appellant). contends that Sec. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. 2529.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Resolution No. Right of the determination of custody is their right. For this reason. With respect to Ordinance No. 3000. including those in private schools. and even if they decided to give it to the Church. The image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or beliefs of the barrio residents. AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS. as amended.

the exercise must be done in good faith. Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the constitutional freedom. The respondents relied on the precedence of Gerona et al v. Held: Petitioners' intention was not really to perform an act of religious worship but to conduct an antigovernment demonstration since they wore yellow T-shirts. GERMAN VS. therefore. that Ordinance No. 27 MAR 1985] Facts: Petitioners converged at J. so defendant is powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff Society.) Freedom to believe which is an absolute act within the realm of thought. This exemption disrupts school discipline and demoralizes the teachings of civic consciousness and duties of citizenship. The only limitation to Page 101 Section 1-C. Secretary of Education. Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus. of a serious evil to public safety. NO. Respondents were in full control and had the capability to stop any untoward move. 3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional. Besides. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF CEBU [219 SCRA 256 . 95770. Respondents ordered expulsion of 68 HS and GS students of Bantayan.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests It seems clear. G. public morals. They contend that to compel transcends constitutional limits and invades protection against official control and religious freedom. defendant shall return to plaintiff the sum of P5. as amended. Held: Religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority. They are Jehovah’s Witnesses believing that by doing these is religious worship/devotion akin to idolatry against their teachings. G. Respondent barred them for security reasons. Jude Chapel. WHEREFORE. As to Ordinance No. Public school authorities expelled these students for refusing to salute the flag. The burden to show the existence of grave and imminent danger lies on the officials who would restrain petitioners. which adjoined Malacañang. however inapplicable to said business.R.891. EBRALINAG VS. Issue: Whether or Not religious freedom has been violated. 1 MAR 1993] Facts: Two special civil actions for certiorari.) Freedom to act on one’s belief regulated and translated to external acts. raised their clenched fists and shouted anti. sing the national anthem and recite the “Panatang Makabayan” required by RA1265. Petitioners allege that the public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. is also not applicable. 2. BARANGAN [135 SCRA 514. Laurel Street to hear Mass at the St. Pinamungajan. The 2 fold aspect of right to religious worship is: 1. the restriction was reasonable as it was designed to protect the lives of the President and his family. Mandamus and Prohibition were filed and consolidated for raising same issue. government officials and diplomatic and foreign guests transacting business with Malacanang. Caracar. 2529 of the City of Manila. public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State has a right to prevent. 68828. (Minority opinion) The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of the freedom of religion is the existence of a grave and imminent. trade or occupation of the plaintiff.government slogans.P.R. The restriction was also intended to secure the executive offices within the Malacanang grounds from possible external attacks and disturbances. The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution does not mean exception from non-discriminatory laws like the saluting of flag and singing national anthem. Taburan and Asturias in Cebu. While every citizen has the right to religious freedom. NO.45 unduly collected from it. There was no clear and present danger of any serious evil to public safety or the security of Malacanang. SY ’06-‘07 . Gerona doctrine provides that we are a system of separation of the church and state and the flag is devoid of religious significance and it doesn’t involve any religious ceremony.

What the petitioner’s request is exemption from flag ceremonies and not exclusion from public schools. Bohol. or contractors for public works of the municipality. morals. citing Watson v. The Supreme Court affirms the validity of the election of Bishop Delos Reyes as the Supreme Bishop based on their internal laws To finally dispose of the property issue. as the sole and legitimate Supreme Bishop of IFI and ordered Fonacier to render an accounting of his admistration CA affirmed the decision of the CFI Issue: Whether or not the petitioner should still be regarded as the legitimate supreme bishop of IFI. If the congregation adopts the majority rule then the majority should prevail. Isabelo De los Reyes Jr. represented by its supreme bishop Gerardo Bayaca. then filed a suit for quo warranto for Gonzaga’s disqualification based on the Administrative Code provision: “In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics. Petitioner.368 declared that the rule in property controversies within religious congregations strictly independent of any other superior ecclesiastical association (such as the Philippine Independent Church) is that the rules for resolving such controversies should be those of any voluntary association. 20 NOV 1978] Facts: Fr. The expulsion of the petitioners from the school is not justified. L-5917. Jones. Jr. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED. Petitioner claims that he was not properly removed as Supreme Bishop and his legal successor was Juan Jamias. against Bishop Fonacier seeking to render an accounting of his administration of all the temporal properties and to recover the same on the ground that he ceased to be the supreme bishop of IFI. FONACIER VS. The non-observance of the flag ceremony does not totally constitute ignorance of patriotism and civic consciousness. Therefore. In the case at bar. in sustaiing Fr. COURT OF APPEALS [96 PHIL 417. it doesn’t present any danger so evil and imminent to justify their expulsion. By observing the ceremonies quietly. The expulsion of the students by reason of their religious beliefs is also a violation of a citizen’s right to free education. SY ’06-‘07 . soldiers in active service. then that should be followed. The legitimate Supreme Bishop of IFI is Isabelo De los Reyes. ruled that the Page 102 Section 1-C. civic consciousness and form of government are part of the school curricula. He claims that the there was an accounting of his administration and was turned over to bishop Jamias. Expulsion is ANNULLED. health and interests where State has right to prevent. had been elected as the Supreme Bishop. CFI rendered judgment declaring Isabelo De Los Reyes. Margarito Gonzaga was elected as Municipal Mayor in Alburquerque.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests religious freedom is the existence of grave and present danger to public safety. 34854. G. G. the Students expelled were only standing quietly during ceremonies. The 30 yr old previous GERONA decision of expelling and dismissing students and teachers who refuse to obey RA1265 is violates exercise of freedom of speech and religious profession and worship. that Isabelo De los Reyes and Bayaca have abandoned their faith and formally joined the Prostestant Episcopal Church of America. PAMIL VS. if it adopts adherence to duly constituted authorities within the congregation. also an aspirant for said office. Gonzaga’s right to the office. Also. Held: Supreme Court affirmed CA’s decision. expulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified.R. Jr. TELECOM [86 SCRA 413. Love for country and admiration for national heroes. persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds. the Court. 28 JAN 1955] Facts: Case was filed by Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI)." The respondent Judge.R. Jehovah’s Witnesses may be exempted from observing the flag ceremony but this right does not give them the right to disrupt such ceremonies.

ESCRITOR [492 SCRA 1 . respondent should not be allowed to remain employed therein for it will appear as if the court allows such act. She has been living with Quilapio. Also. 22 JUN 2006] Facts: Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of Las Pinas City. As Jefferson put it. Ecclesiastics were no longer included in the enumeration of persons ineligible under the said Election Code.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests provision had already been impliedly repealed by the Election Code of 1971. Issue: Whether or Not the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal arrangement. said section 2175 is superseded by the Constitution. for more than twenty five years and had a son with him as well. a man who is not her husband. Such a declaration is effective when legal impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their union. The provision of the Administrative Code remained operative. They allegedly have a ‘Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness’ under the approval of their congregation. “No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. However. section 2175 has been repealed by Sec. so it was not controlling. According to complainant. Gonzaga is eligible for the position of municipal mayor. The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of religion. According to the dissenting seven. Seven others voted that the provision was impliedly repealed. The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. section 2175 of the Administrative Code did not violate the right to freedom of religion because it did not give any requirement for a religious test. Thus the State’s interest only amounts to the symbolic preservation of an unenforced prohibition. there are three reasons for the said provision to be inoperative. The State’s interest in enforcing its prohibition cannot be merely abstract or symbolic in order to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh a free exercise claim. On the other hand. Whether or Not the prohibition regarding elected or appointed ecclesiastics is constitutional. Respondent claims that their conjugal arrangement is permitted by her religion—the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower and the Bible Trace Society. The free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental rights in our Constitution. SY ’06-‘07 . Held: The court was divided. Issue: Whether or Not Fr. First. Petitioner on the other hand argues that there was no implied repeal. Page 103 Section 1-C. it is the most inalienable and sacred of human rights. Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent. In the case at bar.” Second. the minority vote overruled the seven. 23 of the Election Code (1971): “Appointive public office holders and active members of the Armed Forces are no longer disqualified from running for an elective office”. ESTRADA VS. a distinction between public and secular morality and religious morality should be kept in mind. the controlling five argued: Section 2175 of the Administrative Code deals with a matter different from that of section 23 of the Election Code. Third. Held: No. The view of the dissenting seven failed to obtain a vote of eight members. Respondent’s husband died a year before she entered into the judiciary while Quilapio is still legally married to another woman. Five voted that the prohibition was not unconstitutional. the 1935 Constitution stated. Furthermore. the State has not evinced any concrete interest in enforcing the concubinage or bigamy charges against respondent or her partner. AM NO P-02-1651. according to law.

Petitioner even adopted for use on its halal certificates a distinct sign or logo registered in the Philippine Patent Office.GR 153888. This benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion. Inc. A government agency like herein respondent OMA cannot therefore perform a religious function like certifying qualified food products as halal. the actual need to certify food products as halal and also due to halal food producers' request. petitioner formulated in 1995 internal rules and procedures based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah for the analysis of food. orient manufacturers on halal food and issue halal certifications to qualified products and manufacturers. entity or scholars can lawfully and validly perform for the Muslims. Issue: Whether or Not EO violates the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State. these laws do not encroach on the religious freedom of Muslims. provided it does not offend compelling state interests. among the functions petitioner carries out is to conduct seminars. especially to Muslim communities. even on the premise that the health of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively protected by assigning to OMA the exclusive power to issue halal certifications. Without doubt. petitioner began to issue. Under the EO. The protection and promotion of the muslim Filipinos' right to health are already provided for in existing laws and ministered to by government agencies charged with ensuring that food products released in the market are fit for human consumption. Thus. respondent Office of the Executive Secretary issued EO 465 creating the Philippine Halal Certification Scheme and designating respondent OMA to oversee its implementation. It claims to be a federation of national Islamic organizations and an active member of international organizations such as the Regional Islamic Da'wah Council of Southeast Asia and the Pacific (RISEAP) and The World Assembly of Muslim Youth. Thus. 9 JUL 2003] Facts: Petitioner Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines. The RISEAP accredited petitioner to issue halal certifications in the Philippines. properly labeled and safe. by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications. According to petitioner.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The Court further states that our Constitution adheres the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. Also. Assuming arguendo that the OSG has proved a compelling state interest. In the case at bar. of their religious right to classify a product as halal. a food product becomes halal only after the performance of Islamic religious ritual and prayer. Unlike EO 46. Held: It is unconstitutional for the government to formulate policies and guidelines on the halal certification scheme because said scheme is a function only religious organizations. Thus the conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized for it constitutes an exemption to the law based on her right to freedom of religion. the State has in effect forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah on halal food. SY ’06-‘07 . On 2001. a non-governmental organization that extends voluntary services to the Filipino people. (IDCP) is a corporation that operates under Department of Social Welfare and Development. like herein petitioner. respondent OMA has the exclusive authority to issue halal certificates and perform other related regulatory activities. In that same year. it has to further demonstrate that the state has used the least intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [405 SCRA 497. classifying a food product as halal is a religious function because the standards used are drawn from the Qur'an and Islamic beliefs. for a fee. inspection thereof and issuance of halal certifications. ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. only practicing Muslims are qualified to slaughter animals for food. EO 46 encroached on the religious freedom of Muslim organizations like herein petitioner to interpret for Filipino Muslims what food products are fit for Muslim consumption. By giving OMA the exclusive power to classify food products as halal. Petitioner alleges that. we find no compelling justification for the government to deprive Muslim organizations. Page 104 Section 1-C. certifications to qualified products and food manufacturers.

Sec. on September 24. it appears from the articles. shall be afforded the citizen. but if he publishes what is improper. and with participation in graft. or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. illicit relations with gangsters. In such a case. is to destroy the freedom of the press. Hence the appeal. The statute not only operates to suppress the offending newspaper or periodical. Sec. The articles charged.' Public officers.” Art 3. is that prosecutions to enforce penal statutes for libel do not result in 'efficient repression or suppression of the evils of scandal. to form unions. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. provides that a Jewish gangster was in control of gambling.” NEAR VS. One member of the grand jury was stated to be in sympathy with the gangsters. or the authorities to a prosecution for criminal libel. who. these officers are not left to their ordinary remedy in a suit for libel. Sec.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Art 3. mischievous or illegal. 4. Sec. 18. in particular. one of the original defendants. published and circulated editions of “The Saturday Press”(published in Minneapolis) which were 'largely devoted to malicious. to investigate an attempt to assassinate one Guilford. to forbid this. associations. Issue: Whether or Not the proceeding authorized by the statute herein constitutes an infringement of the freedom of the press. Most of the charges were directed against the chief of police. and that they were chiefly devoted to charges against public officers and in relation to the prevalence and protection of crime. Held: Yes. 1927.” Art 3. A special grand jury and a special prosecutor were demanded to deal with the situation in general. and on eight subsequent dates in October and November. 7. as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development. or decisions. he must take the consequence of his own temerity. magazine or other periodical. or of the press. SY ’06-‘07 . and racketeering in Minneapolis. was shot by gangsters after the first issue of the periodical had been published. and that law enforcing officers and agencies were not energetically performing their duties. in substance. “The right of the people. The reason for the enactment. bootlegging. The county attorney was charged with knowing the existing conditions and with failure to take adequate measures to remedy them. scandalous and defamatory articles'(based on Session Laws of Minnesota). 1927. transactions. and papers pertaining to official acts. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public. but he who used it was to be responsible in case of its abuse. including those employed in the public and private sectors. “(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. of a malicious. The mayor was accused of inefficiency and dereliction. The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained. as a public nuisance. The District Court ruled against defendants. 8. MINNESOTA [283 US 697] Facts: A complaint alleged that the defendants. he was charged with gross neglect of duty. Now defendants challenged the Minnesota statute which provides for the abatement. subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. and to documents. whose character and conduct remain open to debate and free Page 105 Section 1-C.” Art 3. and. “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. the proof was that nine editions of the newspaper or periodical in question were published on successive dates.' In the present instance. but to put the publisher under an effective censorship. The insistence that the statute is designed to prevent the circulation of scandal which tends to disturb the public peace and to provoke assaults and the commission of crime is unavailing. of expression. Access to official records. scandalous and defamatory news paper. as the state court has said. “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech.

as their freedom of the press was abridged in contravention to the due process clause. find their remedies for false accusations in actions under libel laws providing for redress and punishment. It is not measured or limited by the volume of advertisements. It is bad because. Characterizing the publication as a business. and not in proceedings to restrain the publication of newspapers and periodicals. GROSJEAN VS. UNITED STATES [403 US 713] Facts: The court granted certiorari in the cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U. by virtue of the very reason for its existence.S. The Government argues that "the authority of the Executive Department to protect the nation against publication of information whose disclosure would endanger the national security stems from two interrelated sources: the constitutional power of the President over the conduct of foreign affairs and his authority as Commander-inChief. and the business as a nuisance. NEW YORK TIMES VS. The court ruled in favor of the newspaper companies hence the appeal. as it could be if valid it well might result in destroying both advertising and circulation. AMERICAN PRESS CO." Said articles reveal the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests discussion in the press. does not permit an invasion of the constitutional immunity against restraint. its effect is to curtail the amount of revenue realized from advertising. It is measured alone by the extent of the circulation of the publication in which the advertisements are carried. The Act operates as a restraint in a double sense. if it were increased to a high degree. The preliminary freedom. does not depend. First. The tax here involved is bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appellees. on proof of truth. The form in which the tax is imposed is in itself suspicious. Issue: Whether or Not Act 23 unconstitutional. second. with the plain purpose of penalizing the publishers and curtailing the circulation of a selected group of newspapers. [297 US 233] Facts: The nine publishers(corporations) who brought the suit publish thirteen newspapers and these thirteen publications are the only ones within the state of Louisiana having each a circulation of more than 20. Freedom of speech and of the press are rights of the same fundamental character. Page 106 Section 1-C. as this court has said. but the right to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties as well. Nor can it be said that the constitutional freedom from previous restraint is lost because charges are made of derelictions which constitute crimes. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy. but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens. and. Judge Cooley has laid down the test to be applied: The evils to be prevented were not the censorship of the press merely. In such case the Executive Branch seeks judicial aid in preventing publication. SY ’06-‘07 . it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties. The suit assailed Act No.000 copies per week. Held: Yes. A free press stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. its direct tendency is to restrict circulation. safeguarded by the due process of law clause. 231 of the Louisiana Legislature. The word 'liberty' contained in that amendment embraces not only the right of a person to be free from physical restraint. This is plain enough when we consider that.

Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force. whatever the source. excess of partisanship and undue concentration in politics with the loss not only of efficiency in government but of lives as well. Fernandez there are two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction on freedom of speech. freedom of assembly and freedom of association are invoked to nullify the act.R. L-27833. To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment (Bill of Rights) and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure. The "dangerous tendency rule" is such that “If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent." No branch of government could abridge the people's rights granted by the Constitution including the freedom of the press. of assembly and of association. 18 APR 1969] Facts: RA 4880 which took effect on June 17. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. Women Lawyers' Circle were requested to give their opinions. As held in Cabansag v. the basic liberties of free speech and free press. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. The first. Issue: Whether or Not RA 4880 unconstitutional. Held: Yes.” It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force. the U. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.P.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or not the freedom of the press was abridged. COMELEC [27 SCRA 835. or unlawfulness be advocated. without censorship. at the time of the filing the petition. or prior restraints. 4880 could indeed be looked upon as a limitation on the preferred rights of speech and press. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. There was the further allegation that the nomination of a candidate and the fixing of period of election campaign are matters of political expediency and convenience which only political parties can regulate or curtail by and among themselves through self-restraint or mutual understanding or agreement and that the regulation and limitation of these political matters invoking the police power. Senator Lorenzo M. the Civil Liberties Union. there being the substantive evil of elections. GONZALES VS. The language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news.P. More precisely. an incumbent councilor in the 4th District of Manila and the Nacionalista Party official candidate for Vice-Mayor of Manila to which he was subsequently elected on November 11. He did justify its enactment however under the clear and present danger doctrine. then such words are punishable. Petitioner Cabigao was. It provides the criterion as to what words may be publicly established. a registered voter in the City of Manila and a political leader of his co-petitioner. G. 1967. whether for national or local officials. Law Center and the U. SY ’06-‘07 . on the other hand. means that the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before the utterance can be punished. and elucidated that Act No. violence. or unlawfulness. It has the advantage of establishing according to the above decision a definite rule in constitutional law. Respondents contend that the act was based on the police power of the state. in the absence of clear and present danger to the state. The danger to be guarded against is the 'substantive evil' sought to be prevented. It is Page 107 Section 1-C. petitioner Gonzales. would render the constitutional rights of petitioners meaningless and without effect. injunctions. These are the “clear and present danger” rule and the 'dangerous tendency' rule. prohibiting the too early nomination of candidates and limiting the period of election campaign or partisan political activity was challenged on constitutional grounds. being debased and degraded by unrestricted campaigning. violence. is a private individual. The Philippine Bar Association. 1967. Held: Yes. Tañada was asked to appear as amicus curiae.

Held: Yes. it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. Under our constitutional scheme. If it fails to discharge this burden. dishonesty and corruption as well as violence that of late has invariably marred election campaigns and partisan political activities in this country. COURT OF APPEALS [259 SCRA 529. against the solicitation of votes whether directly or indirectly. It cited its TV Program Series Nos. The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms. G. much less denied. The Iglesia ni Cristo insists on the literal translation of the bible and says that our (Catholic) veneration of the Virgin Mary is not to be condoned because nowhere it is found in the bible. republican in form. The challenged statute could have been more narrowly drawn and the practices prohibited more precisely delineated to satisfy the constitutional requirements as to a valid limitation under the clear and present danger doctrine. Sr. “attack” is different from “offend” any race or religion. 119." On November 28. As in the case of freedom of expression. NO. The very idea of a government. In their Answer. 1992. CA however reversed it hence this petition. Mendez reversing the decision of the respondent Board. 121 and 128. 119673. addressed for Henrietta S. SY ’06-‘07 .R. Religious dogmas and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers. According to the letter the episode in is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression and no indication that the episode poses any clear and present danger. 121 and 128. however. Petitioner alleged that the respondent Board acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in requiring petitioner to submit the VTR tapes of its TV program and in x-rating them. 128 which allowed it through a letter of former Executive Secretary Edelmiro A. Amante. its act of censorship will be struck down. Any act that restrains speech is accompanied with presumption of invalidity. implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for redress of grievances. The prohibition of any speeches. except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. the Page 108 Section 1-C. 119. respondent Board invoked its power under PD No. Issue: Whether or Not the "ang iglesia ni cristo" program is not constitutionally protected as a form of religious exercise and expression. 19861 in relation to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. The program presents and propagates petitioner's religious beliefs.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent. Petitioner submitted to the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television the VTR tapes of its TV program Series Nos. or the undertaking of any campaign literature or propaganda for or against any candidate or party is repugnant to a constitutional command. it appealed to the Office of the President the classification of its TV Series No. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. This is true in this case. or the holding of interviews for or against the election of any party or candidate for public office and the prohibition of the publication or distribution of campaign literature or materials. 115. RTC’s ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. Petitioner also filed Civil Case.. announcements or commentaries. 26 JUL 1996] Facts: Petitioner has a television program entitled "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" aired on Channel 2 every Saturday and on Channel 13 every Sunday. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. unclean they may be. The Board classified the series as "X" or not for public viewing on the ground that they "offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law. The board contended that it outrages Catholic and Protestant's beliefs. doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with other religions. 116. As the author Tañada clearly explained. So-called "attacks" are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. especially the fanatics. this right is not to be limited. It is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption. such provisions were deemed by the legislative body to be part and parcel of the necessary and appropriate response not merely to a clear and present danger but to the actual existence of a grave and substantive evil of excessive partisanship.

There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. The determination of the question as to whether or not such vilification. the police. its impact cannot be measured. he. which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle. In consequence of this prohibition. if it cuts off the flow of media reporting. Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong. a senatorial candidate in the May 11. 103956. to convince others to agree with him. The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and. It is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified. The restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizen's private property. Issue: Whether or Not the COMELEC’s prohibition unconstitutional. Under the clear and present danger rule not only must the danger be patently clear and pressingly present but the evil sought to be avoided must be so substantive as to justify a clamp over one's mouth or a writing instrument to be stilled. G. Prior restraint on speech. public or private. The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like cars and other moving vehicles does not endanger any substantial government interest. 2347 which provides that decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas. and if the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the constitutionally sanctioned objective. exaggeration or fabrication falls within or lies outside the boundaries of protected speech or expression is a judicial function which cannot be arrogated by an administrative body such as a Board of Censors. unless the speech is first allowed.R. and the causal connection between the speech and the evil apprehended cannot be established. should lean in favor of freedom. 31 MAR 1992] Facts: COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. primarily his own and not of anybody else. even if said religion happens to be the most numerous church in our country. Page 109 Section 1-C. Section 1. NO. being a neophyte in the field of politics stands to suffer grave and irreparable injury with this prohibition. prohibiting posting in "mobile" places. honest. In addition. if it restricts one's expression of belief in a candidate or one's opinion of his or her qualifications. COMELEC [207 SCRA 712. ADIONG VS. the petitioner believes that with the ban on radio. and orderly elections. and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger. including religious speech. by displaying it on his car. Respondent board cannot censor the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other religions. place or manner of speech. local officials and COMELEC. The socalled balancing of interests — individual freedom on one hand and substantial public interests on the other — is made even more difficult in election campaign cases because the Constitution also gives specific authority to the Commission on Elections to supervise the conduct of free. SY ’06-‘07 . television and print political advertisements. Article III of the Bill of Rights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. The preferred freedom of expression calls all the more for the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage. It is inappropriate to apply the clear and present danger test to the case at bar because the issue involves the content of speech and not the time. There is no clear public interest threatened by such activity so as to justify the curtailment of the cherished citizen's right of free speech and expression. Allegedly. 1992 elections now assails the Resolution. Held: The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's fundamental right of free speech. another cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution would be violated." A system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies. cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil. When faced with border line situations where freedom to speak by a candidate or party and freedom to know on the part of the electorate are invoked against actions intended for maintaining clean and free elections. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it placed on his private vehicle.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the State from leaning towards any religion. the expression becomes a statement by the owner. The regulation of election campaign activity may not pass the test of validity if it is too general in its terms or not limited in time and scope in its application. The basis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas.

COMELEC [201 SCRA 1. The limiting impact of Section 11 (b) upon the right to free speech of the candidates themselves is not unduly repressive or unreasonable. and programs and so forth. 1026653. It is asserted that the prohibition is in derogation of media's role. 66461 invades and violates the constitutional guarantees comprising freedom of expression. Section 11 (b) does not reach commentaries and expressions of belief or opinion by reporters or broadcasters or editors or commentators or columnists in respect of candidates. Petitioners maintain that the prohibition imposed by Section 11 (b) amounts to censorship. would bring about a substantial reduction in the quantity or volume of information concerning candidates and Issue in the election thereby curtailing and limiting the right of voters to information and opinion.R. It seems a modest proposition that the provision of the Bill of Rights which enshrines freedom of speech. political parties and programs of government. 5 MAR 1992] Facts: Petitioners in these cases consist of representatives of the mass media which are prevented from selling or donating space and time for political advertisements." In our own society. Held: Yes. One of the basic state policies given constitutional rank by Article II. G. media-based election or political propaganda during the election period of 1992. It is principally argued by petitioners that Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. opinions and beliefs are not in fact advertisements for particular candidates covertly paid for. NO. without regard to the level of financial resources that one may have at one's disposal. Issue: Whether or Not Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. equality of opportunity to proffer oneself for public office. Section 11 (b) is limited in its applicability in time to election periods. Section 26 of the Constitution is the egalitarian demand that "the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. Section 11 (b) is limited in the duration of its applicability and enforceability. their qualifications.R. only publications of a particular content. namely. 6646 constitutional. BUSTOS [37 PHIL. is not paid for by candidates for political office. Section 11 (b) is not to be read as reaching any report or commentary other coverage that. By virtue of the operation of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution. Section 11 (b) as designed to cover only paid political advertisements of particular candidates. or whether such act has gone beyond permissible supervision or regulation of media operations so as to constitute unconstitutional repression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. G. 731. "during the election period. US VS. petitioners contend that Section 11 (b) abridges the freedom of speech of candidates. in responsible media. their qualifications. function and duty to provide adequate channels of public information and public opinion relevant to election Issue. freedom of expression and freedom of the press has to be taken in conjunction with Article IX (C) (4) which may be seen to be a special provision applicable during a specific limited period — i. and that the suppression of media-based campaign or political propaganda except those appearing in the Comelec space of the newspapers and on Comelec time of radio and television broadcasts." The essential question is whether or not the assailed legislative or administrative provisions constitute a permissible exercise of the power of supervision or regulation of the operations of communication and information enterprises during an election period. SY ’06-‘07 . Section 11 (b) does not purport in any way to restrict the reporting by newspapers or radio or television stations of news or news-worthy events relating to candidates. and taxpayers and voters who claim that their right to be informed of election Issue and of credentials of the candidates is being curtailed.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places whether public or private except in the authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes censorship. is clearly an important value. The Court considers that Section 11 (b) has not gone outside the permissible bounds of supervision or regulation of media operations during election periods..e. L-12592. 8 MAR 1918] Page 110 Section 1-C. so long at least as such comments. NATIONAL PRESS CLUB VS. Further. two (2) individuals who are candidates for office (one for national and the other for provincial office) in the coming May 1992 elections. Moreover. In sum. because it selects and singles out for suppression and repression with criminal sanctions.

of course. magazines. a fit subject for proper comment. with malfeasance in office and asking for his removal. Manila. It is further the duty of all who know of any official dereliction on the part of a magistrate or the wrongful act of any public officer to bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty it is to inquire into and punish them. therefore. without fear of penalty. In the usual case malice can be presumed from defamatory words. and later burned. Auxilliary Services Bureau. justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol. Page 111 Section 1-C. public opinion will be effectively suppressed. Although the charges are probably not true as to the justice of the peace. The persons assembling and petitioning must. If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer. in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and members of various student organizations. Punsalan alleged that accused published a writing which was false. pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public at the University belt along C. INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila. was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. A privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice or falsity. The inevitable and incontestable result has been the development and adoption of the doctrine of privilege. 5 OCT 1989] Facts: On December 1 and 3. and libelous against him. Among the publications seized. publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene. The ends and the motives of these citizens— to secure the removal from office of a person thought to be venal — were justifiable. It is a duty which every one owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of any alleged misconduct. Ramon D. COURT OF APPEALS [178 SCRA 362. scandalous.R.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Facts: In the latter part of 1915. The administration of the law is a matter of vital public concern. and five individuals signed affidavits. Petition means that any person or group of persons can apply.80806. Issue: Whether or Not accused is entitled to constitutional protection by virtue of his right to free speech and free press. Public policy. seized and confiscated from dealers. Now. the welfare of society. Good faith surrounded their action. The duty under which a party is privileged is sufficient if it is social or moral in its nature and this person in good faith believes he is acting in pursuance thereof although in fact he is mistaken. Privilege destroys that presumption. Recto Avenue. Western Police District. malicious. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is. All persons have an interest in the pure and efficient administration of justice and of public affairs. distributors. Probable cause for them to think that malfeasance or misfeasance in office existed is apparent. The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. G. Bagatsing. NO. Held: Yes. assume responsibility for the charges made. The right to assemble and petition is the necessary consequence of republican institutions and the complement of the part of free speech. and prepared and signed a petition to the Executive Secretary(privileged communication) through the law office of Crossfield and O'Brien. The specific charges against the justice of the peace include the solicitation of money from persons who have pending cases before the judge. numerous citizens of the Province of Pampanga assembled. they were believed to be true by the petitioners. 1983. elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group. SY ’06-‘07 . All persons have an interest in the pure and efficient administration of justice and of public affairs. defamatory.M. charging Roman Punsalan. pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila. In no way did they abuse the privilege. to the appropriate branch or office of the government for a redress of grievances. PITA VS. Pampanga. Assembly means a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs. and the orderly administration of government have demanded protection for public opinion. newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks.

or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television production. CAPULONG [160 SCRA 861. The Court granted the temporary restraining order. 1. However. envisioned. as superintendent of Western Police District of the City of Manila. RTC ordered for the desistance of the movie production and making of any reference to plaintiff or his family and from creating any fictitious character in lieu of plaintiff which Page 112 Section 1-C. sometime in 1987. AYER PRODUCTIONS VS. artistic and educational magazine which is not per se obscene. It is easier said than done to say. the pictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection. as indeed we have laws punishing the author. if in their opinion an obscenity seizure is in order and that. seeking to enjoin said defendants and their agents from confiscating plaintiff’s magazines or from preventing the sale or circulation thereof claiming that the magazine is a decent. or picture. Ramos also signified his approval of the intended film production. and petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion picture. G. appropriation. This was affirmed by the CA. RTC ruled that the seizure was valid. reproduction and/or exhibition of his name. L-82380. for commercial viewing and for Philippine and international release. and his movie production company. confiscation and burning of plaintiff's "Pinoy Playboy" Magazines. the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. Held: Freedom of the press is not without restraint as the state has the right to protect society from pornographic literature that is offensive to public morals. Ultimately "whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the case and that the question is to be decided by the "judgment of the aggregate sense of the community reached by it. 2. that if the pictures here in question were used not exactly for art's sake but rather for commercial purposes. NO. Plaintiff also filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against indiscriminate seizure. SY ’06-‘07 . petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was deleted from the movie script. by way of a search warrant. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are obscene and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action." Another is whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. David Williamson is Australia's leading playwright and Professor McCoy (University of New South Wales) is an American historian have developed a script. The question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge’s sound discretion." The government authorities in the instant case have not shown the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature First of all. is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being obscene may fall. The case was set for trial upon the lapse of the TRO. Enrile declared that he will not approve the use. a complaint was filed by Enrile invoking his right to privacy. and utilizing actual documentary footage as background. publishers and sellers of obscene publications. Ayer Productions. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed obscene. film or other medium for advertising or commercial exploitation. It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour mini-series television play. The proposed motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was endorsed by the MTRCB as and other government agencies consulted.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera. The court provides that the authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge. Using the Kottinger rule: the test of obscenity is "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene. and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure. creating four fictional characters interwoven with real events. they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography. However. pending hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction. 29 APR 1988] Facts: Petitioner McElroy an Australian film maker. and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.R. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure violative of the freedom of expression of the petitioner. presented in a "docu-drama" style.

He utilized it to inform authorities in Manila that the people in the place were living in terror. However a correction was published immediately. clearly of public concern. SY ’06-‘07 . SANDIGANBAYAN [34 SCRA 116. Hence the appeal. This Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle. The subject thus relates to a highly critical stage in the history of the country. L-26549. LOPEZ VS. there appeared on the front page of The Manila Chronicle. is not a disqualification for availing of freedom of speech and of expression. Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film and produce motion pictures and exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them through television. instead of the alleged killers. in other words. Hence the appeal. were on file in the library of the Manila Chronicle but when the news quiz format was prepared. Enrile was a "public figure:" Such public figures were held to have lost. or bears substantial or marked resemblance to Enrile." the report of respondent. Neither private respondent nor the respondent trial Judge knew what the completed film would precisely look like. no "clear and present danger" of any violation of any right to privacy. of which petitioner Lopez was the publisher. An American Army plane dropping on the beach of an island an emergency-sustenance kit containing. Held: Yes. due to a series of killings committed since Christmas of 1955. a man named Fidel Cruz who merely wanted transportation home to Manila. Furthermore the circumstance that the production of motion picture films is a commercial activity expected to yield monetary profit. The line of equilibrium in the specific context of the instant case between the constitutional freedom of speech and of expression and the right of privacy. during which the momentous events. Fidel Cruz. It turned out that the photographs of respondent Cruz and that of Fidel Cruz. The court ruled in his favor. as well as on other dailies. among other things. At all relevant times. Cruz. only two individuals able to read and write. sending a distress signal to a passing United States Airforce plane which in turn relayed the message to Manila. Respondent sued petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of damages alleging the defamatory character of the above publication of his picture. There was. a news story of a sanitary inspector assigned to the Babuyan Islands. Major Encarnacion branded as a "hoax. Subject matter is one of public interest and concern. Upon arriving Major Encarnacion and his men found. their right to privacy. The projected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and hence not exhibited to any audience. then edited by Gatbonton. Issue: Page 113 Section 1-C. Mention was made that while Fidel Cruz’ story turned out to be false it brought attention to the government that people in that most people in the area are sick sick. may be marked out in terms of a requirement that the proposed motion picture must be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation of events. the pictures that were published were that of private respondent Fidel G. In view of this finding.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests nevertheless is based on. food and clothing being scarce. 1956. Unfortunately. 1956. The magazine carried photographs of the person purporting to be Fidel Cruz. that petitioners propose to film were taking place. devoted a pictorial article to it in its issue of January 15. a two-way radio set. Losing no time. Defense interposed that they are beating the deadline. the two photographs were in advertently switched. 31 JUL 1970] Facts: In the early part of January. Bulacan. sanitary inspector. to some extent at least. the Philippines defense establishment rushed to the island a platoon of scout rangers. a businessman contractor from Santa Maria. Issue: Whether or Not freedom of expression was violated.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
Whether or Not petitioners abused the freedom of the press. Held: No. The SC, quoting Quisumbing v. Lopez, found for plaintiff, but with reduced damages, since the error in this case could have been checked considering that this was a weekly magazine and not a daily. The ruling: "there is no evidence in the record to prove that the publication of the news item under consideration was prompted by personal ill will or spite, or that there was intention to do harm,' and that on the other hand there was 'an honest and high sense of duty to serve the best interests of the public, without self-seeking motive and with malice towards none.' Every citizen of course has the right to enjoy a good name and reputation, but we do not consider that the respondents, under the circumstances of this case, had violated said right or abused the freedom of the press. The newspapers should be given such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy. In the preparation of stories, press reporters and editors usually have to race with their deadlines; and consistently with good faith and reasonable care, they should not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words. “No inroads on press freedom should be allowed in the guise of punitive action visited on what otherwise could be characterized as libel whether in the form of printed words or a defamatory imputation resulting from the publication of respondent's picture with the offensive caption as in the case here complained of. This is merely to underscore the primacy that freedom of the press enjoys.” PRIMICIAS VS. FUGOSO [80 PHIL 71; L-1800; 27 JAN 1948] Facts: An action was instituted by the petitioner for the refusal of the respondent to issue a permit to them to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to the government. The reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order." Giving emphasis as well to the delegated police power to local government. Stating as well Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an offense against public peace, and penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly." Included herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Place.1 Issue: Whether or Not the freedom of speech was violated. Held: Yes. Dealing with the ordinance, specifically, Sec. 1119, said section provides for two constructions: (1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and other public places of the City of Manila; (2) The right of the Mayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder. The court favored the second construction. First construction tantamount to authorizing the Mayor to prohibit the use of the streets. Under our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be validly granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency. The Mayor’s first defense is untenable. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one . The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in

Page 114 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the state. ZALDIVAR VS. SANDIGANBAYAN [170 SCRA 1; G.R. NO. 79690-707; 1 FEB 1989] Facts: The case stemmed from the resolution of the Supreme Court stopping the respondent from investigating graft cases involving Antique Gov. Enrique Zaldivar. The Court ruled that since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, respondent’s powers as Tanodbayan have been superseded by the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman, he however becomes the Special Prosecutor of the State, and can only conduct an investigation and file cases only when so authorized by the Ombudsman. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondent wherein he included statements which were unrelated in the Issue raised in the Court. This include: (a)That he had been approached twice by a leading member of the court and he was asked to 'go slow on Zaldivar and 'not to be too hard on him; (b) That he "was approached and asked to refrain from investigating the COA report on illegal disbursements in the Supreme Court because 'it will embarass the Court;" and (c) that in several instances, the undersigned respondent was called over the phone by a leading member of the Court and was asked to dismiss the cases against two Members of the Court." Statements of the respondent saying that the SC’s order '"heightens the people's apprehension over the justice system in this country, especially because the people have been thinking that only the small fly can get it while big fishes go scot-free” was publicized in leading newspapers. Now, the Court Resolved to require respondent to explain in writing why he should not be punished for contempt of court for making such public statements reported in the media. Respondent then sought to get some members of the Court to inhibit themselves in the resolution of the Zaldivar case for alleged bias and prejudice against him. A little later, he in effect asked the whole Court to inhibit itself from passing upon the Issue involved in proceeding and to pass on responsibility for this matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, upon the ground that respondent cannot expect due process from this Court, that the Court has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly. The Court found respondent guilty of contempt of court and indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Now, he assails said conviction, invoking his freedom of speech. Counsel for respondent urges that it is error "for this Court to apply the "visible tendency" rule rather than the "clear and present danger" rule in disciplinary and contempt charges." Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom of speech/expression. Held: There was no violation. The Court did not purport to announce a new doctrine of "visible tendency," it was simply paraphrasing Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court which penalizes a variety of contumacious conduct including: "any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice." Under either the "clear and present danger" test or the "balancing-of-interest test," the Court held that the statements made by respondent Gonzalez are of such a nature and were made in such a manner and under such circumstances, as to transcend the permissible limits of free speech. What is here at stake is the authority of the Supreme Court to confront and prevent a "substantive evil" consisting not only of the obstruction of a free and fair hearing of a particular case but also the avoidance of the broader evil of the degradation of the judicial system of a country and the destruction of the standards of professional conduct required from members of the bar and officers of the courts, which has some implications to the society. REYES VS. BAGATSING [125 SCRA 553; L-65366; 9 NOV 1983] Facts: Petitioner sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon, starting from the Luneta to the gates of the United States Embassy. Once there, and in an open space of public property, a short program would be held. The march would be attended by the local and foreign participants of such conference. That would be followed by the handing over of a petition based on the resolution adopted at the closing session of the Anti-Bases Coalition. There was likewise an assurance in the petition that in the

Page 115 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken by it "to ensure a peaceful march and rally. However the request was denied. Reference was made to persistent intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of people is expected to attend. Respondent suggested that a permit may be issued if it is to be held at the Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed area where the safety of the participants themselves and the general public may be ensured. An oral argument was heard and the mandatory injunction was granted on the ground that there was no showing of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could justify the denial of a permit. However Justice Aquino dissented that the rally is violative of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding of rallies within a radius of five hundred (500) feet from any foreign mission or chancery and for other purposes. Hence the Court resolves. Issue: Whether or Not the freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble violated. Held: Yes. The invocation of the right to freedom of peaceable assembly carries with it the implication that the right to free speech has likewise been disregarded. It is settled law that as to public places, especially so as to parks and streets, there is freedom of access. Nor is their use dependent on who is the applicant for the permit, whether an individual or a group. There can be no legal objection, absent the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, on the choice of Luneta as the place where the peace rally would start. Time immemorial Luneta has been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the public places has from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. With regard to the ordinance, there was no showing that there was violation and even if it could be shown that such a condition is satisfied it does not follow that respondent could legally act the way he did. The validity of his denial of the permit sought could still be challenged. A summary of the application for permit for rally: The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. Notice is given to applicants for the denial. BAYAN VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ERMITA [488 SCRA 226; G.R. NO. 169838; 25 APR 2006] Facts: Rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6, 2005 is at issue. BAYAN’s rally was violently dispersed. 26 petitioners were injured, arrested and detained when a peaceful mass action they was preempted and violently dispersed by the police. KMU asserts that the right to peaceful assembly, are affected by Batas Pambansa No. 880 and the policy of “Calibrated Preemptive Response” (CPR) being followed to implement it. KMU, et al., claim that on October 4, 2005, a rally KMU co-sponsored was to be conducted at the Mendiola bridge but police blocked them along C.M. Recto and Lepanto Streets and forcibly dispersed them, causing injuries to several of their members. They further allege that on October 6, 2005, a multi-sectoral rally which KMU also co-sponsored was scheduled to proceed along España Avenue in front of the UST and going towards Mendiola bridge. Police officers blocked them along Morayta Street and prevented them from proceeding further. They were then forcibly dispersed, causing injuries on one of them. Three other rallyists were arrested. All petitioners assail Batas Pambansa No. 880 The Public Assembly Act of 1985, some of them in toto and others only Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), and 14(a), as well as the policy of CPR. They seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the “no permit, no rally” policy and the CPR policy announced on Sept. 21, 2005. Petitioners Bayan, et al., contend that BP 880 is clearly a violation of the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights treaties of which the Philippines is a signatory.

Page 116 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

The so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. No. There is. No. that the government takes action even before the rallyists can perform their act. is directly affected by B. Furthermore. No. ordinance or executive order supports the policy. and that no law. SY ’06-‘07 . likewise. 880 and violates the Constitution as it causes a chilling effect on the exercise by the people of the right to peaceably assemble. Respondents argued that petitioners have no standing. No. It also characterizes public assemblies without a permit as illegal and penalizes them and allows their dispersal.P. 880 is unconstitutional as it is a curtailment of the right to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of grievances because it puts a condition for the valid exercise of that right. It is content-neutral regulation of the time. otherwise they would not be “peaceable” and entitled to protection.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests They argue that B. 6 DEC 2006] Facts: Page 117 Section 1-C. It refers to all kinds of public assemblies that would use public places. no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law.P. the limits provided are unreasonable: First. since the content of the speech is not relevant to the regulation. et al. Regarding the CPR policy. place and manner of holding public assemblies.P.. allowing the Mayor to deny the permit on clear and convincing evidence of a clear and present danger is too comprehensive. 7160 gives the Mayor power to deny a permit independently of B. and that the permit is for the use of a public place and not for the exercise of rights. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. it contravenes the maximum tolerance policy of B. ESTORNINOS [G. BP 880 entails traffic re-routing to prevent grave public inconvenience and serious or undue interference in the free flow of commerce and trade. And even assuming that the legislature can set limits to this right.P.P. No. place and manner of the assemblies. B. as guaranteed by the Constitution. No. FERNANDO VS.As to the CPR policy. 880 requires a permit before one can stage a public assembly regardless of the presence or absence of a clear and present danger. No. Thus. KMU. Their right as citizens to engage in peaceful assembly and exercise the right of petition. Held: No question as to standing. Issue: Whether or Not BP 880 and the CPR Policy unconstitutional. they argue that it is preemptive. et al. otherwise interest on the issue would possibly wane. 880 cannot put the prior requirement of securing a permit. argue that B. in turn. Petitioners Jess del Prado. 880 is not a content-based regulation because it covers all rallies.P. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. the five-day requirement to apply for a permit is too long as certain events require instant public assembly. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision. 880. Maximum tolerance1 is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of the content of the expressions in the rally. According to Atienza RA.R.P. subject to the giving of advance notices.. 880. it is void for being an ultra vires act that alters the standard of maximum tolerance set forth in B. aside from being void for being vague and for lack of publication.P. No. Second. NO 159751. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments. The reference to “lawful cause” does not make it content-based because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes.P. no prior restraint. its provisions are not mere regulations but are actually prohibitions. Insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance. argue that the Constitution sets no limits on the right to assembly and therefore B. 880. 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time. It also curtails the choice of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of expression clause as the time and place of a public assembly form part of the message for which the expression is sought. are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. and that B. this was declared null and void.

M. QUI). Culture. Held: No. officers of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in the National Capital Region conducted police surveillance on the store Gaudencio E. and Sports. (Kottinger Rule Applied).62270. to 12:00 P. Even they rallied beyond the period allowed. Pursuant to such permit. c. Playhouse. This is without prejudice to the taking of disciplinary action for conduct. their exercise to discuss matters affecting their welfare or involving public interest is not to be subjected to previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless there be a showing of a clear and present danger to a substantive evil that the state.M. Copies of IOU Penthouse Magazine with nude obscene pictures. Respondent Ramento found petitioners guilty of the charge of illegal assembly which was characterized by the violation of the permit granted resulting in the disturbance of classes and oral defamation. The validity thereof was challenged by petitioners both before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against private respondents and before the Ministry of Education. there was an infringement of the right to peaceable assembly and its cognate right of free speech. d. As obscenity is an unprotected speech which the State has the right to regulate. The penalty was suspension for one academic year. Issue: Whether on the facts as disclosed resulting in the disciplinary action and the penalty imposed. As a corollary. Hence this petition. has a right to present. they were informed that they were under preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an illegal assembly. the utmost leeway and scope is accorded the content of the placards Page 118 Section 1-C. Erotic. Issue: Whether or Not the CA erred in affirming RTC’s decision. b. 1982. Fernando Music Fair (Music Fair) in Quiapo. NO. Rave. A Search Warrant for violation of Article 201 of RPC against petitioner and a certain Warren Tingchuy and the seizure of the following items: a. RAMENTO [129 SCRA 359. The same day. along with other students. They sought and were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from 8:00 A. 21 MAY 1984] Facts: Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of respondent University. and Copies of VHS tapes containing pornographic shows. CA affirmed the decision hence this appeal. 1982. Copies of Hustler International Magazine with nude obscene pictures. At such gathering they manifested in vehement and vigorous language their opposition to the proposed merger of the Institute of Animal Science with the Institute of Agriculture. It was outside the area covered by their permit. Swank. they held a general assembly at the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science basketball court (VMAS). Gallery. Student leaders are likely to be assertive and dogmatic. The police searched the premises and confiscated twenty-five VHS tapes(among of which is “Kahit sa Pangarap Lang” with Myra Manibog as actress who is naked) and ten different magazines(Dalaga. G. the place indicated in such permit. Petitioners were charged and convicted. "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. Copies of New Rave Magazines with nude obscene pictures. Then on September 9.R. Necessarily.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Acting on reports of sale and distribution of pornographic materials. they marched toward the Life Science Building and continued their rally." The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed students of educational institutions. SY ’06-‘07 . not in the basketball court as therein stated but at the second floor lobby. They were asked to explain on the same day why they should not be held liable for holding an illegal assembly. no clear and present danger of public disorder is discernible. They would be ineffective if during a rally they speak in the guarded and judicious language of the academe. Held: Yes. which they deemed pornographic. the State in pursuing its mandate to protect the public from obscene. on August 27. MALABANAN VS. Penthouse. But with the activity taking place in the school premises and during the daytime. immoral and indecent materials must justify the regulation or limitation.

Tulfo was required to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. However there are limitations. The subject of the protests is not. are required to behave in accord with the Mabini College code of conduct and discipline.M. The power to punish is inherent as it is essential for self-preservation. Inc. the checkpoints case had not yet been decided upon. or type of behavior should not materially disrupt classwork or must not involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. Petitioners filed a petition in the court seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to the school. 13. NO. The court said that petitioners waived their privilege to be admitted for re-enrollment with respondent college when they adopted. and again on Oct. 16. in class or out of it. 20 MAY 1990] Facts: Petitioners. Issue: Whether or Not Tulfo is in contempt. and used its enrollment form for the first semester of school year 1988-89. If the assembly is to be held in school premises. therefore. and "idiotic" meant illogical and unwise. Held: Yes. who are devoid of the power to deny such request arbitrarily or unreasonably. made clear in the pleadings. Tulfo wrote an article in his column in PDI 'On Target' stating that the Supreme Court rendered an idiotic decision in legalizing checkpoints. and since the case had been decided and terminated. students in private respondent Mabini Colleges. Camarines Norte. were not allowed to re-enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or participating in student mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. which for any reason whether it stems from time. and "bobo" was just quoted from other attorneys. 90-4-1545-0. 1989. justice and Page 119 Section 1-C. The permissible limitation on Student Exercise of Constitutional Rights within the school presupposes that conduct by the student. however. SY ’06-‘07 . by an advocacy of disorder under the name of dissent. PSBA1. The peaceable character of an assembly could be lost. place. IN RE: TULFO [A. NON VS. permit must be sought from its school authorities. there may be conditions as to the time and place of the assembly to avoid disruption of classes or stoppage of work of the nonacademic personnel. G. Held: Yes. Lastly.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests displayed or utterances made. however. which was also applied in the case. Even if. where he called the Supreme Court stupid and "sangkatutak na mga bobo justices of the Philippine Supreme Court". the penalty incurred should not be disproportionate to the offense. DAMES [185 SCRA 523. Students. signed. there be violations of its terms. and the Supreme Court was still acting on an MR filed from the CA. there was not contempts. but the trial court dismissed the petition. 89317. At the time Tulfo wrote the article. 17 APR 1990] Facts: In Oct. whatever grievances that may be aired being susceptible to correction through the ways of the law.R. In granting such permit. NO. Issue: Whether or Not the students’ right to freedom of speech and assembly infringed. They now petition the court to reverse its ruling in Alcuaz vs. however. which states that: The Mabini College reserves the right to deny admission of students whose scholarship and attendance are unsatisfactory and to require withdrawal of students whose conduct discredits the institution and/or whose activities unduly disrupts or interfere with the efficient operation of the college. in Daet. the article does not pose any clear and present danger to the Supreme court. The protection to the cognate rights of speech and assembly guaranteed by the Constitution is similarly available to students is well-settled in our jurisdiction. Tulfo said that he was just reacting emotionally because he had been a victim of harassment in the checkpoints. Contempt of court is defiance of the authority. 1989.

PBM [51 SCRA 189. A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion. to 2 P. de Leon. The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Herein respondent employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local police. In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression well as their right of assembly and of petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom. the primacy of human rights — freedom of expression. Workers who without previous leave of absence approved by the Company. watch out!" Also. SY ’06-‘07 . so that they can report to work free from harassment. hence this appeal.S. namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. would be amounting to an illegal strike. 1969. PBM EMPLOYEES VS. Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The employees' pathetic situation was a stark reality — abused. particularly . Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner Union. There are two kinds of publications which can be punished for contempt: a. Inc. and petitioners. The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. Tulfo said. filed a charge against petitioners and other employees who composed the first shift. The Management. "So you bobo justices. This is not present in the case. b. the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration. and take up the cudgels for. of peaceful assembly Page 120 Section 1-C. but if its object is only to degrade and ridicule. 875(Industrial Peace Act). those whose object is to affect the decision in a pending case. vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits. C.R. who shall fail to report for work the following morning shall be dismissed. Held: Yes. because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and. L-31195. 1969. G. Company personnel manager. in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police.M.. those whose object is to bring courts to discredit. harassment and persecuted as they believed they were by the peace officers of the municipality. the condition in which the employees found themselves vis-a-vis the local police of Pasig. its employees. and of the CBA providing for 'No Strike and No Lockout. was a matter that vitally affected their right to individual existence as well as that of their families. Quoting is not an excuse also. is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights. for a violation of Republic Act No. PBMEO thru Pagcu confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the meeting. It should have been okay to criticize if respectful language was used. they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4. 1969. utilizing only the weapons afforded them by the Constitution — the untrammelled enjoyment of their basic human rights. Tulfo is found in contempt of court and is gravely censured. NO.' Petitioners were held guilty in by CIR for bargaining in bad faith. Petitioners claim that on March 1. informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. therefore. Because the petitioners and their members numbering about 400 proceeded with the demonstration despite the pleas of the respondent Company that the first shift workers should not be required to participate in the demonstration and that the workers in the second and third shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6 A.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests dignity of the courts. he said he was not sorry for having written the articles. 5 JUN 1993] Facts: The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) is a legitimate labor union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co. the employees and laborers of herein private respondent firm were fighting for their very survival. It brings disrepute to the court. on March 4.. because at the end of his article. As heretofore stated. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management. Issue: Whether or Not the petitioners right to freedom of speech and to peaceable assemble violated.M. thru Atty. Tulfo's article constituted both. Nothing constructive can be gained from them. then it is clearly an obstruction of justice. Being emotional is no excuse for being insulting. It was to the interest herein private respondent firm to rally to the defense of. As above intimated.

of peaceful assembly and of petition. To regard the demonstration against police officers. then by that much the circulation of the Issue raised by the demonstration is diminished. Moreover.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests and of petition for redress of grievances — over property rights has been sustained. If demonstrators are reduced by one-third. SY ’06-‘07 . the absence of one-third of their members will be regarded as a substantial indication of disunity in their ranks which will enervate their position and abet continued alleged police persecution. stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement. is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression. not against the employer. the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally. as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of expression. The more the participants. Page 121 Section 1-C.

The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts. and P2. 1942. with greater force and reason considering that said Orders contain no limitation whatsoever in point of time as regards the suspension of the enforcement and effectivity of monetary obligations. SY ’06-‘07 . particularly the Highway Hills Subdivision along EDSA. 2. as vendees. The complaint was dismissed. payment of his obligation cannot be enforced until after the lapse of eight years. and that under section 2 of RA 342(moratorium law). 18 MAY 1953] Facts: On August 20. 1952.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE Art 3. On March 4. 10. having filed his claim with the Philippine War Damage Commission for the losses he had suffered as a consequence of the last war. Held: Yes.400 on or before August 7. Sec. ORTIGAS VS.800. and Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles. ESTEBAN [93 PHIL 68. The parcel of land shall be used exclusively for residential purposes. and she shall not be entitled to take or remove soil. “No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. All buildings and other improvements (except the fence) which may be constructed at any time in said lot must be. and should not be prolonged should be declared null and void and without effect. A motion for recon was made which assails the constitutionality of RA 342. developing and selling lots to the public. as well as the interest that had accrued and so Rutter instituted an action to recover the balance due. declared that the continued operation and enforcement of RA 342 at the present time is unreasonable and oppressive. Issue: Whether or Not RA 342 unconstitutional on non-impairment clause grounds.L-3708. 1943.600 of which P4. but whether the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end and the measures taken are reasonable and appropriate to that end. Esteban failed to pay the two installments as agreed upon. NO. entered into separate agreements of sale on installments over two parcels of land of the Subdivision. fairness and righteousness. Its essence is the application of police power. as vendor.400 on or before August 27. 1962. This holds true as regards Executive Orders Nos. the interest due and the attorney's fees. with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum.800 were paid outright. NO. (a) of strong materials and properly painted. 14 DEC 1979] Facts: Plaintiff is engaged in real estate business. The moratorium is postponement of fulfillment of obligations decreed by the state through the medium of the courts or the legislature.” RUTTER VS.L-24670. a first mortgage has been constituted in favor of the plaintiff. Both the agreements (of sale on installment) and the deeds of sale contained the stipulations or restrictions that: 1.1941 Rutter sold to Esteban two parcels of land situated in the Manila for P9. the said vendees transferred their rights and interests over the aforesaid lots in favor of one Emma Chavez. the plaintiff executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Emma Chavez. The complaint also contains a prayer for sale of the properties mortgaged in accordance with law. stones or gravel from it or any other lots belonging to the Seller. or directly or indirectly. plaintiff. 25 and 32. Esteban claims that this is a prewar obligation contracted and that he is a war sufferer. To secure the payment of said balance of P4. (b) provided with Page 122 Section 1-C. Upon completion of payment of the purchase price. The question is not whether the legislative action affects contracts incidentally. FEATI BANK [94 SCRA 533. and the balance was made payable as follows: P2. However based on the President’s general SONA and consistent with what the Court believes to be as the only course dictated by justice. On July 19.

hence the appeal. Motion for recon was denied. as the statute is unconstitutional. The thrust of the law is to prohibit. in this modem day and age. peace. that while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed. has become a convenient substitute for money. Held: The freedom of contract which is constitutionally protected is freedom to enter into "lawful" contracts. Defendant claimed of the commercialization of western part of EDSA. good order and general welfare of the people in the locality are justifications for this. and (c) shall not be at a distance of less than two (2) meters from its boundary lines. commented that it was premature for the accused to elevate to the Supreme Court the orders denying their motions to quash. safety or welfare of the residents in its route. Resolution is a valid exercise of police power. EDSA. Health. Checks can not be categorized as mere contracts. The offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. safety. which forced him to file a case. Such motion was denied by the RTC. Lot 5 directly from Chavez and Lot 6 from Republic Flour Mills by deed of exchange. NO. contending that no offense was committed.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests modern sanitary installations connected either to the public sewer or to an approved septic tank. MARTINEZ [146 SCRA 323. However. Issue: Whether or Not BP 22 impairs freedom of contract. since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power. supports an endless stream of traffic and the resulting activity. The Solicitor General. Plaintiff demand to stop it. It is a commercial instrument which. Eventually said lots were bought by defendant. Page 123 Section 1-C. LOZANO VS. SY ’06-‘07 . Held: No. Issue: Whether or Not non-impairment clause violated. The petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief. Whether or not BP 22 transgresses the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Contracts which contravene public policy are not lawful. upholding police power. the rule is not absolute. with same restrictions. Defendant began constructing a commercial bank building. the Supreme Court finds it justifiable to intervene for the review of lower court's denial of a motion to quash. noise and pollution are hardly conducive to the health. it forms part of the banking system and therefore not entirely free from the regulatory power of the state.L-63419. a main traffic artery which runs through several cities and municipalities in the Metro Manila area. Plaintiff claims that restriction is for the beautification of the subdivision. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. 18 DEC 1986] Facts: A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made. under pain of penal sanctions. It should be stressed. which was later dismissed.

The Anti Subversive Act of 1957 was approved 20June1957. A bill of attainder is solely a legislative act. (A bill of attainder relatively is also an ex post facto law.) The statute specifies persons. “No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.) Nilo Tayag and 5 others. Section 4 provided that affiliation with full knowledge of the illegal acts of the CPP is punishable. 27 DEC 1972] Facts: Hon. Whether or Not RA1700 violates freedom of expression. Attended by Aggravating Circumstances of Aid or Armed Men. It is the substitution of judicial determination to a legislative determination of guilt. NOS.) Feliciano Co for being an officer/leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) aggravated by circumstances of contempt and insult to public officers. The Act applies not only to the CPP but also to other organizations having the same purpose and their successors.L-32613-14. instigating people to unite and overthrow the Philippine Government. Craft. FERRER [48 SCRA 382.) The Congress usurped the powers of the judge 2. Issue: Whether or not RA1700 is a bill of attainder/ ex post facto law. to be UNLAWFUL. for being members/leaders of the NPA. Membership renders aid and encouragement to the organization. inciting. 22. In order for a statute be measured as a bill of attainder. Sec.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests EX POST FACTO LAWS Art 3. Held: The court holds the VALIDITY Of the Anti-Subversion Act of 1957.) It created a presumption of organizational guilt by being members of the CPP regardless of voluntariness. the statute simply declares the CPP as an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the Government for purposes of example of SECTION 4 of the Act. It defined the Communist Party being although a political party is in fact an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government. 3. not only by force and violence but also by deceit.) Assumed judicial magistracy by pronouncing the guilt of the CPP without any forms of safeguard of a judicial trial. assembly and association. Page 124 Section 1-C. The Act’s focus is on the conduct not person. and for other purposes. Furthermore. groups. Judge Simeon Ferrer is the Tarlac trial court judge that declared RA1700 or the AntiSubversive Act of 1957 as a bill of attainder. Section 8 allows the renunciation of membership to the CCP through writing under oath. Section 6 provides for penalty for furnishing false evidence. Section 4 prohibits acts committed after approval of the act.) the statute is applied retroactively and reach past conduct. SY ’06-‘07 . It punishes without the benefit of the trial.) In the case at bar. It is an act to outlaw the CPP and similar associations penalizing membership therein. 2. The members of the subversive organizations before the passing of this Act is given an opportunity to escape liability by renouncing membership in accordance with Section 8.” PEOPLE VS. and Fraud. Why is membership punished. The trial court is of opinion that 1. Membership to this organizations. subversion by a band and aid of armed men to afford impunity. the statute is PROSPECTIVE in nature. Section 9 declares the constitutionality of the statute and its valid exercise under freedom if thought. dismissing the information of subversion against the following: 1. Section 5 states that due investigation by a designated prosecutor by the Secretary of Justice be made prior to filing of information in court. This is the required proof of a member’s direct participation. it must be shown that membership was acquired with the intent to further the goals of the organization by overt acts. This is the element of MEMBERSHIP with KNOWLEDGE that is punishable. Thus. the following requisites must be present: 1. The statute applies the principle of mutatis mutandis or that the necessary changes having been made. subversion and other illegal means. Section 7 provides for 2 witnesses in open court for acts penalized by prision mayor to death. 2. It declares that the CPP is a clear and present danger to the security of the Philippines. Membership makes himself party to its unlawful acts.

The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the TRIAL COURT. In fact. if acquitted the official who is suspended shall be entitled to reinstatement and the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. 23 MAR 1984] Facts: Bayot is one of the several persons who was accused in more than 100 counts of estafa thru falsification of Public documents before the Sandiganbayan. it must be proven that the organization purpose is to overthrow the present Government of the Philippines and establish a domination of a FOREIGN POWER. careful investigations by the Congress were done. 2. In case of CPP. while Bayot ran for municipal mayor of Amadeo Cavite and was elected on January 1980. The 1st 32 cases were filed on july 25. Accdg to the RPC suspension from employment and public office during trial shall not be considered as a penalty. BAYOT VS.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The declaration of that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Philippine Government should not be the basis of guilt. 1982 Batas Pambansa Blg 195 was passed amending RA 3019. the following elements must also be established: 1. Before the enactment of the statute and statements in the preamble. The EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL justifies the limitation to the exercise of “Freedom of Expression and Association” in this matter. Membership is willfully and knowingly done by overt acts. And does not violate the constitutional provision against ex post facto law. The amendatory provision clearly states that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under RA 3019 for any offense involving fraud upon the government or public funds or property or whatever stage of execution and mode of participation shall be suspended Page 125 Section 1-C. The claim of the petitioner that he cannot be suspended because he is currently occupying a position diffren tfrom that under which he is charged is untenable. The bureau of treasury and the teacher’s camp in Baguio City for the preparation and encashment of fictitious TCAA checks for the nom-existent obligations of the teacher’s camp resulting in damage to the government of several millions. Issue: Whether or Not it would be violative of the constitutional guarantee against an ex post facto law. The court set basic guidelines to be observed in the prosecution under RA1700. 1987. which includes the crime of estafa through falsification of Public Documents as among crimes subjecting the public officer charged therewith with suspension from public office pending action in court.L-61861. with some other employees from the said ministry. It is not a penalty because it is not a result of a judicial proceeding. is a penal provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto law. The said charges started from his alleged involvement as a government auditor of the commission on audit assigned to the Ministry of education and culture. Held: The court finds no merit in the petitioner’s contention that RA 3019 as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg 195. the continued pursuance of its subversive purpose. SANDIGANBAYAN [128 SCRA 383. Subversive Organizations besides the CPP. This declaration is only a basis of Section 4 of the Act. but on May 1980 Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision convicting the accused together with his other coaccused in all but one of the thirty two cases filed against them. The court further stresses that whatever interest in freedom of speech and association is excluded in the prohibition of membership in the CPP are weak considering NATIONAL SECURITY and PRESERVATION of DEMOCRACY. NO.L-61776 TO NO. In addition to proving circumstances/ evidences of subversion. SY ’06-‘07 . Membership is willfully and knowingly done by overt acts. The court did not make any judgment on the crimes of the accused under the Act. On Mach 16.

Now the motion to quash was being assailed. 1982. thereby inducing said inspector to recommend approval of his application for free patent. Page 126 Section 1-C. a political leader of Governor Valentina Plaza. shortly after private respondent had replaced Mrs. SY ’06-‘07 . A motion to quash the information was filed by the private respondent contending among others that he is charged for an offence which has prescribed. Held: Yes. amending Sec. 1989 an information for violation of RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was then filed in the Sandiganbayan after an ex parte preliminary investigation.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests from office. therefore it has prescribed in 1986. 1986. which begins to run from the day of the commission of the crime and not the discovery of it. 29 of Act No. period of prescription was 10 years. 101724. NO.R. when he was still the provincial attorney in 1976 of a free patent title for a lot in the Rosario public land subdivision in San Francisco. Additionally. RA 3019.1986 and December 9. Said motion was granted. On August 10. 3 JUL 1992] Facts: Two letter complaints were filed with the Tanodbayan by Teofilo Gelacio on October 28. 3326. BP 195 which was approved on March 16. 1976. He misrepresented to a Lands Inspector of the Bureau of Lands that the lands subject herein are disposable lands. The use of the word “office” applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding and not only the particular office under which he was charged. Plaza as OIC/provincial Governor of Agusan del Sur on March 1986 The complaint questioned the issuance to Governor Paredes. SANDIGANBAYAN [211 SCRA 241. being a special law the computation of the period for the prescription of the crime is governed by Sec. To apply BP 195 to Paredes would make it an ex post facto law1 for it would alter his situation to his disadvantage by making him criminally liable for a crime that had already been extinguished under the law existing when it was committed. The crime was committed on January 21. PEOPLE VS. as it is prejudicial to the accused. Agusan del Sur. wife of Congressman Democrito Plaza of Agusan del Sur. G. 11 of RA 3019 by increasing ten to fifteen years of the period for the prescription or extinguishment of a violation of RA 3019 may not be given retroactive application to the crime which was committed by Paredes. Issue: Whether or Not the motion to quash validly granted.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT Art 3. The Solicitor General. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. NO. There is no collateral or security because complainant was an old friend of the spouses who lent the money and that when they wrote her a letter of demand she promised to pay them and said that if she failed to keep her promise. Issue: Whether or not BP 22 is constitutional as it is a proper exercise of police power of the State. However. 30 SEPT 1975] Facts: Plaintiff failed to pay a simple indebtedness for P1500 Carmelito Mendoza." respondent grossly failed to perform his duties properly. MARTINEZ [146 SCRA 323. commented that it was premature for the accused to elevate to the Supreme Court the orders denying their motions to quash. as the statute is unconstitutional.” SERAFIN VS. his debt is considered a simple loan granted by her friends to her. Two months after respondent dismissed plaintiff’s case. under pain of penal sanctions. Judge therefore in admitting such a "criminal complaint" that was plainly civil in aspects from the very face of the complaint and the "evidence" presented. contending that no offense was committed. Page 127 Section 1-C. Even if complainant desisted case was pursued. not malum in se but because of the harm that it inflicts on the community. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property. then municipal secretary and his wife Corazon Mendoza and therefore an estafa case was filed against her. Complainant admitted complaint. it can be outlawed and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. The thrust of the law is to prohibit. The state can do this in the exercise of its police power. LINDAYAG [67 SCRA 166. 20. An act may not be considered by society as inherently wrong. they could get her valuable things at her home.) Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation committed by the judge when it ordered the imprisonment of plaintiff for non-payment of debt? Held: Yes. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. Such motion was denied by the RTC. 18 DEC 1986] Facts: A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made. The offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. Further she contended that no person should be imprisoned for non-payment of a loan of a sum of money. Sec. Now complainant filed a case against respondent Judge for not dismissing the case and issuing a warrant of arrest as it falls on the category of a simple indebtedness. but an offense against public order. “No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. Since plaintiff did not commit any offense as. SY ’06-‘07 . Held: The enactment of BP 22 a valid exercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. ADM. the Supreme Court finds it justifiable to intervene for the review of lower court's denial of a motion to quash. NO. The petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief. hence. since elements of estafa are not present. MATTER. (Judge here committed gross ignorance of law. Under the Constitution she is protected. 297-MJ. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. LOZANO VS.L-63419. and issuing on the same day the warrant of arrest upon his utterly baseless finding "that the accused is probably guilty of the crime charged.

SY ’06-‘07 .San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Page 128 Section 1-C.

the victim is entitled to the protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by duress or physical coercion. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment. SY ’06-‘07 . for her to work as a maid. has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. The fact that no physical force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent does not make less real the deprivation of her personal freedom of movement. 1 JAN 1949] Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita Flores who was employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau.L-2690. Page 129 Section 1-C. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851. freedom to transfer from one place to another. owned by Julia Salazar. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. Sec.” CAUNCA VS. which was disallowed by the employment agency. Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE Art 3. However. regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid. freedom to choose one’s residence. Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence. which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave. 18. respondent herein. Issue: Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to restrain and detain a maid without returning the advance payment it gave? Held: An employment agency. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency. “(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. to founded or groundless fear. NO. to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed. to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another.

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. Proc. Only 18 provinces and sub-provinces and 2 cities whose privilege was suspended.m. SY ’06-‘07 . Now the Court resolves after conclusive decision reached by majority. Petitions for writ of habeas corpus were filed by persons (13) who have been arrested without a warrant. Petitioners maintained that Proclamation No. Petitioners further contend that public safety did not require the issuance of proclamations stating: (a) that there is no rebellion. prior to and at the time of the suspension of the privilege. 20 barrio captains and 3 chiefs of police. however it became moot and academic since it was amended. called out the armed forces. confirmatory of an alleged July-August Plan.” LANSANG VS. A resolution was issued by majority of the Court having tentatively arrived at a consensus that it may inquire in order to satisfy itself of the existence of the factual bases for the proclamations. GARCIA [42 SCRA 448. President has three (3) courses of action: (a) to call out the armed forces. has actually taken place after August 21. and (e) that the Communist forces in the Philippines are too small and weak to jeopardize public safety to such extent as to require the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Proc. It was stated that one of the safeguards of the proclamation was that it is to be applied to persons caught in flagrante delicto. because of said plan. Proc. 889-A was issued as an amendment. Page 130 Section 1-C. as were the courts. the suspension of the privilege is the least harsh. (b) that. (d) that the President's alleged apprehension.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Art 3. Incidentally. already. 889-C was issued restoring the suspension in 13 provinces and cities(mostly in Mindanao). Whether or Not public safety require the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus decreed in Proclamation No. at about 9 p. about thirty (30) mass organizations actively advancing the CPP. 889-D further lifted the suspension in 7 provinces and 4 cities. 1971. Of the two other alternatives. Manila. Issue: Whether or Not the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen requiring suspension (of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus) belongs to the President and his decision is final and conclusive upon the courts and upon all other persons. Held: The President has authority however it is subject to judicial review. 889-B was also issued lifting the suspension of privilege in 27 provinces. and (c) to place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. CPP has managed to infiltrate or establish and control nine major labor organizations. 889 did not declare the existence of actual "invasion insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger thereof. He had. inserting the word “actually staging”. (c) that no untoward incident. Two conditions must concur for the valid exercise of the authority to suspend the privilege to the writ (a) there must be "invasion. or rebellion" or "imminent danger thereof. is nonexistent and unjustified.. Eight persons were killed and many more injured. that there were fourteen (14) meaningful bombing incidents in the Greater Manila Area in 1970. 15." and (b) "public safety" must require the suspension of the privilege. the Government was functioning normally. is negatived by the killing of 5 mayors. 11 Dec 1971] Facts: In the evening of August 21. (b) to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. proved inadequate. 3 sub-provinces and 26 cities. for the presentation of its candidates in the general elections scheduled for November 8. Petitioners contention that CPP-NPA has no ability. Proclamation 889 was issued by the President suspending privilege of writ of habeas corpus stating that there is a conspiracy of rebellion and insurrection in order to forcibly seize political power. L-33964. Proc. 889-A. Sec. 1971. has exploited the (11) major student or youth organizations. while the Liberal Party of the Philippines was holding a public meeting at Plaza Miranda. two hand grenades were thrown at the platform where said candidates and other persons were. insurrection. 1971.

“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. quasi-judicial. Sec. He had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. Sec. (2) The employment of physical. The police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest.” Art 3. impartial. intimidation. for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. “(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. 11. to have a speedy.” Art 3.” Art 3. 14. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices. or administrative bodies. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Hearing was set. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Neither shall death penalty be imposed. unless. However. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. he must be provided with one. force. after arraignment. the Congress hereafter provides for it. threat. 27 JUN 1988] Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. and their families. Sec.” Art 3. The court denied said motion. The moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time. incommunicado. Sec. SY ’06-‘07 . During a line-up of 5 detainees including petitioner. or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. hence the petition. 17. “All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. 19. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. “Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. at such stage. to meet the witnesses face to face.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED Art 3. “(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed. 16. 21. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. solitary. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s right to counsel and due process violated. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. nor cruel.L-56291. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture. Sec.” Art 3. Held: No. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance. violence.” GAMBOA VS. he Page 131 Section 1-C. without notice and in the absence of his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. Sec. and public trial. degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. (2) In all criminal prosecutions. Petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit on the ground that the conduct of the line-up. Secret detention places. to counsel. thereafter he was charged. 12. he was identified by a complainant to be a companion in a robbery. “(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. from said suspect. petitioner was not yet entitled. psychological. Sec. hence. CRUZ [162 SCRA 642. “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.” Art 3. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel.

G. PEOPLE VS. The findings of the Audit team were given to him. SY ’06-‘07 . That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline. petitioner was not. 85215. threat. or any other means which vitiates the free will 3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests should then and there be assisted by counsel. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. 22 MAR 1994] Facts: shall be used against him. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and statement. This is accorded to every person who gives evidence. It cannot be claimed at any other time. and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena. to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed. criminal. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right against self-incrimination (only to witnesses other than accused. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense. incriminatory in character. intimidation. and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. NO. or administrative proceeding. On the right to due process. the PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted.” It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry. is actually put to the witness. and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. It is a right that a witness knows or should know. PEOPLE VS. It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement." the right can be claimed only when the specific question.000. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial. 2) nor force. only that he chose not to. assigned at its Baguio City station.R. Page 132 Section 1-C. as he was duly represented by a counsel. Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and statement of accused. deprived of this substantive and constitutional right. The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself. JUDGE AYSON [175 SCRA 216. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. Held: No.R. G. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. MAQUEDA [242 SCRA 565. in any way. Ramos pleaded not guilty. NO. 7 JUL 1989] Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines. He must claim it and could be waived.not present in case at bar). unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. unless he waives the right. but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. Hence this appeal. Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. in any civil. to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. violence. and to be informed of such right. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76. or to refuse to testify altogether. Arizona: the rights of the accused include: 1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel.112983.

he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before he signed such document. Accused-appellant is charged with robbery with homicide along with 3 others who were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Two household helpers of the victims identified Salvamante (a former houseboy of the victims) and Maqueda as the robbers. While he was under detention. Mike Tabayan and his friend also saw the two accused a kilometer away from the house of the victims that same morning. The contention of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to such rights anymore because the information has been filed and a warrant of arrest has been issued already. They ransacked the place and took with them money and other valuables. Note: a distinction between a confession and admission has been made by the SC: Admission of a party. NO. he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Quezon. He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Salva and Pastrano. The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1) of the Bill of Rights are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense. he still confessed when he did not have to do so. Afterwards he was brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail. the trial court admitted their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the truth of the admission because such testimony was objected to as hearsay. Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation. First. when the two accused asked them for directions. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged." Maqueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery to Prosecutor Zarate and to Salvosa. security guards were hogtied and accused proceeded to the Atty. BANDULA [232 SCRA 566. G. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case. The armed men were identified by Security Guard. Page 133 Section 1-C. Teresita Mendoza was badly battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robbery.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests British Horace William Barker (consultant of WB) was slain inside his house in Tuba. Garay was killed. may be given in evidence against him. Benguet while his Filipino wife. As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa. 27 MAY 1994] Facts: Six armed men barged into the compound of Polo Coconut Plantation in Tanjay. Atty. and as to the other admission (Salvosa)." Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Bill of Rights therefore. Second. is untenable. but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness. it was given to a private person therefore admissible. counsel of plantation. it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case. — The act. 89223. Confession. Quezon where he signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime. According to SPO3 Molleno. He was taken to Calauag. declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.R. Appellant was convicted. The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. Issue: Whether or Not the trial court was correct in holding that the Sinumpaan Salaysay is admissible as evidence. despite his knowing fully well that a case had already been filed in court. And yet. Held: No. At the time of the confession. Garay. Negros Oriental. the accused was already facing charges in court. including accused. such extra-judicial admission is inadmissible as evidence. or of any offense necessarily included therein. Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan. PEOPLE VS. SY ’06-‘07 .

LUCERO [244 SCRA 425. Baldejera admitted is not established. The investigators did not inform the accused of their right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. domino style. thus inflicting upon him mortal wounds. armed with handgun. When the investigator started asking the preliminary questions. NO. Irregularities present include: 1. 12. in due time. And. a driver of the said offended party. He cannot be a special counsel. PEOPLE VS. hence. public or private prosecutor. one 3 karat gold ring. was not entirely an independent counsel nor counsel of their choice.R. and were merely countersigned later by the municipal attorney who. Reason for Accused Sedigo’s "black eye" which even Pat. as well as Bandula’s fractured rib. DEMETRIO Z. MADRID. there are telltale signs that violence was used against the accused. Appellant Lucero's defense is alibi. appellant argues that the extrajudicial confessions he and accused Dionanao executed suffer from constitutional infirmities. If at all. blocked the way of the said complainant who was on board a Mercedes Benz passing along Road 14. these are blatant violations of the Constitution which mandates in Sec. Mindanao Avenue. by the nature of his position. Peralta. Only the accused Echavez brothers and Alejandro Lucero were apprehended. Peter Doe. which resulted to the instantaneous death of ALERIA. The next morning. On top of this. even before attempting to elicit statements that would incriminate them. He apprised Lucero of his constitutional rights. rob and carry away cash money. or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. without the extrajudicial confessions.600. Lucero was accompanied by CIS agents to Atty. one solid gold bracelet.97936. the Municipal Attorney of Tanjay. QC. they had no counsel present. Issue: Whether or Not extrajudicial confessions of appellant is admissible as evidence against him. counsel came in only a day after the custodial investigation with respect to accused Dionanao. Diosdado Peralta conferred with Lucero. III. He observed no reaction from Lucero. He said he was surprised when several unidentified men accosted him while he was walking towards his house. one gold Rolex watch. 7 karat. Held: No. 29 MAY 1995] Facts: Alejandro Lucero.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Now. and two weeks later with respect to appellant Bandula. Peralta's house. Ruben Zerna. the prosecution is left without sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime charged. Atty. Consequently. Atty. one 2 karat gold ring. 2. one gold necklace with cross pendant. Certainly. inadmissible in evidence considering that they were extracted under duress and intimidation. Atty. counsel of the police. They chased him. counsel who supposedly assisted both accused was Atty. Nonetheless. Investigators continuously disregard the repeated requests of the accused for medical assistance. He testified that he was at his house in Caloocan City. Balbino Echavez. When accused-appellant Bandula and accused Dionanao were investigated immediately after their arrest. Peralta left to attend the wake of his friend. belonging to DR. The prosecution: Accused-appellant (alighted from a gray-reddish car). Accused shot LORENZO BERNALES y ALERIA. Counsel must be independent. Bienvenido Echavez. preferably of their own choice. handcuffed and blindfolded him and pushed him into a Page 134 Section 1-C. The three accused denied complicity in the crime charged. all worth P363. Peralta gathered the impression that Lucero understood his advice. Art. It was already signed by Lucero. The extrajudicial statement of Lucero was presented to Atty.00. Pag-asa. Richard Doe and John Doe were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. SY ’06-‘07 . 3. When Lucero told him that he had no lawyer. G.

Madrid at the CIS Office during the police line-up. who engaged him to kill Dr. Whereof. The men turned out to be police officers. Bayquen. Decision convicting appellant Alejandro Lucero y Cortel is hereby reversed. Peralta. however. Held: Appellant's conviction cannot be based on his extrajudicial confession. The Brasilia swerved and hit a fence. While they were cruising along Malvar Street and nearing the Baptist church. and Danny. PEOPLE VS. a family friend.. Jr. 25 JAN 1995] Facts: Dr. a dentist. Lucero also claimed he signed the extrajudicial confession under duress. he learned he was in Camp Crame. Bayquen for a fee. AGUSTIN [240 SCRA 541. He was blindfolded the whole night and did not know where he was taken. Stenographic notes of the proceedings during the investigation as transcribed with the sworn statement of Quiaño was signed. Wilfredo Quiaño was assisted by Atty. The circumstances clearly demonstrate that appellant received no effective counseling from Atty. she and her mother brought her father and Anthony to the hospital. Peralta himself admitted he received no reaction from appellant although his impression was that appellant understood him. The man approached the Brasilia. and swore to before City Fiscal Balajadia. Anna Theresa. Atty. SY ’06-‘07 . confessed during the investigation conducted by Baguio City Fiscal Erdolfo Balajadia in his office that he was the triggerman. and a certain "Jimmy. He was not informed of the offense for which he was being investigated. The following day. Madrid finally identified him on the fourth time. Danny went home and was then brought to the Hospital for treatment. The Court have constitutionalized the right to counsel because of hostility against the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions from a suspect. Issue: Whether or Not the lower court erred in convicting accused-appellant.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests jeep. it did not mean any kind of counsel but effective and vigilant counsel. Dominic. Constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime should be provided with counsel. convicted accused Lucero GUILTY as principal by direct participation of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to suffer an imprisonment term of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Peralta. Agustin was apprehended. Anthony. 110290." During the investigation. Force and fraud tarnish confessions can render them inadmissible. Later. Peralta was not present during his actual custodial interrogation. the court a quo acquitted the Echavez brothers for insufficient evidence. The gunman immediately returned to the parked car which then sped away. Anthony's girlfriend. an alleged former military agent who had been picked up by the police authorities. Baguio City. were on their way aboard their Brasilia to the doctor's residence at Malvar Street. Bayquen and Anna Theresa died on the spot. He denied engaging the services of Atty. his daughter. Neither did they reveal the identity of the complainant. Accused Quiaño. Reynaldo Cajucom. G. He claimed that he was tortured. He said he only met Dr. The next day. He implicated Abenoja. who provided the armalite.R. who was not the counsel of choice of appellant. Peralta. and was investigated and was afforded the privileges like that of Quijano. More so. NO. After trial. with the assistance of Atty. Madrid. He was made to line-up four (4) times before Dr. The trial court. Dominic was bale to get out of the Brasilia to run to the Alabanza store where she telephoned her mother. Constitution requires the right to counsel. He likewise confirmed that Atty. aimed his armalite rifle through its window. and fired at the passengers. together with his son. Cajucom. it was during his absence that appellant gave an uncounselled confession. The records show that Atty. the Echavez brothers and the other accused in this case. a man came out from the right side of a car parked about two meters to the church. Lucero denied knowing Dr. All those in the car were hit and Dr. Cartel. Agustin’s defense interpose that he was forced to admit involvement at Page 135 Section 1-C.

Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted. the dialect he understands. Held: No. if so. Eduardo Macam. Yet. He was not categorically informed that he could waive his rights to remain silent and to counsel and that this waiver must be in writing and in the presence of his counsel. to read or decipher its contents.. immediately informed him that Atty. contained in twenty-two pages appear to be signed by him and Atty. however expressly includes admissions. if he could not.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests gunpoint in the Kennon Road. whether he would agree to be assisted by one to be provided for him. Firstly. and. The appellant was not explicitly told of his right to have a competent and independent counsel of his choice. NO. there is an acknowledgment of guilt of the accused. Since the court cannot even read or decipher the stenographic notes it cannot be expected that appellant. NOS.The extrajudicial admission of the appellant. 3.R. 1 and par. In short. whether he could afford to hire his services. PEOPLE VS. According to Pat. the City fiscal. Cajucom was ready to assist him. SY ’06-‘07 . Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III. not just confessions. However the RTC convicted him. no written waiver of such right appears in the transcript and no other independent evidence was offered to prove its existence. one of whom the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased. Cajucom (a law partner of the private prosecutor). who is a farmer and who reached only the fourth grade. Extrajudicial statement is not extrajudicial confession. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased. he nevertheless. after the appellant said that he wanted to be assisted by counsel. Cajucom interviewed him from only two minutes in English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano. since conspiracy was established. more particularly par. Held: Yes. asked for his uncle Atty. 101808. deceased was with two companions on the previous night. therefore was deprived of his rights under Section 12(1). MACAM [238 SCRA 306. the transcript of the notes which consists of twelve pages was not signed by the appellant. in fact. The promise that he would be discharged as a witness did not push through since Quijano escaped. 3 JUL 1992] Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply. Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao. he was not fully and properly informed of his rights. waived his right to remain silent by agreeing to be investigated. RTC convicted him hence the appeal. Hence the appeal. He had.R. G. Moreso said counsel is not independent since he is an associate of the private prosecutor. G. Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant’s extrajudicial statements admissible as evidence. specifically asked if he had in mind any such counsel and. and that Atty. He further declared that although he was given a lawyer. other accused on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. Balagtas Bulacan. BOLANOS [211 SCRA 262. Article III of the Constitution. Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque went to the house of Benito Macam (uncle of Eduardo Macam) located at 43 Page 136 Section 1-C. In a confession. Cajucom but for reasons not explained in the records.1987. Antonio Cedro. PEOPLE VS. 91011-12. The rule on inadmissibility. while an admission is a statement direct or implied of facts pertinent to the issue. Oliver Tabin. Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to counsel. The appellant. When they apprehended the accused they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated. They boarded accused along with Magtibay. Eugenio Cawilan Jr. 24 NOV 1994] Facts: Prosecution’s version: On Aug 18. through suggestive language.

assorted jewelry. TOYOTA Crown Car Plate No. typewriter. The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. After which. Samsonite attache case.00. Eduardo Macam grabbed the clutch bag of Benito Macam and pulled out his uncle’s gun then declared a hold-up. Roque entered the house while E. betamax rewinder. Benito.22 gun and money. they are estopped from questioning the legality of such arrest because they have not moved to quash the said information and therefore voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in trial. DY [158 SCRA 111. Roque remained in the tricycle. A police line-up is considered a “critical” stage of the proceedings. Thereafter he washed the dishes and swept the floor. On the following day.38 as suspect to the shooting incident at "Benny's Bar. Held: It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before trial. Also. . CAS-997. he together with all the accused. A. Upon arriving. 700. Aklan (Boracay) situated on the Island which Page 137 Section 1-C. Issue: Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated.00. 23 FEB 1988] Facts: Pat. was brought to the QC General Hospital before each surviving victims and made to line-up for identification. in handcuffs and bore contusions on their faces caused by blows inflicted in their faces during investigation. WON the arrest was valid. Benito invited the former to have lunch. The witnesses identified the accused again in open court. HOWEVER.C. Padilla reported along with Benny Dy. Defense’s version: Danilo Roque stated that he being a tricycle driver drove the 4 accused to Benito’s house for a fee of P50. TV. the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant’s identification at the line-up. he went with the accused inside the house to have lunch. children. Manoc-Manoc Malay. He and his brother was suddenly apprehended by the security guards and brought to the police headquarters in Q. The court believed the version of the prosecution. Nilo and Salvacion was also stabbed but survived. They tied up the wife (Leticia Macam). WON the evidence from the line-up is admissible. CO2 refiller. While putting the said thins inside the car of Benito (victim) he heard the accused saying “kailangan patayin ang mga taong yan dahil kilala ako ng mga yan”. Wherefore. SY ’06-‘07 . Upon the arrival of the accused. together with his brother. G. with caliber . airgun riffle. chessboard. Things taken: 2 toygun. After a while Leticia was brought to the bathroom and after she screamed she was stabbed and killed by A. 74517.R. Any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. They were also forced to admit certain things. he was given a calling card by Eduardo Macam so that he can be paid the following day. Ernesto Roque. HOWEVER. while remaining outside the house served as a looked out. He also testified that his brother Ernesto Roque has just arrived from the province and in no way can be involved in the case at bar. After all the accused had taken their lunch. they went to the factory of the Zesto Juice (owned by the father of Eduardo Macam) for him to get his payment (50. maid (Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara and brought them to the room upstairs. Upon hearing such phrase he escaped and went home using his tricycle. betamax tapes. Cedro. Instead of paying him. E." at Sitio Angol. Cedro. Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide as co-conspirators of the other accused to suffer reclusion perpetua. decision of lower court is Affirmed. he was asked to gather some things and which he abided out of fear.00) . Cawilan and D. accused did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up. PEOPLE VS.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Ferma Road QC. Benito asked his maid Salvacion Enrera to call the companions of Eduardo who were waiting in a tricycle outside the house. Eugenio Cawilan was also charged with Anti-fencing Law but was acquitted in the said case. The total value of the items taken was P536. When Eugenio Cawilan pulled a gun and announced the hold-up.

The accused denied having made any oral confession alleging that he went to Pat. Appellant's assertion that the gun he had surrendered was merely found by a boy helper while cleaning the bar deserves no credence for. The information was then docketed with the Sandiganbayan. Padilla picked up the gun from the bar at his request. Accused posted bail which was granted.R. G. On 15 November 1984. 97214. However this was denied and trial ensued and he was found guilty. preparation of vouchers for salaries of teachers and employees. Held: No. The Accused argues that even if he did make such a confession. He was released on provisional liberty upon the approval of his property bail bond. Navallo filed a motion to quash. When arraigned by the RTC on 18 July 1985. which school is also located at del Carmen.00 to the National Treasury. tourist. A new order for Navallo's arrest was issued by the Sandiganbayan. Padilla was a spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning." What was told by the Accused to Pat. Padilla not to report the incident but to state that a boy helper in the bar had found a gun on the sand floor while cleaning and that Pat. That Complaint forms part of the record of the proceedings before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga. NO. but accused-petitioner could not be found. it would have been absurd for him to have placed himself under police custody in the early morning after the incident. the attempt to prosecute him before the Sandiganbayan would constitute double jeopardy. Surigao del Norte. and who facilitated the surrender to Pat. Upon motion of the prosecution. Presidential Decree No. He was found guilty in the RTC. Quiñones-Marcos opined that since Navallo had already been arraigned before the case was transferred to the Sandiganbayan. he pleaded not guilty. SANDIGANBAYAN [234 SCRA 177. The matter was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman which held otherwise. and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Appellant's voluntary surrender implies no violation as "no warrant of arrest is issued for the apprehension of the accused for the reason that he is already under police custody before the filing of the complaint.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests caused the death of Christian Langel Philippe. Special Prosecutor Luz L. He was charged with the Murder With the Use of Unlicensed firearms. Hence the appeal. Held: YES. His duties included the collection of tuition fees. on 10 December 1978. Double jeopardy requires the existence of the following requisites: Page 138 Section 1-C. the RTC should continue taking cognizance of the case. contending (1) that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense and the person of the accused and (2) that since the accused had already been arraigned by the RTC. 24 years old and a Swiss nationale. Aklan. 18 JUL 1994] Facts: Accused was the Collecting and Disbursing Officer of the Numancia National Vocational School. the same would be inadmissible in evidence. but given in ordinary manner. A warrant of arrest was issued. Issue: Whether or Not the constitutional right against double jeopardy and in custodial investigations in favor of the accused violated. NAVALLO VS. Sworn Complaint for "Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm" signed by the Chief of Police also attests to Appellant's oral confession. The warrant was returned with a certification by the RTC Clerk of Court that the accused had posted a bail bond. Navallo was finally arrested. An information for malversation of public funds was filed. SY ’06-‘07 . Padilla a gun which his helper found the following morning while cleaning the bar. and remittance of collections exceeding P500. No written confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial investigation. Appellant alleges that he carried the victim to the shore to be brought to the hospital to save the latter. the RTC transferred the case and transmitted its records to the Sandiganbayan. Issue: Whether or Not the lower court correct in saying that the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation is not applicable in the instant case. 1606 took effect creating the Sandiganbayan and conferring on it original and exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. if it were so.

It is urged that we must presume that the arraignment of the appellant was regularly conducted. G.These are inadmissible evidence for they were gathered by PO3 Danilo Tan of the Iloilo City PNP as a result of custodial interrogation where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel. Held: No. the rule implementing the constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. the provincial auditor) appears to be belied by his own testimony. The records do not reveal that the Information against the appellant was read in the language or dialect known to him. Issue: Whether or Not the death penalty proper. It limited its efforts trying to discover late body marks of maltreatment as if involuntariness is caused by physical abuse alone. The trial court violated section 3 of Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant. Appellant pleaded guilty. He verbally confessed his guilt without the assistance of counsel. It is unknown whether the appellant knows the English language. there are physical evidence to prove Khazie was raped. and (4) The accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is dismissed without his express consent. neither did the case there terminate with conviction or acquittal nor was it dismissed. Moreover. Said section requires that the court shall conduct a searching inquiry the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation. It did not ask the appellant when he was arrested. There could be no presumption. who arrested him. He was arraigned with the assistance of Atty. These physical evidence are evidence of the highest order. a stained pillow and a stained T-shirt all of which were presented as evidence for the prosecution. The incident happened after appellant drank liquor. the police came to know and recovered from appellant's house. Further. Appellant was living in his uncle's house some five arm's length from Penecilla's house. (2) The court has jurisdiction to try the case. as ordered by Espino. PEOPLE VS. SY ’06-‘07 . how and where he was interrogated. NO. a buri mat. Rogelio Antiquiera of the PAO. four years of age. 117487. No. Khazie Mae's green slippers. choking her with his right hand.R. Leopoldo Santiago found the victim’s body and the parents and police were informed. The RTC violated section 1(a) of Rule 116. Hence an automatic review for the imposition of death penalty. etc. whether he was medically examined before and after his interrogation.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests (1) The previous complaint or information or other formal charge is sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. The Information against the appellant is written in the English language. They strongly corroborate the testimony of Luisa Rebada that the victim was raped. the allegation of his having been "pressured" to sign the Examination Report prepared by Dulguime (examined cash. These consists of a pillow with bloodstains in its center 14 and the T-shirt 15 of the accused colored white with bloodstains on its bottom. A neighbor. (3) The accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the charge. a minor. It also denied appellant his constitutional right to due process of law. Page 139 Section 1-C. The RTC was devoid of jurisdiction when it conducted an arraignment of the accused which by then had already been conferred on the Sandiganbayan. The court must be sure. An audit examiner himself can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule. On the basis of his uncounselled verbal confession and follow up interrogations. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. When life is at stake. we cannot lean on this rebuttable presumption. The trial court simply inquired if appellant had physical marks of maltreatment. a pair of gold earrings. In any case. The RTC convicted him. Appellant is not in custodial investigation. 2 DEC 1995] Facts: Appellant was charged with the crime of rape with homicide of Khazie Mae Penecilla. ALICANDO [251 SCRA 293. Nor is there any showing that the Information couched in English was translated to the appellant in his own dialect before his plea of guilt. Appellant was arrested and interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan. Neither is it known what dialect is understood by the appellant.

son. Therefore. and he should not be convicted with the charges filed. gunshots were heard from the left side of the street. Private respondent filed with a Motion to Quash alleging that: (a) the facts alleged do not constitute an offense. and skull. and the frustrated murder of Lorna V. The other 8 accused were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. (c) the Court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. the civil indemnity imposed by the trial court should be increased to P50. 98321-24. and his wife Lorna were hit. find that the conviction of accused-appellant for the crimes charged has been established beyond reasonable doubt and the penalty imposed is in accordance with law. G. The witnesses also positively identified the accused. the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in all other respects. he was not then under custodial investigation. 1987 Page 140 Section 1-C. to the heirs of each victim who died is hereby increased to P50. then their acquittal negates conspiracy among them. This was denied. while Victor Nuñez was found guilty. However. and Major Carteciano. Regarding his right to counsel.79269. Lorna. JUDGE DONATO [198 SCRA 130. Carteciano. Major Antonio Carteciano was driving his private jeep Camp General Arcadio Maxilom in Lahug. brother Francisco. However. The facts shown by evidence are: One morning. so he cannot question the credibility of the witnesses.000 in conformity with our recent rulings on the matter. Major Carteciano took his . his brother Francisco. gunshots were fired in succession. and the other co-accused were acquitted only because there was reasonable doubt. he is estopped from questioning the validity of his arrest.R. NO. therefore. Nuñez demanded Lorna to give Nuñez her husband’s pistol. Near the intersection. except for the modification that the civil indemnity to be paid by accusedappellant Victor Nuñez. that is. May 9. 5 JUN 1991] Facts: Private respondent and his co-accused were charged of rebellion on October 2. G. Nuñez pleaded not guilty at the arraignment. The other three informations charged them with the murder of Francisco Carteciano y Sorilla and Antonio S. 30 JUN 1993] Facts: All the accused were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu with three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder in four Informations. Furthermore. with costs against accusedappellant PEOPLE VS. SY ’06-‘07 . WHEREFORE.45 cal pistol and fired. body. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused. NOS. 1986 for acts committed before and after February 1986. Then the gunmen hijacked another jeep and took off. In the front seat with him is his wife Lorna.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests PEOPLE VS. and at the backseat are his mother in law. When the jeep stopped. DE GUZMAN [224 SCRA 93. when accused was subjected to a paraffin test. the Court held that conspiracy was still proven by the evidence.R. Accused-appellant also argued that since his coaccused were acquitted. accused-appellant is still convicted of the four charges against him. Issue: Whether or not the accused Nuñez’s constitutional right was violated Held: No. We. and (d) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished. The victim Jose Bantug was found with gunshots in the head. Therefore. Nuñez shot Major Carteciano’s head point blank. Nuñez claimed that his arrest was illegal and that he was deprived of his right to counsel when he was subjected to a paraffin test without the assistance of counsel. (b) the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged. and her son Reiser Carteciano positively identified the accused. neighbor Bantug. However. the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation. Lorna asked to take her valuables instead. Cebu City where he was stationed as medical officer of the PC/INP Provincial Command. and Bantug’s son. several gunmen approached them.000.the right to counsel attaches only upon the start of an investigation. Then. Carteciano. the Supreme Court held that-. her mother Juanita Ricaplaza. Lorna identified Nuñez as the one who shot her husband. In the case at bar. Jose Bantug. Jr. At such point or stage.

or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. public order. Cesar Diego who acted on the warrant returned to the court with a certification issued by NBI agent Gonzales. information for the murder of Mayor Jose Payumo of Dinalupihan Bataan was filed against Escaño and ten other unindentified persons by the provincial fiscal in the RTC of Bataan at Balanga. which was fixed at P30.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Respondent filed a petition for bail. 1987." turned out to be also a false address. This was granted. 135 of RPC. whereas his co-detainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be released immediately. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law. Escaño filed in court an urgent ex-parte motion for his commitment at the provincial jail of Bataan on the ground that he wanted to be where his family and counsel could have easy access to him. Nos. morals. is not applicable to the accused as it is not favorable to him.000. 6968 approved on 24 October 1990. 4.R. The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and was an escapee from detention when arrested. providing a penalty of reclusion perpetua to the crime of rebellion.D. 6. 942 and 1834 and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees. Judge Donato now granted the bail. Issue: Whether or Not the private respondent has the right to bail. Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration indirectly asking the court to deny bail to and to allow it to present evidence in support thereof considering the "inevitable probability that the accused will not comply with this main condition of his bail. He and his companions were on board a private vehicle with a declared owner whose identity and address were also found to be false. P. Agreements were made therein: accused to remain under custody.00 and imposed a condition that he shall report to the court once every two months within the first ten days of every period thereof. Kawit. with a condition that they will submit themselves in the jurisdiction of the court. Bail in the instant case is a matter of right. which was opposed that the respondent is not entitled to bail anymore since rebellion became a capital offense under PD 1996. Cainoy. He was not arrested at his residence as he had no known address. 187 repealing. 942 and 1834 amending ART. MAGLALANG [196 SCRA 41. 19 APR 1991] Facts: On January 8. Held: Yes. We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. It is only when it is a capital offense that the right becomes discretionary. He was using the false name "Manuel Mercado Castro" at the time of his arrest and presented a Driver's License to substantiate his false identity. G. It was contended that: 1. It is absolute since the crime is not a capital offense. Four days later. Pursuant to Ministry Order No. Said petition for HC was dismissed. He alleged therein that his detention at the NBI headquarters in Manila was irregular and in defiance of the warrant of arrest issued by the court. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Director Carpio stating that the NBI needed physical custody of Escaño for the identification of the other accused in the case who were still the objects of a manhunt by NBI agents. Cavite. CARPIO VS. Republic Act No. a reward of P250. there was a waiver. among others. 5. the Acting Executive Judge of said court issued an order of arrest against Escaño recommending no bail for his provisional liberty. However it was wrong for the Judge to change the amount of bail from 30K to 50K without hearing the prosecution. This however was denied. On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order No. Accused validly waived his right to bail in another case(petition for habeas corpus). therefore prosecution has no right to present evidence. 1-A dated 11 January 1982 . Ergo. that in view of the finding of NBI agents that the other accused and Page 141 Section 1-C. The address he gave "Panamitan. SY ’06-‘07 . Hence the appeal. or good customs. stating therein that accused was still under investigation.00 was offered and paid for his arrest. Through counsel Rolando T.000. NO. 1996. (Chairman of CPP-NPA) 2. 78162. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. public policy. Pat. 3.

are the exceptions to the rule that the right to bail should be made available to all accused. G. in the summary proceeding on a motion praying for admission to bail. shall before conviction. alleging that he did not authorize his counsel to execute the first motion. 25 JUN 1993] Facts: Page 142 Section 1-C. FORTES [223 SCRA 619. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. resolved the application for bail pursuant to Section 13. 25 crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua instead of those punishable by the death penalty. by those principles of equity and justice that are deemed to be part of the laws of the land. 1986 when the 1973 Constitution allowing the death penalty was still in force and that the application for bail was made on March 5.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests suspects in the case were subversive elements or members of the New People's Army. Notwithstanding. but also because Escaño jumped bail and did not appear on the date set for his arraignment. the prosecution should be afforded procedural due process. Issue: Whether or Not the order granting right to bail was proper. the court should spell out at least a resume of the evidence on which its order granting or denying bail is based. that the reasons advanced in said application would be overcome by strong and sufficient evidence. he was not represented by counsel. 27 The lower court not only failed to properly apply the pertinent provisions of the Constitution and the Rules but it also disregarded equity and justice by its failure to take into account the factual milieu surrounding the detention of Escaño PEOPLE VS. The order granting bail had been rendered moot not only by the fact that he had been released from NBI custody. the public prosecutor averred that the accused was charged with a capital offense for which no bail may be availed of. Section 13. SY ’06-‘07 . by the rules which this Court may promulgate. Director Carpio was ordered to justify his actions and so as not to be considered in contempt. be bailable by sufficient sureties. In opposing said application. having found no sufficient evidence against accused. Escaño's counsel Rolando T. and third. Otherwise. the Court resolved the issue of the legality of the order granting bail to Escaño. 1986 without a warrant having been presented to him and that since then he had been detained in the lock-up cell of the NBI. searched his house when he was arrested. 1987 during the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution which abolished the death penalty. the court is controlled by the following: first. and that the NBI would produce the person of Escaño before the court whenever required and every time that there would be a hearing on the case. All it had to do was to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong in the light of the provision of Section 13. that Mayor Payumo was killed on August 20. Although the right to bail is principally for the benefit of the accused. The court granted the application for bail fixing the same at P30. In the case at bar the RTC erred in not summarizing the factual basis of its order granting bail. As the court itself acknowledged in its order of April 2. thereafter. the applicable provisions of the Constitution and the statutes. NO. However. when evidence of guilt is strong. also without a warrant. the court merely stated the number of prosecution witnesses but not their respective testimonies. 90643. Article III. that he was subjected to inhuman torture and forced to admit participation in the killing of Mayor Payumo and to implicate other persons.e. the order is defective and voidable. Cainoy filed an application for bail stating that Escaño was arrested by NBI agents on December 7. Held: No.. in the judicial determination of the availability of said right. The facts. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.R. Article III of the Constitution. that said agents. 1987 that "capital punishment" in Section 4.000. in the exercise of said discretion. Also. should not have gotten in the way of resolving the application for bail in accordance with the Constitution and procedural rules. it was for the best interest of Escaño that he be detained at the NBI lock-up cell where security measures were adequate. Rule 114 has been amended to reclusion perpetua." As the phrase "capital offenses" has been replaced by the phrase "offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua. and that during the custodial investigation. It did not have to invoke the abolition of the death penalty and the lack of legislative enactment restoring it in justifying the grant of bail. and that during the custodial investigation. Article III of the Constitution explicitly provides that "(a)ll persons. the prosecution should be given the opportunity to present evidence and. Thus. and concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not "sufficiently strong" to deny bail to Escaño. the court should have proceeded accordingly: i. however. he was represented by counsel. However another motion was executed by Escaño stating that he now wants to be detained in the NBI. The RTC has the discretion in the consideration of the strength of the evidence at hand. second.

Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong.R. If the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of discretion. 93177 and 96948 who are officers of the AFP were directed to appear in person before the Pre-Trial Investigating Officers for the alleged participation the failed coup on December 1 to 9. 1990." Petitioners have a right to pre-emptory challenge.R. Petitioners were given several opportunities to present their side at the pre-trial investigation. bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. Judge of GCM then granted the provisional liberty. but the application was denied by GCM No. Issue: Whether or Not the accused’s right to bail violated. that before conviction bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. the request for the fixing of bond was denied. bail also becomes a matter of right. The private respondents in G. The RTC now declared that even military men facing court martial proceedings can avail the right to bail. He filed with the RTC a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for provisional liberty and a writ of preliminary injunction. The court's discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. DE VILLA [200 SCRA 80. 1990.R. It is clear from Section 13. NO. 97454 filed with SC a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that they were being detained in Camp Crame without charges. Municipality of Matnog. No. A bond of P25000 was granted for accused’s provisional release. This is without merit.R. Ltc Jacinto Ligot applied for bail on June 5. they filed instead a verbal motion for reconsideration which they were again asked to submit in writing. to the police station of the said municipality to report a rape committed against the latter by the accused. Held: NO denial of due process. Now accused assails denial of bail on the ground that the same amounted to an undue denial of his constitutional right to bail. Nos. 95020. when they were given until March 7. They had been expressly warned in the subpoena that "failure to submit counter-affidavits on the date specified shall be deemed a waiver of their right to submit controverting evidence. 2 AUG 1991] Facts: The petitioners in G. first at the scheduled hearing of February 12. and then again after the denial of their motion of February 21. Merelyn. 1990. Issue: Whether or Not there was a denial of due process. But once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong. Finding after hearing that no formal charges had been filed against the petitioners after more than a year after their arrest. to submit their counter-affidavits. Now. However he was not released immediately. Whether or not there was a violation of the accused right to bail. Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3. The MCTC found him guilty.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Agripino Gine of Barangay Naburacan. Petitioners now claim that there was no pre-trial investigation of the charges as mandated by Article of War 71. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. A motion for dismissal was denied. Alleging denial of due process. the respondent courts have no authority to order their release and otherwise interfere with the court-martial proceedings. (Right to challenge validity of members of G/SCM) It is argued that since the private respondents are officers of the Armed Forces accused of violations of the Articles of War. On that date. G. The petition was referred to RTC. Held: No. the trial court ordered their release. Province of Sorsogon. * The Regional Page 143 Section 1-C. as amended. their motion for reconsideration. 1989. 93177. accompanied his 13-year old daughter. No. 1990. SY ’06-‘07 . If an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty. Following this.14. the accused was apprehended and charged. COMMENDADOR VS. In G. An appeal to RTC was filed. To that extent the right is absolute.

petitioner Page 144 Section 1-C. The City Judge of Dagupan City.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. respectively. 96948. and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are hereby reversed and set aside. in G. the petition is granted. In G. Felipe Villanueva. Thus. NO. 95020 and 97454. Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right. he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. of Judges Camilon and Pronove. prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other bodies and on petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto. The AFP Special Investigating Committee was able to complete the pre-charge investigation only after one year because hundreds of officers and thousands of enlisted men were involved in the failed coup. VILLANUEVA [77 SCRA 377. CALLANTA VS. and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to exercise the right of peremptory challenge under article 18 of the articles of war. In G. 30 MAY 1986] Facts: Petitioner was charged with estafa. He likewise prayed for the issuance of the appropriate writ commanding the Immigration Commissioner and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM) to clear him for departure. 24646 & L-24674. MANOTOC VS.R. COURT OF APPEALS [142 SCRA 149. neither the courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has no jurisdiction over his liberty could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel. as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. The right to bail invoked by the private respondents has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the military. "motion for permission to leave the country. 20 JUN 1977] Facts: Two complaints for grave oral defamation were filed against Faustina Callanta. as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission." stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. both trial judges denied the same. "relative to his business transactions and opportunities. the petitions are also granted. Accordingly. 93177." The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing. Issue: Whether or Not the right to bail a matter of right. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. denied the motions to quash the complaints. No.R. G. NOS. He posted bail. 1982. SY ’06-‘07 . On the contention that they had not been charged after more than one year from their arrest. if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason. Held: The right to bail is a matter of right if the charge is not a capital offense or punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. No costs. The right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist.R.R. There is no indication that the business transactions cannot be undertaken by any other person in his behalf. L-62100. there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process and the right to a speedy trial. Nos. Indeed. Petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals seeking to annul the orders dated March 9 and 26. denying his leave to travel abroad. No. Petitioner has not shown the necessity for his travel abroad. G.R.

After the issuance of the warrants of arrest and the bail fixed at P600. According to petitioner’s counsel. paragraph (b) for receiving a check of P125. in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest”. Secondly. the complaint came to life. 21 MAR 1988] Facts: The complainant. Tatad. petitioner posted the bail bond. for investigation and report. the 1974 complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan. Due process (Procedural) and right to speedy disposition of trial were violated. advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions. recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against former Minister Tatad and Antonio L. According to the Charter of the City of Dagupan. departing from established procedures prescribed by law for preliminary investigation. only after petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos. Antonio de los Reyes. “the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense.000. all against petitioner Tatad alone. the CIS report was submitted to the Tanodbayan. In the case at bar. The "report" was made to "sleep" in the office of the PSC until the end of 1979 when it became widely known that Secretary (then Minister) Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos and had resigned from the Cabinet. it is futile for the petitioner to question the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. he has waived whatever defect.000. Firstly. all affidavits and counteraffidavits were in the case was already for disposition by the Tanodbayan. or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court”. L-72335-39.00 to said corporation for printing services rendered for the Constitutional Convention Referendum in 1973. On December 12. President/General Manager of Amity Trading Corporation as consideration for the release of a check of P588. Cantero. unwarranted benefits. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. paragraph (e) of RA. originally filed what he termed "a report" with the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) on October 1974. Marcos by referring the complaint to the CIS. G. Restraining order issued by the Court is lifted and set aside. TATAD VS.R. there was jurisdictional infirmity. it was only on June 5. thus obtaining her provisional liberty. 1982. 1980 which was around two months after petitioner Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. A motion to quash the information was made alleging that the prosecution deprived accused of due process of law and of the right to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against him. the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Page 145 Section 1-C.00 from Roberto Vallar. 3019 for giving D' Group. 1985. arguing that the City Fiscal should have conducted the preliminary investigation. NOS. The City Fiscal in this case did not disagree with the judge’s investigation. Petitioner questions the validity of the issuance of warrant of arrest by respondent.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Callanta brought the suits for certiorari in the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s contentions are to be given merit. On June 16. (2) Violation of Section 3. (1) Section 3. 1985 that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan. as it were. It was denied hence the appeal. without regard to the limits of punishment. Act No. SY ’06-‘07 . Petitioner also erred in arguing that only the City Fiscal can conduct a preliminary investigation. Held: YES. (3) Violation of Section 7 on three (3) counts for his failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the calendar years 1973. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on April 1. 1979. 1976 and 1978. Held: Based on many precedent cases of the Supreme Court. “where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper. However. and may release. Presidential Security Command. a private corporation controlled by his brother-in-law. SANDIGANBAYAN [159 SCRA 70. and agreed with the complaints filed. containing charges of alleged violations of Rep. 3019 against then Secretary of Public Information Francisco S. because she posted the bail bond. if any. which require the submission of affidavits and counter-affidavits by the complainant and the respondent and their witnesses. Five criminal informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 12. By October 25. Petition for certiorari is denied. 1980.

petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability. The military investigators reported within a span of three hours that the man who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando Galman) was a communist-hired gunman. Marcos stated that evidence shows that Galman was the killer. He was killed from his plane that had just landed at the Manila International Airport. the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse. Jr. Thereafter. NO. GALMAN VS. on the other hand. Held: Page 146 Section 1-C. respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the accused of the crime charged. Thus. Then Pres. SANDIGANBAYAN [144 SCRA 43. The same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's memorandum for the prosecution (which apparently was not served on them). The law (P. " while the chairman's minority report would exclude nineteen of them. President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to investigate due to large masses of people who joined in the ten-day period of national mourning yearning for the truth. same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Hence." yet.72670. While we agree with the respondent court that this period fixed by law is merely "directory. SY ’06-‘07 . justice and freedom. Aquino could have shot him. No. alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the legal ground for such action and urging that the case be set for a full hearing on the merits that the people are entitled to due process. petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for reconsideration alleging that respondents committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. it can not be disregarded or ignored completely. resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the TRO issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. However. the instant case had become moot and academic. and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. But ten days later. A delay of close to three (3) years can not be deemed reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired pointblank into the back of his head by an assassin. The fact is that both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the military version stating that "the evidence shows to the contrary that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations. not a communist plot. G. Only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. Only difference between the two reports is that the majority report found all the twenty-six private respondents above-named in the title of the case involved in the military conspiracy. 12 SEP 1986] Facts: Assassination of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino. that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy. Respondents submitted that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal. Whether or not there was a violation of the double jeopardy clause. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused.D.R.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Presidential Security Command for finding investigation and report. Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining respondent court from rendering a decision in the two criminal cases before it. with absolute impunity. the Court resolved by nine-to-two votes 11 to issue the restraining order prayed for. The Court also granted petitioners a five-day period to file a reply to respondents' separate comments and respondent Tanodbayan a three-day period to submit a copy of his 84-page memorandum for the prosecution. 911) prescribes a ten-day period for the prosecutor to resolve a case under preliminary investigation by him from its termination.

and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake. It was. therefore. no evidence at all that the assignment was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle. A conference was held in an inner room of the Palace. therefore. presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see the President. Justice Pamaran. A void judgment is. According to J. petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the TRO enjoining the Page 147 Section 1-C. In this case. (First Division) would personally handle the trial.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is granted and ordering a re-trial of the said cases which should be conducted with deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the requirements of due process. Marcos came up with a public statement aired over television that Senator Aquino was killed not by his military escorts. The courts would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice. This criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases by public respondents at the secret Malacañang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by Justice Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. The monitoring of proceedings and developments from Malacañang and by Malacañang personnel. decided that the presiding justice. Herrera. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant Justice Lazaro were with the President. not a source of wonder that President Marcos would want the case disposed of in a manner consistent with his announced theory thereof which. Also predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total absolution of the twenty-six respondents-accused of all criminal and civil liability. There was no double jeopardy. mag moro-moro na lamang kayo. Marcos expressed his thanks to the group and uttered 'I know how to reciprocate'. "nobody was looking for these persons because they said Marcos was in power. in the case at bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth. was no longer around) affirmed the allegations in the second motion for reconsideration that he revealed that the Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case. The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15 months later when former Pres. By it no rights are divested. The custody of the accused and their confinement in a military camp." Our Penal Code penalizes "any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice. such a procedure would be a better arrangement because. Marcos told them 'Okay. No double jeopardy attaches. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are void. SY ’06-‘07 . During the conference. Pres. It neither binds nor bars anyone. Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead. The disappearance of witnesses two weeks after Ninoy's assassination. would clear his name and his administration of any suspected guilty participation in the assassination. Malacañang wanted dismissal to the extent that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel. they may claim the benefit of the doctrine of double jeopardy and thereby avoid another prosecution if some other witnesses shall appear when President Marcos is no longer in office. Malacañang Conference planned a scenario of trial where the former President ordered then that the resolution be revised by categorizing the participation of each respondent. In rendering its decision. The partiality of Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision: That President Marcos had wanted all of the twenty-six accused to be acquitted may not be denied. Pres. the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential directive. if the accused are charged in court and subsequently acquitted. The conferees were told to take the back door in going to the room where the meeting was held. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was clearly obvious. The assignment of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran. "This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst." and that "the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist. deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth. no judgment at all. Courts' Resolution of acquittal was a void judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. and after an agreement was reached.' and that on their way out of the room Pres. in legal effect." Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. More so was there suppression of vital evidence and harassment of witnesses. instead of in a civilian jail. The Court then said that the then President (code-named Olympus) had stage-managed in and from Malacañang Palace "a scripted and predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case. The record shows that the then President misused the overwhelming resources of the government and his authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of the judicial process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases. but by a communist hired gun. at the same time. More so. except the uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran himself.

The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the people. including the Sandiganbayan's. to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. That is a right safeguarded both appellants. but it is doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability. serve no majority nor minority but serve only the public interest as they see it in accordance with their oath of office. synonymous with guilt. All of the acts of the respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion on his part amounting to lack of jurisdiction which substantively prejudiced the petitioner.R. Respondents accused must now face trial for the crimes charged against them before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process. DRAMAYO [42 SCRA 60. L-21325. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52. The idea was for Dramayo and Ecubin to ambush Estelito. PEOPLE VS. With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings. 4 provides that any retired elective provicial or municipal official who has received payments of retirement benefits and shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected. 29 OCT 1971] Facts: Dramayo brought up the idea of killing Estelito Nogaliza so that he could not testify in the robbery case where he is an accused. notwithstanding a majority of the defendants being acquitted. What is required then is moral certainty. there had been cases where this Court. according to the fundamental law. Absolute certain of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict of any carnal charge but moral certainty is required. responsible for the offense guilty of the crime charged. Sec. guided only the Constitution and their own conscience and honor. their guilt had been more than amply demonstrated. also assail the validity of Sec. 22 JAN 1980] Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. the element of conspiracy likewise being allegedly present. as from the evidence deserving of the fullest credence. under our system of government. Petitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. who was returning from Sapao. The presumption of innocence could not come to their rescue as it was more than sufficiently overcome by the proof that was offered by the prosecution. So it must be. and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof regular to constitute the offense. Justices and judges must ever realize that they have no constituency. including those Page 148 Section 1-C. comments. a moral certainty having arisen as to their capability. The others were to station themselves nearby. Their guilt be shown beyond reasonable doubt. SY ’06-‘07 . Held: Yes.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which had required the respondents'. Accusation is not. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. is to fill the public posts. which states that any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State. after such investigation. did hold the party or parties. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392. It is incumbent on the prosecution demonstrate that culpability lies. the provision amounts to class legislation. DUMLAO VS. L-52245. It must be stated likewise that while squarely advanced for the first time. according to the Constitution. respondent Sandiganbayan should not have precipitately issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused pending the final action of this Court." The judgment of conviction should not have occasioned any surprise on the part of the two appellants. Hence the appeal Issue: Whether or not the accused’s criminal liability proved beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on their behalf. According to Dumlao. Only Dramayo and Ecubin were convicted in the RTC for murder. The principal contention raised is thus clearly untenable. It is to be admitted that the starting point is the Presumption of innocence. "By reasonable doubt is meant that which of possibility may arise. Although no restraining order was issued anew. G. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. the cases must now be tried before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor.

will thereby be avoided. as a candidate is disqualified from running for public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed against him before a civil or military tribunal. 44. Appellant was brought to the Headquarters at Camp Crame where he confessed. Ascertaining that Salvador knew appellant. yet. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. it should be declared null and void for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused. no distinction is made between a person convicted of acts of dislotalty and one against whom charges have been filed for such acts. Sgt. shall not be qualified for any of the offices covered by the act. Appellant had four companions.Appellant was arrested in the vicinity of Otis Street in Pandacan. thereafter they were stabbed and left bleeding to death. Furthermore. PEOPLE VS. drove a ten-wheeler truck a Coca-Cola plant in Antipolo to load cases of softdrinks. one of them poked a gun at Venancio and grabbed the steering wheel. employees 65 years of age are classified differently from younger employees. It condemns before one is fully heard. to the extreme detriment of a person charged. 1988. A person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that charges have been filed against him is virtually placed in the same category as a person already convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto. In this case. 52 which can stand by itself. section 19. 1973 Constitution). At the North Diversion Road. Alberto Awanan brought the appellant to the MCU hospital and was presented to Venancio for identification. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. he was turned over to the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group. Being infected with constitutional infirmity. G. Additionally. ALCANTARA [240 SCRA 122. except as to the degree of proof. Wherefore. accompanied by Larry Salvador. a legislative/administrative determination of guilt should not be allowed to be substituted for a judicial determination. is not synonymous with guilt. The purpose of the provision is to satisfy the “need for new blood” in the workplace. or other similar crimes. They were about to leave the plant at 10:00pm when several men approached them to hitch for a ride. Revised Penal Code). In ultimate effect. or to participate in any partisan activity therein: provided that a judgment of conviction of those crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact. 91283. may be rebutted. the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid and that portion of the second paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared null and void. An accusation. A highly possible conflict of findings between two government bodies. Sec. for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused. “Explicit is the constitutional provision that. It is separable from the first portion of the second paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Big. a partial declaration of nullity of only that objectionable portion is mandated. Manila. SY ’06-‘07 . 4. Venancio and Salvador(helper) were brought down from the vehicle and tied to the fence of the expressway. according to the fundamental law. as both of them would be ineligible to run for public office. in all criminal prosecutions. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel (Article IV. 4 of BP Blg 52 remains constitutional and valid.” And although the filing of charges is considered as but prima facie evidence. which carries with it the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the term of the sentence (Art. Venancio survived but Salvador did not. should be declared null and void Held: In regards to the unconstitutionality of the provisions. Issue: Whether or not the aforementioned statutory provisions violate the Constitution and thus.. In regards to the second paragraph of Sec. time constraints will prevent one charged with acts of disloyalty from offering contrary proof to overcome the prima facie evidence against him. NO. A few days later. and therefore. At Ortigas Ave. there is "clear and present danger" that because of the proximity of the elections.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests amounting to subversion. The challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence. insurrection. One class can be treated differently from another class. Venancio Patricio. Page 149 Section 1-C. rebellion. 17 JAN 1995] Facts: On July 19.R. Venancio accommodated appellant's request. it is best that evidence pro and con of acts of disloyalty be aired before the Courts rather than before an administrative body such as the COMELEC.

over his mouth. called to a photographer present. CORPUZ VS. hours after questioning began. disbursed funds and made bank deposits and withdrawals pertaining to Page 150 Section 1-C. CHPG Sgt. There was blatant violation of the constitutional rights of appellant as an accused. Finally. claimed to have allowed assailants 5. The identification procedure was irregular.R. He was arrested.only 3 assailants had a . It was also incorrect to give too much weight to Police Sgt. Appellant could no longer bear the pain caused by the water treatment. He said that he was just applying to be a driver and stayed there even if he was told that no work was available.conference .only Alcantara was identified . and pictures of him pointing to the suspect were taken. Undaunted.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Appelant’s Defense: Denial and alibi. In the midst of his ordeal. he was made to sign prepared statements containing his full confession. conference by all assailants 4. Awanan directed. appellant's interrogators started boxing him and kicking him. While he was applying for CONCEPCION TRUCKING located across Otis street from the Coca-cola plant. 14 FEB 1991] Facts: Generoso Corpuz is the Supervising Accounting Clerk in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Viscaya. Awanan’s testimony as to the “previous identification” at the hospital. Venancio did not respond. The second identification which correctly pointed to accused by Venancio should not be credited. G. Later. Without being apprised of his rights nor provided with counsel. Venancio obeyed. The people’s evidence failed to meet the quantum required to overcome the presumption. "Basta ituro mo lang. "Tubigan na iyan. he received collections. At ten o'clock that night. SY ’06-‘07 . he was interrogated and urged to confess his guilt. and electrocuted. to confirm with the truck drivers. REPUBLIC [194 SCRA 73. appellant heard someone say. He was also hit on the back with a chair. he confessed to being one of the hijackers. NO. Alcantara was arraigned under an information charging him and four others (at large) with the crime of robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. From the hospital. Testimony . 74259. Awanan. On the third day of his detention.court (pointed to another person) Held: YES. he was turned over to the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group. Sgt. Appellant belongs to the economically deprived in our society. Due process demands that the identification procedure of criminal suspects must be free from impermissible suggestions as the influence of improper suggestion probably accounts for more miscarriages of justice than any other single factor. On both times. to hitch a ride because Alcantara 6. He remained in the custody of the police for two days and two nights. he refused to admit to the crime. appellant was brought to the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group headquarters at Camp Crame. Awanan asked Venancio twice if appellant was among those who hijacked the truck he was driving. The trial court convicted the accused despite the following inconsistency between Venancio’s affidavit and testimony: Affidavit 1. forced appellant to stand about a foot from Venancio. He was designated Acting Supervising Cashier in the said office. He was led to another room. Water was slowly and continuously poured on his face. He was made to confront Venancio whom he saw for the first time. Our Constitution and our laws strictly ordain their protection following the Magsaysay desideratum that those who have less in life should have more in law. He balked. Awanan was not corroborated by Venancio. He denied any knowledge of the "hit" on the Coca-cola delivery truck.failed to identify Alcantara . and told the latter to just point at the suspect." He was then blindfolded and brought to another room where he was made to lie down. Still.at the hospital and in open . Appellant was the brought to the MCU hospital. There is no reason for him to err as they know each other for 3 years." Sgt. was familiar to them Issue: Whether or not the rights of the accused was violated. He is nearly illiterate(third grade education). The testimony of Sgt. In this capacity. stabbing was preceded by a 3. where he was handcuffed and left until the following day. Conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not the weakness of the defense. mentioned 5 assailants 2.

Wherefore his petition is denied. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions of Mr. and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. The presumed innocence must yield to the positive finding that he is guilty of malversation. The Certificate of turnover revealed a shortage of P72..R. the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. Moreso the guarantees of our Constitution that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law". he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned. Also. G. He was able to pay only P10.” This was violated. Issue: Whether or Not Corpuz is guilty of malversation. The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of the qualified plea of accused. After a final demand letter for the total of P50. Corpuz did not deny such facts but he insists that the shortage was malversed by other persons. 1981 his designation as Acting Supervising Cashier was terminated and a transfer of accountabilities was effected between him and his successor.07 which was not met. Rule 112. The equipoise rule(balancing test) which is the presumption of innocence is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balance. On April 13. a case of malversation was filed against him. He is guilty as principal of Malversation of Public Funds. Acting Deputy Provincial Treasurer Bernardo Aluning made to post the amount on his cashbook although he had not received the said amount." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. Issue: Whether or Not there was any irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court. section 3 of ROC that : “If the defendant appears without attorney.L-2809. HOLGADO [85 PHIL 752. There is no such balance in the case at bar. PEOPLE VS. Post-Audit is not a preliminary requirement to filing a malversation case. Corpuz claim that he was absent when Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks. being a private person. The failure of the public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable. kidnap and detain one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for about eight hours thereby depriving said Artemia Fabreag of her personal liberty.596. Held: Yes. was not proven. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. He pleaded guilty (without a counsel) and said that he was just instructed by Mr. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his claims. SY ’06-‘07 . and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. which no evidence was presented to indict the latter.50. 22 MAR 1950] Facts: Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal detention because according to the information. He was convicted in Sandiganbayan. Held: It is a subtle way of camouflaging the embezzlement of the money equivalent when 1 of the 4 checks issued and encashed in the same day was entered in the accused’s cash book 3 months after such encashments. No investigation was opened by the court on this matter in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of determining whether the supposed instruction is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of the confession.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests government accounts. Apparently the court became satisfied with the fiscal's information Page 151 Section 1-C. he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive.823. Ocampo. upon demand by an authorized officer shall be a prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use. in which case the scale of justice should be tilt in favor of the accused. He alleged that Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks while he was of leave.159.00. Ocampo was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. Also.

12 AUG 1983] Facts: Soon after appellant was apprehended on August 20. Such attitude of the court was wrong for the simple reason that a mere statement of the fiscal was not sufficient to overcome a qualified plea of the accused. Rivera. Mario Rivera as de officio counsel for the accused. 1970. who was an Asst. Atty. In the course of the investigation. to assure the court that the accused has not misunderstood the nature and effect of his plea of guilty. despite appointment by the court of Atty. Appellant was found guilty of murder and made to suffer the death penalty. Dominador Cariaso de officio counsel for the accused. the hearing was re-set for the next day and the court appointed Atty. neither the de parte nor the de officio counsel was in Court. Tan was given a Php. The accused del Rosario entered a plea of guilty but qualified it with the allegation that he committed the crime out of fear of his co-accused Eloy Magsi and the other coaccused. was assigned to investigate. his arraignment was scheduled before the Criminal Circuit Court of San Fernando. Prior to the next hearing. Citing People vs. On the third hearing date.L-65952. SORIANO VS. G. Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the rights of the accused. who was prompted to ask for it because of accused desire to be represented by a de parte counsel. Tan reported it to the NBI which set up an entrapment. 1970.R.A. The desire to speed up the disposition of cases should not be effected at the sacrifice of the basic rights of the accused. 31 JUL 1984] Facts: Tan was accused of qualified theft. NO.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests that he had investigated Mr. Domingo (55 SCRA 243-244): the trial courts should exercise solicitous care before sentencing the accused on a plea of guilty especially in capital offenses by first insuring that the accused fully understands the gravity of the offense. first of which was on August 1.3019). Rivera was reappointed that day as de officio counsel for arraignment purposes only. despite a second call of the case. and he had supplied the other half. the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as a principal in violating the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R. SANDIGANBAYAN [131 SCRA 184. hence this instant petition. resetting of hearing by the court for alleged reception of evidence when in fact none was conducted. are not sufficient compliance. La Union.RA. perfunctory queries addressed to the accused whether he understands the charges and the gravity of the penalty. 1970. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. G. Held: YES. MAGSI [124 SCRA 64. who fails to genuinely protect the interests of the accused. PEOPLE VS. But above all. The petitioner. The case was actually set and rescheduled for six (6) times. for failure of the de officio and de parte counsels to appear. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan.L-32888. marked bill.2000. so Atty. Held: Page 152 Section 1-C. petitioner demanded Php. 1970 on motion of Atty.R. the court should have seen to it that the accused be assisted by counsel especially because of the qualified plea given by him and the seriousness of the offense found to be capital by the court. On that date. Fiscal. At the second hearing on September 8. hearing was re-set to September 8.4000 from Tan as price for dismissing the case. and that the prudent and proper thing to do in capital cases is to take testimony. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. NO. Issue: Whether or Not the investigation conducted by the petitioner can be regarded as contract or transaction within the purview of . After trial. Rivera moved to withdraw as de officio counsel and it was favorably acted on by the court on September 7. 1970.3019. Mere pro-forma appointment of de officio counsel. the severity of the consequences attached thereto as well as the meaning and significance of his plea of guilty. SY ’06-‘07 .

SY ’06-‘07 . Petitioner is guilty of direct bribery under Art. Senining dated December 28. but includes all kinds of transaction whether commercial.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests R. respondent Judge Senining convicted petitioner notwithstanding the absence of an arraignment. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s constitutional right was violated when he was not arraigned. present. The absence of an arraignment can be invoked at anytime in view of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial. the petition for certiorari is granted.3. is nullified and set aside. Held: Yes. Being arraigned is thus a vital aspect of the constitutional rights guaranteed him.A. for the first time. However. It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of possible loss of freedom. with due respect and observance of the provisions of the Rules of Court. to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him.R.In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing laws. a decision on the appealed case was rendered The Solicitor General commented that the decision should be annulled because there was no arraignment. the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx b. MENDOZA [77 SCRA 422. 3019 Sec. A transaction like a contract is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions. The petitioner stated that the facts make out a case of direct bribery under Art. and any other party wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. even of his life. Wherefore. Corrupt practices of public officers . The case is remanded to the City Court of Cebu for the prosecution of the offense of slight physical injuries.3 (b). Also. the decision of respondent Judge Rafael T.210 of the RPC. Page 153 Section 1-C. It was also alleged that without any notice to petitioner and without requiring him to submit his memorandum. 1973. The case was appealed to the Court o First Instance in Cebu presided by respondent Judge Mendoza.A. is not limited to commercial or business transaction. is nullified and set aside. At the very least then. affirming the aforesaid decision of Judge Senining. NO. The decision of respondent Judge Romulo R.3 (b). in connection with any contract or transaction between the Govt. starting with the arraignment of petitioner. civil. It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was neither a contract nor transaction. Likewise. depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him.A. it is correct that the Solicitor General agreed with petitioner that the sentence imposed on him should be set aside for being null. BORJA VS. finding the accused guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries.210 of the RPC and not a violation of R. 20 JUN 1977] Facts: Borja was accused of slight physical injuries in the City of Cebu. And this element is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.L-45667. 3019 sec. It was alleged that the failure to arraign him is a violation of his constitutional rights. respondent Judge Senining proceeded with the trial in absentia and rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime charged. That not withstanding. It is also not just due process that requires an arraignment. The offense of direct bribery is not the offense charged and is not included in the offense charged which is violation of R. Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed as to why he was indicted and what penal offense he has to face. 1976. or administrative in nature. transaction as used hereof. for himself or for other person. It is required in the Rules that an accused. G. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift. he was not arraigned. is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. Mendoza dated November 16. The respondent claimed that. With the violation of the constitutional right to be heard by himself and counsel being thus manifest. share percentage or benefit. he must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him.3019 sec. The court agrees with the petitioner. Judgment modified.

NO. 1991 but the prosecutor was not present. The case was set for hearing on July 26. However. formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena. The case was reset without any objection from the defense counsel. courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. The case was called on September 20. 1991. The respondent judge considered the absence of the prosecutor as unjustified. Arsenio Padumon. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial. the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information. G. like all other accused persons. RIVERA [45 PHIL 650. while the others remained at large. and dismissed the criminal case for failure to prosecute. NO. there was no showing that there was an unjust delay caused by the prosecution. Domingo Padumon. 22 MAY 1995] Facts: Luis Tampal.R. Samuel Padumon. 21741. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsidereation. Whether or Not the dismissal serves as a bar to reinstatement of the case. the respondent judge should have given the prosecution a fair opportunity to prosecute its case. What are violative of the right of the accused to speedy trial are unjustified postponements which prolong trial for an unreasonable length of time. G. PEOPLE VS. and now. only private respondents. Held: Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. 25 JAN 1924] Facts: Aurelia Conde. Pablito Suco. has twice been required to come to the Supreme Court for protection. Dario Suco and Galvino Cadling were charged of robbery with homicide and multiple serious physical injuries in the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga with Hon. secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time. and Samuel Padumon were arrested. In several cases it was held that dismissal on the grounds of failure to prosecute is equivalent to an acquittal that would Page 154 Section 1-C. Wilfredo Ochotorena as presiding judge. Aurelia Conde. Luis Tampal. seems as far away from a definite resolution of her troubles as she was when originally charged. Held: In determining the right of an accused to speedy disposition of their case. In the facts above. Tayabas.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests CONDE VS. Issue: Whether or Not the postponement is a violation of the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of their cases. but Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Wilfredo Guantero moved for postponement due to his failure to contact the material witnesses. The private respondents cannot invoke their right against double jeopardy. The motion was denied by respondent judge. without good cause. Arsenio Padumon. claiming that his absence was because such date was a Muslim holiday and the office of the Provincial prosecutor was closed on that day. Domingo Padumon. We lay down the legal proposition that.R. and she has been deprived of that right in defiance of law. 102485. hence. after the passage of more than one year from the time when the first information was filed. as in this instance for more than a year. has a right to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go free. has appeared with her witnesses and counsel at hearings no less than on eight different occasions only to see the cause postponed. or if he be restrained of his liberty. SY ’06-‘07 . where a prosecuting officer. has been forced to respond to no less the five information for various crimes and misdemeanors. TAMPAL [244 SCRA 202. by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.

more than anyone else. Nevertheless. RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE TV OF TRIAL OF JOSEPH ESTRADA [360 SCRA 248. G.R. within the courthouse. 29 JUN 2001] Facts: The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) sent a letter requesting the Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. identified as Virginia Talens was found lying dead in a canal at Bo.M. where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded. 1992. An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him. Held: The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information. considering that the rights of the accused to a speedy trial was not violated by the State. by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted about its individual settings nor made an object of public’s attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence but only be evidence and argument given in open court. where a plea of not guilty is entered. the accused shall have at least 15 days to prepare for trial. still later. she was last seen alive at about 3:00 o'clock early morning of March 6. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed 180 days from the 1st day of trial. but in this case. it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come. a 60 year old woman. the overriding consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due process which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions. 1992 by Orlando Pangan and Richard Pangan who were with her going home coming from the wake of one Leonardo Flores. A. The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public information. L-66469. conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. whichever date last occurs. Therefore.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests bar another prosecution for the same offense. or from the date the accused has appeared before the justice. When these rights race against one another. Trial shall commence within 30 days from arraignment as fixed by the court. It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public." The request was seconded by Mr. SY ’06-‘07 . Sarino and. Pampanga. Issue: Whether or Not live media coverage of the trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. both Page 155 Section 1-C. NO. along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. Mexico. San Nicolas. sit in the available seats. except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. NO 01-4-03-SC. 8493 “THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT” The arraignment of an accused shall be held within 30 days from filing of the information. judge or court in which the charge is pending. REPUBLIC ACT NO. Cesar N. jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred to win. Estrada should be permitted by the court. the order of dismissal is annulled and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. SALAS [143 SCRA 163. PEOPLE VS. where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. this does not apply. Thereafter. on the other hand. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secret conclaves of long ago. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history. 29 JUL 1986] Facts: At about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of March 6.

Ana. one Serafia Gutierrez. 1992 at Arayat. to the exclusion of all other persons. The trial court rendered convicting Salas for Robbery with Homicide Issue: Whether or Not there is evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction of the appellant of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. However. an abrasion on the left chin and stabwound on the neck which stabwound. Appellant was nowhere when his co-worker and barrio mate. he likewise found on March 9. all the circumstances must be consistent with each other.000.00 bill but as she had no change she instead took P8. and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other possible. a fact known to appellant's family and neighbors. of March 6. a ring and P135.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Orlando and Richard Pangan testified that accused was with them in going home at about 3:00 o'clock in the morning of March 6. appellant did not present himself to the authorities. accused had been working for three days before March 6 at Sta. 1992 when he continued his investigation bloodstain on the front door of the house of the accused which bloodstain when submitted for examination was found to be of human blood. either to the robbery or to the homicide and none of the things allegedly stolen were ever recovered.00 by his mother as he also participated in the gambling thereat. Despite efforts of the police to find appellant as the principal suspect. He was not seen again from said date. Eduardo Bagtas. 1992. Appellant was apprehended Page 156 Section 1-C.00 which he claims his mother placed in her purse and claims further that at the wake. came to appellant's house to fetch him for work at around 6:30 to 7:00 a. SY ’06-‘07 . Orlando Pangan heard a shout. Pampanga where he was ultimately apprehended by the Mexico Police on September 22. but since March 6. rational hypothesis excepting that of guilt. not at Mexico. Pampanga where he used the name of Rommel Salas and not Elmer Salas. Ana. as the author of the crime. he did not anymore report for work at Sta. Pampanga and up to March 5. 1992. Pampanga. Ana. another woman. 1992. 1992 when accused left Mexico. he asked and was given P50. Appellant hastily abandoned his house in Barrio San Nicolas. The facts and circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence can constitute evidence which. on March 6. the doctor claims. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction. the parents of [the] accused were informed by Investigator Gonzales that their son was the suspect and adviced them to surrender him. was the cause of death of the victim.m.00 money. 1992 in going to the wake. direct evidence is not the only matrix from which the trial court may draw its findings and conclusion of culpability. The fatal stabbing of Virginia Talens occurred at around 3:00 a. was no longer to be found and was last seen at about 3:00 morning together with Virginia Talens on their way home coming from the wake. just a few minutes after reaching his house and while inside his house. Aguda who autopsied the victim found hematoma on the head and chest. Pampanga. Police investigators found human bloodstains on the front door of appellant's house.500. Pampanga. however. testified that she likewise was awakened by a shout at about 3:00 in the morning. one Resultay was with Virginia Talens at about 5:00 afternoon of March 5. of March 6.00 from her other pocket. Orlando and Richard Pangan reached first their house and left the two on the way and that was the last time Virginia was seen alive. a son of the victim corroborated the claim of Resultay that Virginia had with her at that time money worth P2.000. the date of the crime. Police Investigator Gonzales who immediately responded upon report. 1992 after chancing on a radio message by the police of Arayat to their Provincial commander that a vehicular incident occurred at Arayat. one Ramil Talens. Dr. Virginia likewise gambled at the wake. who claims that Virginia had money on a purse as while they were on the way Virginia bet on a jueteng she saw Virginia got money from her purse a P500. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free. All the circumstances established must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one and fair and reasonable conclusion pointing solely to the accused. on his clothing. Mexico. earring. Pampanga where one Elmer Salas was the victim and was hospitalized at the district hospital at Arayat. 1992. Pampanga. the purse of Virginia containing about P2. Orlando Pangan saw the accused gambled in the wake. Whether or Not the appellant’s crime homicide or robbery with homicide.m. 1992.00 was no longer to be found when she was found dead. the victim's wristwatch. recovered at the scene a pin. Held: There was no eyewitness or direct evidence. his residence since childhood. in weight and probative value. may be deemed to surpass even direct evidence in its effect on the court. Appellant also abandoned his job as a painter in Sta. leaving behind an unfinished painting project. on that very date. he returned only on September 19. and on his yellow slippers after the victim was killed.00 as in the morning of March 5. consistent with the theory that the accused is guilty of the offense charged. 1992 he gave her mother for safekeeping the sum of P1. Pampanga. but the following day.

who owned the car helped Galvez to get to a hospital. following his confinement in a hospital in Arayat. The absence of evidence showing any improper motive on the part of the principal witness for the prosecution to falsely testify against the appellant strongly tends to buttress the conclusion that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony of said witnesses deserve full faith and credit. Since Mangumnang was not arrested. was left in side the car and was stabbed by one of the robbers. The purse of Talens containing cash was gone when her corpse was found in the canal with a stab wound and bruises. (4) The victim's purse containing her money and earrings were missing from her body when found. (b) the property belongs to another. instead of his true name Elmer Salas. was committed. the onus probandi is to establish: "(a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. has always been considered by the courts as indicative of guilt. The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wants to save the State the trouble of having to effect his arrest. enjoying a winning streak when her son. The robbers were then apprehended with the exception of Edris who remain at large. Simeon Calama. and she refused to leave. Aliman Baraakal. After an hour of driving. (3) The victim was last seen alive with appellant.00. NO. 14 MAY 1991] Facts: Eleven (11) people rode in a Ford Fiera going to Baguio. Pampanga because he was sideswiped by a Victory Liner bus in Arayat. While the car was stopped the Bara-akal. and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. there is testimony that the victim had more or less P2. (2) The appellant knew that victim was winning. These circumstances denote flight. So ordered. Galvez died in the hospital. SY ’06-‘07 . Adolfo Quiambao.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests only a full six months after the date of the crime. Gumanak Ompa and defendant-appelants in this case. Robbery with Homicide is a special complex crime against property. Magpalao and Magumnang pointed guns and knives at the other passengers and divested them of their properties. Denial is an inherently weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of nonculpability to merit credibility. When the car was near the precipice. Omar Magpalao and Rex Magumnang. Rene Salonga. The other passengers jumped out of the car and went to different directions to escape. Ompa. came to fetch her but which he failed to do because his mother was winning. Anwar Hadji Edris. Page 157 Section 1-C. PEOPLE VS. (c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi.000. When hospitalized. The decision of the regional trial court is affirmed. Namely they are: Felizardo Galvez. On of the robbers then ordered Galvez to drive the car towards the precipice (bangin). Jimmy Jetwani. The robbers then escaped. the car stopped so that one of the passengers could urinate.00. Galvez however." Although there was no witness as to the actual robbing of the victim. Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake they attended. These were never recovered. While there is indeed no direct proof that Virginia Talens was robbed at the time she was killed. Quiambao. Eduardo Lopez. G. In charging Robbery with Homicide. 92415. Ramil Talens. Spontaneity and intent to give one's self up are absent where the accused went into hiding for six months after the incident and had to resort to an alias when he was involved in an accident being investigated by the police authorities. Edris.R. Mangumnang however escaped while being in detention and Bara-akal died inside the jail. we may conclude from four circumstances that the robbery occasioned her killing: (1) Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake. Homicide is incidental to the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. The victim was. MAGPALAO [197 SCRA 79. in fact. Costs against appellant. which is used in the generic sense. the crime of homicide. What was left was a safety pin which victim used to fasten the missing purse to her clothes. Galvez then stepped to the brakes. which when unexplained. Denial is negative and self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the testimonies of credible witnesses who positively testified that appellant was at the locus criminis and was the last person seen with the victim alive. and wore gold earrings valued at P750. appellant used the alias Rommel Salas.

to wit: 'right leg amputated below the knee. the accused JUANITO RISMUNDO. The testimonies of the witnesses were retaken. Municipality of Sta. the penalty impossable [sic] here will be in its maximum degree. Since all the requisites of trial in absentia are complete. unlawfully and feloniously attack. Its rulings are found in the last two paragraphs which read as follows: "The elements of murder in this case. and Magumnang were all held guilty as principal by direct participation of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Bulado. did then and there willfully. that is reclusion perpetua taking into account Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 1980. Philippines. Facts are as follows: "That sometime in the evening of the 28th of January. and with treachery and evident premeditation and being then armed with bolos and 'pinuti'. Bulado. G.00) Pesos since this case occurred [sic] in 1980. with intent to kill. left leg hacked behind the knee. abdomen hacked with viscerae evacerated. a fire gutted the building where Branch 37 was located and the records of these two cases were burned. this Court believes that simple frustrated homicide only is committed by the accused Engracio Valeriano only. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of parties but until the case is terminated. For the wounding of the victim Wilson A. 23 SEP 1993] Facts: The accusatory portion in the information for murder. The decision of the trial court. however. dated 31 October 1991 but promulgated on 20 December 1991. After the completion of the re-taking of the testimonies of the witnesses in Branch 37. considering the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of nighttime. and allowing her to be burned inside said house which was burned to the ground. assault and use personal violence on the person of one Rizalina Apatan Silvano while the latter was about to leave her house and inflicting upon her injuries. contained no specific dispositive portion. Province of Negros Oriental. The prosecution had strong evidence against him as proof beyond reasonable doubt that he is a principal by direct participation in the crime of Robbery with Homicide. per Judge Pacifico S. the abuse of superior strength. Magumnang was presumed innocent during his trial in absentia. Issue: Whether or Not the lower court erred in failing to apply the Constitutional mandate on the presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt when it allowed the trial in absentia to push through on the part of defendant-appellant Magumnang. 4584 and 4585 were re-raffled to Branch 33 of the trial court. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.R. including several 'John Does'. Silvano. Ompa. Catalina. the accused. NO.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests the trial in absentia continued as to him. Criminal Cases Nos. Held: The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.' and did then and there set the house on fire while the aforementioned Rizalina Apatan Silvano was inside said house trying to escape therefrom. accused Engracio Valeriano jumped bail and the warrant for his arrest issued on 16 November 1987 was returned unserved because he could not be found. before it could commence.000. An alias warrant for his arrest was issued on 26 June 1989. The reason is that the lower court has jurisdiction over Magumnang the moment the latter was in custody. Magpalao. 4585 for the killing of Rizalina ApatanSilvano having been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. at Nagbinlod. The records were subsequently reconstituted upon petition of the prosecuting fiscal. MACARIO ACABAL and ABUNDIO NAHID. the court has jurisdiction over Magumnang. In addition. 103604. the penalty now for murder is Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua. ACABAL [226 SCRA 694 . conspiring and confederating with one another. But on 16 May 1987. the Constitutional mandate was not violated. and for all the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30. PEOPLE VS. Thus. use of fire by burning the house of victim Rizalina Apatan-Silvano in order to forcibly drive her out of her house and hack her to death. Page 158 Section 1-C. but he remains at large up to the present. then presided over by Judge Pacifico S. thereby causing upon said Rizalina Apatan Silvano her death and burning her beyond recognition. Criminal Case No. SY ’06-‘07 .

hence. they would not have declared in open court their intention to appeal immediately after the promulgation of the decision and would not have subsequently filed their written notice of appeal. provided that the notice requiring him to be present at the promulgation is served through his bondsmen or warden and counsel. whether as principal. that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. accused Engracio Valeriano only is nowhere to be found. Article III of the Constitution permits trial in absentia after the accused has been arraigned provided he has been duly notified of the trial and his failure to appear thereat is unjustified. Accused-appellants contend that the trial court did not impose any sentence and so cannot cancel anymore their bail bonds and direct their arrest and immediate commitment because it already lost jurisdiction over their persons when they perfected their appeal. At the time the order in question was made. hence. not brought to the bar of justice. Macario Acabal and Abundio Nahid are hereby ordered cancelled and let a warrant of arrest be issued for their immediate confinement. (b) the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. Accordingly. 4584 because he "is nowhere to be found. unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate action has been reserved or waived. if there is any. 4585. The trial court further erred in holding that no penalty could be imposed on accused Engracio Valeriano in Criminal Case No. Page 159 Section 1-C. because of reasonable doubt as to their guilt. if there are any. the accused-appellants must be acquitted. Held: We find that the decision substantially complies with the Rules of Court on judgments as it did sentence the accused-appellants to reclusion perpetua. accomplice or accessory after the fact. it is not only the right of the accused to be freed. Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of frustrated murder. he being a fugitive or at large." The court ignored the fact that Engracio jumped bail after he had been arraigned. it is even the constitutional duty of the court to acquit him. Paragraph (2). just before the retaking of evidence commenced. Since the order cancelling their bail bonds and directing their arrest is contained in the decision itself. In conclusion.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests But since the person who actually inflicted the injuries of victim Wilson Silvano. SY ’06-‘07 . Were it otherwise. One who jumps bail can never offer a justifiable reason for his non-appearance during the trial. JUANITO RISMUNDO and ABUNDIO NAHID are hereby ordered and declared absolved from any criminal responsibility from frustrated homicide. he being a fugitive or at large. Short of this. not brought to the bar of justice. The decision did impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua." Issue: Whether or not the judgment complied with the Rules of Court. (c) the penalty imposed upon the accused. A judgment of conviction shall state (a) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. the court can render judgment in the case and promulgation may be made by simply recording the judgment in the criminal docket with a copy thereof served upon his counsel. the trial court still had jurisdiction over the persons of the accused-appellants. namely: Juanito Rismundo. and (d) the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act to be recovered from the accused by the offended party. it is apparent that their abovementioned contention is highly illogical. All the other two (2) accused. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Every accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The bail bond put up by the three accused. and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission. no penalty could be imposed on him since he is beyond the jurisdiction of this court to reach. Whether or not the accused may be tried in absentia. It is obvious that they clearly understood that they were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. after the trial in absentia. Whether or not the cancellation of the bail bonds of the accused is valid. Section 14.

It is not a violation of her constitutional rights. Issue: Whether or Not the physical examination conducted was a violation of the defendant’s rights against self-incrimination. Tan Teng was called to appear in a police line-up and the victim identified him. Held: No. BELTRAN VS. G. 32025.R. Several days later. The lower court held that the results show that the disease that the victim had acquired came from the defendant herein. NO. 23 SEPT 1929] Facts: Page 160 Section 1-C. Pacomio told her sister about what had happened and reported it to the police. SY ’06-‘07 . The rule that the constitutional guaranty.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests US VS. and not an exclusion of his body as evidence. 16444. Tan Teng was gambling near the house of the victim and it was alleged that he entered her home and threw the victim on the floor and place his private parts over hers. G. 8 SEP 1920] Facts: Petitioner Villaflor was charged with the crime of adultery. Pacomio was suffering from a disease called gonorrhea. It would be the same as if the offender apprehended was a thief and the object stolen by him may be used as evidence against him. The results showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea. NO.R. He was then stripped of his clothing and was examined by a policeman. that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Such disease was transferred by the unlawful act of carnal knowledge by the latter. an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. The trial judge ordered the petitioner to subject herself into physical examination to test whether or not she was pregnant to prove the determine the crime of adultery being charged to her. is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. G. The policeman took a portion of the substance emitting from the body of the defendant and turned it over to the Bureau of Science. The substance was taken from his body without his objection and was examined by competent medical authority. VILLAFLOR VS. Issue: Whether or Not the physical examination was a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination. Held: The court held that the taking of a substance from his body was not a violation of the said right. Herein petitioner refused to such physical examination interposing the defense that such examination was a violation of her constitutional rights against self-incrimination. He was found to have the same symptoms of gonorrhea. The defendant alleged that the said evidence should be inadmissible because it was taken in violation of his right against self-incrimination. The corollary to the proposition is that. SAMSON [53 PHIL 570. TAN TENG [23 PHIL 145. NO. He was neither compelled to make any admissions or to answer any questions. 7081. 7 SEP 1912] Facts: The defendant herein raped Oliva Pacomio. The prohibition of self-incrimination in the Bill of Rights is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him. SUMMERS [41 PHIL 62. when it may be material.R. a seven-year-old girl.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
Beltran, as a defendant for the crime of Falsification, refused to write a sample of his handwriting as ordered by the respondent Judge. The petitioner in this case contended that such order would be a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination because such examination would give the prosecution evidence against him, which the latter should have gotten in the first place. He also argued that such an act will make him furnish evidence against himself. Issue: Whether or not the writing from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the latter's handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified, constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and meaning of the constitutional provision under examination. Held: The court ordered the respondents and those under their orders desist and abstain absolutely and forever from compelling the petitioner to take down dictation in his handwriting for the purpose of submitting the latter for comparison. Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hands, or the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and attention; and in the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine whether or not he is the falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states. Except that it is more serious, we believe the present case is similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. We say that, for the purposes of the constitutional privilege, there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document, and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting, for in both cases, the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. It cannot be contended in the present case that if permission to obtain a specimen of the petitioner's handwriting is not granted, the crime would go unpunished. Considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a municipal treasurer, it should not be a difficult matter for the fiscal to obtained genuine specimens of his handwriting. But even supposing it is impossible to obtain specimen or specimens without resorting to the means complained herein, that is no reason for trampling upon a personal right guaranteed by the constitution. It might be true that in some cases criminals may succeed in evading the hand of justice, but such cases are accidental and do not constitute the raison d' etre of the privilege. This constitutional privilege exists for the protection of innocent persons. PASCUAL VS. BME [28 SCRA 345; G.R. NO. 25018; 26 MAY 1969] Facts: Petitioner Arsenio Pascual, Jr. filed an action for prohibition against the Board of Medical Examiners. It was alleged therein that at the initial hearing of an administrative case for alleged immorality, counsel for complainants announced that he would present as his first witness the petitioner. Thereupon, petitioner, through counsel, made of record his objection, relying on the constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. Petitioner then alleged that to compel him to take the witness stand, the Board of Examiners was guilty, at the very least, of grave abuse of discretion for failure to respect the constitutional right against self-incrimination. The answer of respondent Board, while admitting the facts stressed that it could call petitioner to the witness stand and interrogate him, the right against self-incrimination being available only when a question calling for an incriminating answer is asked of a witness. They likewise alleged that the right against self-incrimination cannot be availed of in an administrative hearing. Petitioner was sustained by the lower court in his plea that he could not be compelled to be the first witness of the complainants, he being the party proceeded against in an administrative charge for malpractice. Hence, this appeal by respondent Board. Issue: Whether or Not compelling petitioner to be the first witness of the complainants violates the SelfIncrimination Clause. Held: The Supreme Court held that in an administrative hearing against a medical practitioner for alleged malpractice, respondent Board of Medical Examiners cannot, consistently with the selfincrimination clause, compel the person proceeded against to take the witness stand without his consent. The Court found for the petitioner in accordance with the well-settled principle that "the

Page 161 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
accused in a criminal case may refuse, not only to answer incriminatory questions, but, also, to take the witness stand." If petitioner would be compelled to testify against himself, he could suffer not the forfeiture of property but the revocation of his license as a medical practitioner. The constitutional guarantee protects as well the right to silence: "The accused has a perfect right to remain silent and his silence cannot be used as a presumption of his guilt." It is the right of a defendant "to forego testimony, to remain silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand — with undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own free genuine will." The reason for this constitutional guarantee, along with other rights granted an accused, stands for a belief that while crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable objectives should not be accomplished according to means or methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded the human personality. More and more in line with the democratic creed, the deference accorded an individual even those suspected of the most heinous crimes is given due weight. The constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government ... must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. PEOPLE VS. BALISACAN [17 SCRA 1119; G.R. NO. L-26376; 31 AUG 1966] Facts: Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the CFI of Ilocos Norte. Upon being arraigned, he entered into a plea of guilty. In doing so, he was assisted y counsel. At his counsel de officio, he was allowed to present evidence and consequently testified that he stabbed the deceased in selfdefense. In addition, he stated that he surrendered himself voluntarily to the police authorities. On the basis of the testimony of the accused, he was acquitted. Thus, the prosecution appealed. Issue: Whether or Not the appeal placed the accused in double jeopardy. Held: The Supreme Court held that it is settled that the existence of plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy. The accused had first entered a plea of guilty but however testified that he acted in complete self-defense. Said testimony had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him to plead a new charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. This was not done. Therefore, there has been no standing of plea during the judgment of acquittal, so there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein. PEOPLE VS. OBSANIA [23 SCRA 1249; G.R. L-24447; 29 JUN 1968] Facts: The accused was charged with Robbery with Rape before the Municipal Court of Balungao, Pangasinan. He pleaded not guilty. His counsel moved for the dismissal of the charge for failure to allege vivid designs in the info. Said motion was granted. From this order of dismissal the prosecution appealed. Issue: Whether or Not the present appeal places the accused in Double Jeopardy. Held: In order that the accused may invoke double jeopardy, the following requisites must have obtained in the original prosecution, a) valid complaint, b) competent court, c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge, d) defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. In the case at bar, the converted dismissal was ordered by the Trial Judge upon the defendant's motion to dismiss. The “doctrine of double jeopardy” as enunciated in P.vs. Salico applies to wit when the case is dismissed with the express consent of the defendant, the dismissal will not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense because his action in having the case

Page 162 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
is dismissed constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right/privilege for the reason that he thereby prevents the Court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against him. In essence, where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with the express consent of the accused but even upon the urging of his counsel there can be no double jeopardy under Sect. 9 Rule 113, if the indictment against him is revived by the fiscal. PAULIN VS. GIMENEZ [217 SCRA 386; G.R. NO. 103323; 21 JAN 1993] Facts: Respondent and Brgy Capt. Mabuyo, while in a jeep, were smothered with dust when they were overtaken by the vehicle owned by Petitioner Spouses. Irked by such, Mabuyo followed the vehicle until the latter entered the gate of an establishment. He inquired the nearby security guard for the identity of the owner of the vehicle. Later that day, while engaged in his duties, petitioners allegedly pointed their guns at him. Thus, he immediately ordered his subordinate to call the police and block road to prevent the petitioners’ escape. Upon the arrival of the police, petitioners put their guns down and were immediately apprehended. A complaint “grave threats” was filed against the petitioners (Criminal Case No. 5204). It was dismissed by the court acting on the motion of the petitioners. Mabuyo filed a MOR thus the dismissal was reversed. Thereafter, petitioners filed for “certiorari, prohibition, damages, with relief of preliminary injunction and the issuance of a TRO” (CEB-9207). Petition is dismissed for lack of merit and for being a prohibited pleading and ordered to proceed with the trial of the case. Hence, this instant petition. Issue: Whether or Not the dismissal of 5204 was a judgment of acquittal. Whether or Not the judge ignored petitioner’s right against double jeopardy by dismissing CEB9207. Held: For double jeopardy to attach, the dismissal of the case must be without the express consent of the accused. Where the dismissal was ordered upon motion or with the express assent of the accused, he has deemed to have waived his protection against double jeopardy. In the case at bar, the dismissal was granted upon motion of the petitioners. Double jeopardy thus did not attach. Furthermore, such dismissal is not considered as an acquittal. The latter is always based on merit that shows that the defendant is beyond reasonable doubt not guilty. While the former, in the case at bar, terminated the proceedings because no finding was made as to the guilt or innocence of the petitioners. The lower court did not violate the rule when it set aside the order of dismissal for the reception of further evidence by the prosecution because it merely corrected its error when it prematurely terminated and dismissed the case without giving the prosecution the right to complete the presentation of its evidence. The rule on summary procedure was correctly applied. PEOPLE VS. COURT OF SILAY [74 SCRA 248; G.R. NO. L-43790; 9 DEC 1976] Facts: That sometime on January 4,1974, accused Pacifico Sensio, Romeo Millan and Wilfredo Jochico who were then scalers at the Hawaiian-Philippine Company, weighed cane cars No.1743,1686 and 1022 loaded with sugar canes which were placed in tarjetas (weight report cards), Apparently, it was proven and shown that there was padding of the weight of the sugar canes and that the information on the tarjetas were to be false making it appear to be heavier than its actual weight. The three accused then were charged with “Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified document”. After the prosecution had presented, the respondent moved to dismiss the charge against them on the ground that the evidences presented were not sufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Acting on the motion, respondent court issued

Page 163 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

The accused on the other hand. NO. The Assistant fiscal’s claim is that it is not double jeopardy because the first offense charged against the accused was unauthorized installation of electrical devices without the approval and necessary authority from the City Government which was punishable by an ordinance. Issue: Whether or Not the grant of petition by the court would place the accused Sensio. On Nov 24. Before arraignment. it was proven that the case used against the accused were not sufficient to prove them guilty beyond reasonable doubt therefore dismissing the case which translates to acquittal. 1975. second would be that such complaint be filed before a competent court and to which the accused has pleaded and that defendant was previously acquitted. Opulencia by the Assistant City Fiscal of Batangas for a violation of a Batangas Ordinance regarding unauthorized electrical installations with resulting damage and prejudice to City of Batangas in the amount of P41. It was also mentioned that the accused pleaded not guilty and during the time of trial.. Opulencia filed a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. equipped with a search warrant issued by a city judge of Batangas to search and examine the premises of the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant owned by one Manuel Opulencia. it was done with the consent of the accused therefore waiving there defense of double jeopardy. 6 MAR 1987] FACTS: In this petition for certiorari and mandamus.R. Relova quashing an information for theft filed against Mr.16. People asserts that the plea of double jeopardy is not tenable even if the case at bar was dismissed because according to them. In the 2 requisites given. Batangas police together with personnel of Batangas Electric Light System. PEOPLE VS.1 1975.Opulencia. legitimate complaint and concern against the accused Sensio. The case was dismissed on the ground of prescription for the complaint was filed nine months prior to discovery when it should be 2months prior to discovery that the act being a light felony and prescribed the right to file in court. it was the first on that is very much applicable to our case at bar where there was dismissal of the case due to insufficiency of evidence which will bar the approval of the petition in the case at bar for it will constitute double jeopardy on the part of the accused which the law despises. People of the Philippines seeks to set aside the orders of Respondent Judge Hon. Opulencia on the ground of double jeopardy and denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Issue: Page 164 Section 1-C. when the proceedings have been reasonably prolonged as to violate the right of the accused to a speedy trial.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests its order dismissing the case on the ground that the acts committed by the accused do not constituted the crime of falsification as strictly enumerated in the revised penal code defining the crime of falsification which was charged earlier and that their case be dismissed. Millan and Jochico in double jeopardy Held: Yes the revival of the case will put the accused in double jeopardy for the very reason that the case has been dismissed earlier due to lack of merits.L-45129. convicted or dismissed or otherwise terminated without express consent of the accused in which were all present in the case at bar. reiterated the fact that the dismissal was due to lack of merits of the prosecution which would have the same effect as an acquittal which will bar the prosecution from prosecuting the accused for it will be unjust and unconstitutional for the accused due to double jeopardy rule thus the appeal of the plaintiff. SY ’06-‘07 . another case was filed against Mr.062. On Feb. As it was stated on the requirements of a valid defense of double jeopardy it says: That there should be a valid complaint. It is true that the criminal case of falsification was dismissed on a motion of the accused however this was a motion filed after the prosecution had rested its case. There was indeed a valid. calling for the evidence beyond reasonable ground which the prosecution had not been able to do which would be tantamount to acquittal therefore will bar the prosecution of another case. G. Millan and Jochico which was filed at a competent court with jurisdiction on the said case. They discovered electric wiring devices have been installed without authority from the city government and architecturally concealed inside the walls of the building. RELOVA [149 SCRA 292. It explained further that there are two instances when we can conclude that there is jeopardy when first is that the ground for the dismissal of the case was due to insufficiency of evidence and second. Said devices are designed purposely to lower or decrease the readings of electric current consumption in the plant’s electric meter. where in the case was dismissed. as opposed to the second offense which is theft of electricity which is punishable by the Revised Penal Code making it a different crime charged against the 1st complaint against Mr.

L-54110. In the case at bar. Opulencia will fall on the 2 nd kind or definition of double jeopardy wherein it contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. the fact that the two charges sprung from one and the same act of conviction or acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other thus making it against the logic of double jeopardy. would place the accused in double jeopardy Held: Yes. G. 20 FEB 1981] Facts: Petitioners Esmeña and Alba were charged with grave coercion in the Court of Cebu City for allegedly forcing Fr. When these three conditions are present then the acquittal. NO. it was evidently shown that the accused invoked their right to a speedy trial and asked for the trial of the case and not its termination which would mean that respondents had no expressed consent to the dismissal of the case which would make the case filed res judicata and has been dismissed by the competent court in order to protect the respondents as well for their right to speedy trial which will be equivalent to acquittal of the respondents which would be a bar to further prosecution. the conviction or acquittal shall bar to another prosecution for the same act”. which was dismissed earlier due to complainant’s failure to appear at the trial. and the dismissal or termination of the case without his express consent constitutes res judicata and is a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged. filed in a court of competent jurisdiction as to where the coercion took place and last the accused were arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or the information. the bill of rights give two instances or kinds of double jeopardy. No trial came in after the arraignment due to the priest’s request to move it on another date. Issue: Whether or Not the revival of grave coercion case. The fact that Mr. The accused invoked their right to speedy trial. In the case. For double jeopardy to exist these three requisites should be present. Page 165 Section 1-C. revival of the case will put the accused in double jeopardy for the very reason that the case has been dismissed already without the consent of the accused which would have an effect of an acquittal on the case filed.1979. The first would be that “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense and the second sentence states that “If an act is punishable by a law or an ordinance.1979 but the fiscal informed the court that it received a telegram stating that the complainant was sick.R. that one. it was very evident that the charges filed against Mr. It further explains that even if the offenses charged are not the same. SY ’06-‘07 . Respondent judge dismissed the case because the trial was already dragging the accused and that the priest’s telegram did not have a medical certificate attached to it in order for the court to recognize the complainant’s reason to be valid in order to reschedule again another hearing. ESMENA VS. all three conditions were present. owing that the first charge constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the second charge was a violation against the revised penal code. POGOY [102 SCRA 861. Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy as defense to the second offense charged against him by the assistant fiscal of Batangas on the ground of theft of electricity punishable by a statute against the Revised Penal Code. The dismissal was due to complainant’s incapability to present its evidence due to non appearance of the witnesses and complainant himself which would bar further prosecution of the defendant for the same offense. petitioners pleaded “Not Guilty”. Held: Yes. conviction of the accused. Opulencia was acquitted on the first offense should bar the 2nd complaint against him coming from the same identity as that of the 1st offense charged against Mr.Opulencia. In the case at bar. During arraignment. accused Esmeña and Alba filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of double jeopardy.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not the accused Mr. as the case filed was grave coercion. there is a valid complaint or information filed second.24. After 27 days the fiscal filed a motion to revive the case and attached the medical certificate of the priest proving the fact that the priest was indeed sick of influenza. Mr. Thomas Tibudan to withdraw a sum of money worth P5000 from the bank to be given to them because the priest lost in a game of chance. that the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or information. that it is done before a court of competent jurisdiction and third.16. Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy as defense for the second offense because as tediously explained in the case of Yap vs Lutero. On Oct. Sometime later Judge Pogoy issued an order setting the trial Aug.

137953-58. However. Being violative of the right against double jeopardy.” The ban on double jeopardy primarily prevents the State from using its criminal processes as an instrument of harassment to wear out the accused by a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. snobbish and she also urinated on her panty. NOS. It argues that it has proven that the victim is the daughter of the accused. the trial court should have been imposed the penalty of death pursuant to Section 11 of R. It maintained that there were circumstances that mitigated the gravity of the offenses such as the absence of any actual physical violence or intimidation on the commission of the acts. for more than five years. However.A. 11 MAR 2002] Facts: Wilfredo dela Torre. DE LA TORRE [380 SCRA 586. 7659. an appeal by the government seeking to increase the penalty imposed by the trial court places the accused in double jeopardy and should therefore be dismissed. the RTC refused to impose the supreme penalty of death on appellee. in January 1997. from retrying the defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty. Issue: Whether or Not the Court erred in penalizing the appellee with reclusion perpetua in each of the four indictments of rape. G. 7659.R. As a consequence. denied vehemently the charges being imputed to him by her daughter. . the appeal of the prosecution cannot prosper. It also serves as a deterrent from successively retrying the defendant in the hope of securing a conviction. Mary Rose admitted that she was abused repeatedly by her father. instead of imposing the supreme penalty of death as mandated by R. it declared that: “while it is true that this Court is the Court of last resort. a sudden change in Mary Rose’s behavior behavior was noticed. it prevents the State. In People vs. Wilfredo. Mary Rose was the brightest in her class despite their poverty.A. the eldest of which is Mary Rose. She was twelve years old at that time. has three children from a common-law relationship. following conviction.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests PEOPLE VS. Mary Rose and her brother were living together as a family and Mary Rose was never molested by her father. appellee. there are allegations of error committed by a lower court which we ought not to look into to uphold the right of the accused. her mother left them together with her youngest brother so she and her other brother were left to the care of her father. She appeared sleepy. When Mary Rose was 7 yearsold. that after the mother of Mary Rose left the conjugal home. And finally. Leones. Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. SY ’06-‘07 . however. and that she was below eighteen years old when the rapes took place. The prosecution seeks to modify the RTC Decision by imposing the supreme penalty of death of the accused. Held: Under Section 1. The RTC convicted appellee of two counts of acts of lasciviousness and four counts of murder. any party may appeal from a judgment or final order unless the accused will be put in double jeopardy. Such is the case in an appeal by the prosecution seeking to increase the penalty imposed upon the accused for this runs afoul of the right of the accused against double jeopardy…When the accused after conviction by the trial court did not appeal his decision. Page 166 Section 1-C. When confronted by her head teacher. Her father.

SY ’06-‘07 .San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests CITIZENSHIP Page 167 Section 1-C.

Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. the Solicitor General supported the contention that Frivaldo was not a citizen of the Philippines and had not repatriated himself after his naturalization as an American citizen. 1. 1988. Speaking for the public respondent. 3. Sec. (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. 2. 23 JUN 1989] Facts: Petitioner Juan G. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. of Filipino mothers. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship. He also joined in the private respondent's argument that Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code was not applicable because what the League and Estuye were seeking was not only the annulment of the proclamation and election of Frivaldo. Frivaldo admitted that he was naturalized in the United States as alleged but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he had sought American citizenship only to protect himself against President Marcos. the League of Municipalities. 1973. and (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. represented by its President. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. In their Comment. unless by their act or omission they are deemed. to have renounced it.R. the private respondents reiterated their assertion that Frivaldo was a naturalized American citizen and had not reacquired Philippine citizenship on the day of the election on January 18. who was also suing in his personal capacity. and the Omnibus Election Code. The ultimate purpose was to prevent Frivaldo from continuing as governor. was "merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Law Dictator's agents abroad. Sorsogon Chapter. In his answer dated May 22. Sec. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner Juan G. he said. 1988. having been naturalized in the United States on January 20. 1988. of the Constitution that all public officials and employees owe the State and the Constitution "allegiance at all times" and the Page 168 Section 1-C. 1988. As an alien. On October 27. (3) Those born before January 17. the Local Government Code. 4. 5. SY ’06-‘07 . Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22. Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election on January 18. FRIVALDO VS. NO. and assumed office in due time. Sec. his candidacy and election being null and void ab initio because of his alienage. He was therefore not qualified to run for and be elected governor. G. filed with the COMELEC a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo. 87193. Held: The reason for this inquiry is the provision in Article XI. 4 Sec. Estuye. as provincial governor of Sorsogon. He agreed that they were also asking for the termination of Frivaldo's incumbency as governor of Sorsogon on the ground that he was not a Filipino. election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. His naturalization. 1988. They also argued that their petition in the Commission on Elections was not really for quo warranto under Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3).San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests CITIZENSHIP Art. COMELEC [174 SCRA 245. he was disqualified from public office in the Philippines. His election did not cure this defect because the electorate of Sorsogon could not amend the Constitution. Section 9. Sec. under the law." He added that he had returned to the Philippines after the EDSA revolution to help in the restoration of democracy. 1983.

this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V. as duly authenticated by Vice Consul Amado P. Once rejected. Mamaril alleged that the private respondent is not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States. however. Petition Dismissed. that he was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1983 per the following certification from the United States District Court. Section 1. especially if they mistakenly believed. a citizen of the Philippines. Frivaldo described himself as a "natural-born" citizen of the Philippines.S. This country of ours. His feeble suggestion that his naturalization was not the result of his own free and voluntary choice is totally unacceptable and must be rejected outright. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which remained pending until after election. the renewal of his loyalty and love. Northern District of California. Issue: Page 169 Section 1-C. for all its difficulties and limitations. It is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the natural-born citizen is favored by the Constitution and our laws.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests specific requirement in Section 42 of the Local Government Code that a candidate for local elective office must be inter alia a citizen of the Philippines and a qualified voter of the constituency where he is running. by an express and unequivocal act. as in this case. In the certificate of candidacy he filed on November 19. abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state. U. he is ordered to vacate his office and surrender the same to the duly elected ViceGovernor of the said province once this decision becomes final and executory. 135083. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines. This Court will not permit the anomaly of a person sitting as provincial governor in this country while owing exclusive allegiance to another country. FRIVALDO is hereby declared not a citizen of the Philippines and therefore disqualified from serving as Governor of the Province of Sorsogon. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be. This petition sought the reversal of the resolution of the COMELEC and to declare the private respondent disqualified to hold the office of the vice mayor of Makati. it is not quick to welcome back with eager arms its prodigal if repentant children. 1998 elections. Petitioner sought to intervene in the case for disqualification. the gift is gone and cannot be lightly restored. it cannot agree that as a consequence thereof he was coerced into embracing American citizenship. pursuant to the Local Government code that provides that persons who possess dual citizenship are disqualified from running any public position. that the candidate was qualified.A. 1987. omitting mention of any subsequent loss of such status. COMELEC reversed the decision and declared private respondent qualified to run for the position.R. Accordingly. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility. SY ’06-‘07 . Pursuant to the ruling of the COMELEC. G. California. The fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment only to the citizens of this country. Petitioner JUAN G. Private respondent was the winner of the said election but the proclamation was suspended due to the petition of Ernesto Mamaril regarding the citizenship of private respondent. this rule requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. The evidence shows. NO. he must owe his total loyalty to this country only. But once it is surrendered and renounced. Obviously. The Court sees no reason not to believe that the petitioner was one of the enemies of the Marcos dictatorship. which is all the more reason why it should be treasured like a pearl of great price. among other qualifications. MERCADO VS. 26 MAY 1999] Facts: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Private respondent Eduardo Manzano are candidates for the position of Vice-Mayor of Makati City in the May. The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. the board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as vice mayor. The returning renegade must show. is like a jealous and possessive mother. Even so. COMELEC granted the petition and disqualified the private respondent for being a dual citizen. MANZANO [307 SCRA 630. of the Constitution. Cortez of the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco.

(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered citizens. On the other hand. Held: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Allan F. Such a person. Considering the citizenship clause (Art. his parents were foreigners. a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. Granting. that Allan F. it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to posses dual citizenship: (1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli.first. For instance. received his education. married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of respondent. such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. practiced his profession as an artist. even if no such prior marriage had existed. as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states. according to Fornier. Poe was a Filipino citizen. The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and. IV) of our Constitution. leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship. Allan Poe. USA. is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. second. refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes. was a Spanish national. dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition. No. Bessie Kelley Poe. petitioner asseverated. on the other hand. private respondent has. unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. a Spanish subject. The former arises when. petitioner initiated a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth. loyalty to two or more states. Dual allegiance. effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen. By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen. ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part. 3 Mar 2004] Facts: Victorino X. Petitioner based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of respondent on two assertions . the latter being an illegitimate child of an alien mother. TECSON VS. While dual citizenship is involuntary. effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. he could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ. SY ’06-‘07 . G. that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country. was an American. COMELEC [424 SCRA 277. and his father. when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood. private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizenship.R. that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation. 161434. Fornier. by some positive act. (2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country. private respondent’s oath of allegiance to the Philippine. Page 170 Section 1-C.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not private respondent is qualified to hold office as Vice-Mayor. being the son of Lorenzo Pou. Private respondent is considered as a dual citizen because he is born of Filipino parents but was born in San Francisco. his mother. By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post. and taken part in past elections in this country. as far as the laws of this country are concerned. Poe. Allan F.

who was then running for reelection. he lost his Filipino citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old. 1998 elections. 1994. respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act No. Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870. He won over petitioner Antonio Bengson III. As a Consequence. a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by. Held: It is necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen. He ran for and was elected as the Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11. On the other hand. SY ’06-‘07 . in the absence of any other evidence. would thereby extend to his son. On November 5. Tarlac.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or Not FPJ is a natural born Filipino citizen. in the affirmative. BENGZON VS. however. He was born in San Clemente. would have himself been a Filipino citizen and. Issue: Whether or Not respondent Cruz is a natural born citizen of the Philippines in view of the constitutional requirement that "no person shall be a Member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural-born citizen. of Filipino parents. "rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country. section 1(4). 1960. took an oath of allegiance to the United States. 2630. 142840. could have well been his place of residence before death. if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship. On March 17. depended on whether or not the father of respondent. Allan F. father of respondent FPJ. in turn. the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78. Allan F. on April 27. The fundamental law then applicable was the 1935 Constitution. As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization. Pangasinan. among other. Poe.” He was naturalized in US in 1990.” Held: Respondent is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. in relation to Section 74. he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. 1985. confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate. R. repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippine and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided. HRET [357 SCRA 545. when the Philippines was under Spanish rule. 63. and that San Carlos. Page 171 Section 1-C. No. Poe. whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. of the Omnibus Election Code. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou). The 1935 Constitution. such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. G. respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines. his place of residence upon his death in 1954. which. 7 May 2001] Facts: Respondent Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light. if acquired.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful