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

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

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

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

including the forum. who claims to be a newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER. 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.A. Sanidad. beliefs and opinions on the issue submitted to a plebiscite. 1989. there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. views and beliefs on any issue or subject about which he writes. 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. 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. 2167. herein petitioner Pablito V. announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite Issue. Plebiscite Issue are matters of public concern and importance. however. Pursuant to said law. media of communication or information to the end that equal opportunity. 1989 which was. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11 (b). Republic Act No. Section 11(b) R. promulgated Resolution No. as well as ventilate. permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other public utilities. of R. Mountain Province. In a petition dated November 20. SY ’06-‘07 . assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 1989. In fact. Abra and Kalinga-Apayao. Issue: Whether or not Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. petitioner maintains that as a columnist. 2167. 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. 2167 is unconstitutional.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.A. no mass media columnist. This is also the reason why a "columnist. Therefore. 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. The Commission on Elections. including reasonable. by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution. announcer or personality. 6766. said R. Unlike a regular news reporter or news correspondent who merely reports the news. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. it would in fact help in the government drive and desire to disseminate information. on the day before and on the plebiscite day. 2nd par. 2167 has no statutory basis. commentator. On October 23. reset to January 30. 2226 dated December 27. the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras which consist of the provinces of Benguet.A. 6646). commentators or announcers. a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras. 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. 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. Prohibition on columnists. shall take part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act originally scheduled last December 27. his column obviously and necessarily contains and reflects his opinions. 2167 is unconstitutional. Petitioner likewise maintains that if media practitioners were to express their views. Page 7 Section 1-C. 1990 by virtue of Comelec Resolution No. 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. entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. 1989. However. — During the plebiscite campaign period. commentator. It is clear from Art. for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. which provides: Section 19. 2167 on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. 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. all comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region. and hear. time and space. Ifugao. the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881). and the right to reply. equal rates therefor. 6766 and other pertinent election laws. all sides of the issue.

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

Jurisprudence has laid down the following requisites for the exercise of this power: First. the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. PNB proceeded to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgaged properties. The purpose of the mandatory notice in Rule 64. Petitioners continued to avail of other loans from PNB and to make unfunded withdrawals from their accounts with said bank. 579. treaty. and lastly. there must be before the Court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial review. 22 Jan 1980] Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. Whether PD 579 and subsequent issuances thereof are unconstitutional. but in all Regional Trial Courts. DUMLAO VS.R. Second. or regulation not only in this Court. treaty. instruction. petitioners. the question before the Court must be ripe for adjudication. insisting that said proceeds. (PHILEX) to purchase sugar allocated for export and authorized PNB to finance PHILEX's purchases. No. there was nothing to account since under said law. 4 provides that any retired elective provincial or municipal official who has received Page 9 Section 1-C. 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. the person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge. specific performance. presidential decree. No. Petitioners continued to ask PNB to account for the proceeds. Petitioners contend that P. PNB asked petitioners to settle their due and demandable accounts. 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. Held: It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute.D. or executive order. We must stress that. there is no room for construction. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392. if properly liquidated. No. As a result. contrary to petitioners' stand. Believing that the proceeds were more than enough to pay their obligations. The rule itself provides that such notice is required in "any action" and not just actions involving declaratory relief.D. G. President Marcos issued PD 579 in November. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. Whether or not said PD is subject to judicial review. Petitioners now ask this Court to exercise its power of judicial review. 15 In all actions assailing the validity of a statute.L-52245. international or executive agreement. To deny the Solicitor General such notice would be tantamount to depriving him of his day in court. presidential decree. Where there is no ambiguity in the words used in the rule.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Mortgage in favor of PNB. 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. notice to the Solicitor General is mandatory. Inc. Sec. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law. or proclamation. 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. 1979. and damages against PNB. could offset their outstanding obligations. PNB still had a deficiency claim. SY ’06-‘07 . presidential decree. conveyed to PNB real properties by way of dacion en pago still leaving an unpaid amount. petitioners asked PNB for an accounting of the proceeds which it ignored. order. the Mirasols filed a suit for accounting. 1974 authorizing Philippine Exchange Co. the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity. ordinance. On August 9. PNB remained adamant in its stance that under P. Third. the mandatory notice requirement is not limited to actions involving declaratory relief and similar remedies.. The decree directed that whatever profit PHILEX might realize was to be remitted to the government. order. all earnings from the export sales of sugar pertained to the National Government. Fourth.

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

thus the warrantless arrests are not based on Proc. consistent and congruent with their undertaking earlier adverted to. supported their Page 11 Section 1-C. 159085. furthermore. No. The President in addition to its Commander-in-Chief Powers is conferred by the Constitution executive powers. On August 1. Negotiations took place and the officers went back to their barracks in the evening of the same day. representatives. they complained of the corruption in the AFP and declared their withdrawal of support for the government. Respondents. and that there is no factual basis for such proclamation. providing for the period in which a warrantlessly arrested person must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities. 427 and General Order No. SANLAKAS VS. (3) Rep. and Proclamation No. President Macapagal-Arroyo and Executive Secretary Romulo. 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. Section 18. 2003. 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. 427 and General Order No. Article VII does not expressly prohibit declaring state or rebellion. authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion in suppressing the rebellion if the circumstances so warrant. and all persons acting in their behalf. some three-hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP. 18 Article VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the AFP. (2)SJS Officers/Members v. (4) Pimentel v. Publicly. Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief. the arresting officer can be charged with arbitrary detention. acting upon instigation. petitioners contending that there was usurpation of the power of Congress granted by Section 23 (2). 2003. 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. 2001. both the Proclamation and General Orders were lifted. Hon. SY ’06-‘07 . 3 Feb 2004] Facts: During the wee hours of July 27. petitioners contending that the proclamation is a circumvention of the report requirement under the same Section 18. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. and by virtue of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. Under Section 5. however. demanding the resignation of the President. none of the petitioners here have. Romulo. Petitioners were neither assailing the validity of the subject hold departure orders. providing for preliminary investigation. Article VI of the Constitution. 2001 siege of Malacañang.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests courts for all acts committed prior to and until May 1. declaring the Cessation of the State of Rebellion was issued. G. If the detention should have no legal ground. While the Court may examine whether the power was exercised within constitutional limits or in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. In the interim. v. together with their agents. not prejudicial to claim of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. 4. Executive Secretary. petitioners contending that Sec. by way of proof. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [421 SCRA 656. To declare the hold departure orders null and void ab initio must be made in the proper proceedings initiated for that purpose. Suplico et al. command and direction of known and unknown leaders have seized the Oakwood Building in Makati. et al. Petition is dismissed. Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. 435. nor were they expressing any intention to leave the country in the near future. 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. 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. Article VII. 4 are constitutional. These acts constitute a violation of Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. 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. commanding the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law.R. the Philippines was declared under the State of Rebellion. otherwise the officer responsible for such may be penalized for the delay of the same. 38. Finally. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. the following petitions were filed: (1) SANLAKAS AND PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA VS. et al. Petitioners’ prayer for relief regarding their alleged impending warrantless arrests is premature being that no complaints have been filed against them for any crime. the writ of habeas corpus is uncalled for since its purpose is to relieve unlawful restraint which Petitioners are not subjected to. No.

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. the assets subject of auction were historical relics and had cultural significance.86 were turned over to the Bureau of Treasury.T. Manson and Woods International. that the extent the powers of Congress are impaired. Only petitioners Rep. Aquino. the Commission on Audit through then Chairman Eufemio C. as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 (2). 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. Article VI. After the oral arguments of the parties on 9 January 1991. vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18. hence. signed the Consignment Agreement with Christie's of New York.S. On 26 October 1990. and as long as a valid warrantless arrest is present. through Chairman Caparas. wrote then President Corazon C. requesting her for authority to sign the proposed Consignment Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines through PCGG and Christie. 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. his relatives and cronies. PCGG. Pimentel. The fear on warrantless arrest is unreasonable. PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction in the U. Issue: Whether or not petitioners have legal standing. Article VII. 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. 96541. According to the agreement.R. as Members of Congress. and Sen. and. Whether or not the Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware are embraced in the phrase "cultural treasure of the nation". 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. G.302. petitioners Sanlakas and PM. 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.604. It sustained its decision in Philippine Constitution Association v. Suplico et al. On 11 January 1991. since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. Based on the foregoing. have standing to challenge the subject issuances. and SJS Officers/Members have no legal standing to sue.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests assertion that the President acted without factual basis. JOYA VS. 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. Page 12 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 . Mateo A. then Chairman of PCGG. so is the power of each member thereof.. in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces. PCGG [225 SCRA 568. Enriquez. Caparas. Jr. The issue of usurpation of the legislative power of the Congress is of no moment since the President. the contract was highly disadvantageous to the government. representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. 24 Aug 1993] Facts: On 9 August 1990. 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. their disposal was prohibited by law. then President Aquino. the sale at public auction proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of $13. On 14 August 1990. 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. 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. On 15 August 1990. No. through former Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig. was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. These are purely executive powers..

possessing outstanding historical. petitioners do not possess any clear legal right whatsoever to question their alleged unauthorized disposition. The term "interest" is material interest. For a court to exercise its power of adjudication. such as the case before us." On the other hand. or a mere incidental interest. Page 13 Section 1-C. a "national cultural treasures" is a unique object found locally. there must be an actual case of controversy — one which involves a conflict of legal rights. yet the novelty and importance of the Issue raised by the petition deserve this Court's attention. the Issue raised in the petition have become moot and academic. although the public has been given the opportunity to view and appreciate these paintings when they were placed on exhibit. They lack basis in fact and in law. 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. 2. Neither can this petition be allowed as a taxpayer's suit.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. Rule 3. 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. Having failed to show that they are the legal owners of the artworks or that the valued pieces have become publicly owned. 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. It is worthy to note that petitioners admit that the paintings and antique silverware were acquired from private sources and not with public money. Moreover. "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. and if so. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. of the Rules of Court which provides that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. Whether or not PCGG has complied with the due process clause and other statutory requirements for the exportation and sale of the subject items. 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. Petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit. and when a taxpayer questions the validity of a governmental act authorizing the disbursement of public funds. Whether or not the petition has become moot and academic. 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. petitioners are not challenging any expenditure involving public funds but the disposition of what they allege to be public properties. Held: This is premised on Sec. A case becomes moot and academic when its purpose has become stale. whether the above Issue warrant resolution from this Court. Anent the second requisite of actual controversy. The ownership of these paintings legally belongs to the foundation or corporation or the members thereof. 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. 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. petitioners argue that this case should be resolved by this Court as an exception to the rule on moot and academic cases. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. and that all persons having interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. There are certain instances however when this Court has allowed exceptions to the rule on legal standing. that although the sale of the paintings and silver has long been consummated and the possibility of retrieving the treasure trove is nil. If these properties were already acquired by the government. Obviously. the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.

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. filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two grounds. the petitioners maintain that. 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations). Jr. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause. 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. but have also joined the latter in this case. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines. JR." 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. SY ’06-‘07 . artistic and/or scientific value which is highly significant and important to this country and nation. the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government. respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents..O. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy). Alcala. was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. 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. it is well settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires. (PENI). then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Inc. the petition for prohibition and mandamus is DISMISSED. No. OPOSA VS. the Honorable Angel C. engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E. Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause.. and entitled to the full benefit. for lack of merit. Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. 101083. a domestic. 192. 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. Secretary Factoran. non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of. Section 4 of Executive Order (E.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests cultural. On 18 July 1991. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network. Factoran. the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action. Page 14 Section 1-C. 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. the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children. FACTORAN. Section 16.) No.R.D. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion. Again.O. 192 creating the DENR. taxpayers. His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary." On 22 June 1990. 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. the motion is dilatory and the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion. In the said order. No. [224 SCRA 792. inter alia. WHEREFORE. the original defendant. 30 Jul 1993] Facts: Principal petitioners. G. petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P. use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. Jr. The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. 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. to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment. namely: the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and.) No. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi.

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

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

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

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

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

the Implementing Rules and Regulation was ordered to be suspended for a period of 6 months. Aquino. Hon. the said law violates the international and treaty of the Philippines therefore it is unconstitutional. ICHONG VS. Pres. The restraining order regarding the implementation of the Reflector Law is lifted making the said law immediately executory. Transportation and Communication and Hon. Specifically. oppressive and unreasonable for the motorists and those dealers of EWD will become instant millionaires because of such law. Issue: Page 20 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 . In the case at bar. Minister of Public Highways. 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. L-49112. No. the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China was violated according to him. G. Issue: Whether or not Petitioner’s contentions possess merit. Hon. it should be presumed that constitutionality shall prevail. 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. health and prosperity of the State.R. According to him. HERNANDEZ [101 Phil 1117. Minister of Public Works. Land Transportation Commissioner. The Letter of Instruction was assailed by petitioner Leovillo Agustin to have violated the constitution guarantee of due process against Hon Edu. Petitioner’s allegation against the manufacturers of EDW being millionaires is deemed to be an unfounded speculation. 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. EDU [88 SCRA 195. G. Juinio. They can personally create a EWD provided that it is in accordance to the specifications provided by law. Petitioner alleges that EWD are not necessary because vehicles already have hazard lights (blinking lights) that can be use as a warning device. 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. Also petitioner contest that the letter of instruction violates the delegation of police power because it is deemed harsh. Vehicle owners are not obliged to buy an EDW. No. This was protested by the petitioner in this case. the petition is dismissed. Marcos on the other hand possesses vital statistics that will justify the need for the implementation of this instruction. L-7995. the Vienna Convention also requires the use of EWD. Juan Ponce Enrile. Minister of national Defense. Also.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE THE POLICE POWER AGUSTIN VS. Petitioner also failed to present the factual foundation that is necessary to invalidate the said letter of instruction. Wherefore. 229 which states that all owners. 2 Feb 1979] Facts: President Marcos issued the Letter of Instruction No. Because of such contentions. As signatory to the 1968 Vienna Conventions on Road Signs and Signals. 31 May 1957] Facts: Republic Act 1180 or commonly known as “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” was passed.R. The said law provides for a prohibition against foreigners as well as corporations owned by foreigners from engaging from retail trade in our country. In cases where there is absence in the factual foundation.

If objectives and methods are alike constitutionally valid. an annual tax of five pesos. 22 Dec 1955] Facts: Walter Lutz. Issue: Whether or Not the tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act ( Commonwealth Act 567) is unconstitutional. Video Tapes. the province shall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%) of the purchase price or rental rate. It follows that the Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is necessary for its protection and expedient for its promotion. Tax on Sale. the sum of money paid by the estate as taxes. 18 Jun 1987] Facts: The case is a petition filed by petitioner on behalf of videogram operators adversely affected by Presidential Decree No. L-75697. pursuant to the Sugar Adjustment Act. and advancement. as the case may Page 21 Section 1-C. 134. the amended the National "SEC. seeks to recover from J. the Collector of Internal Revenue.R. RA 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. ARANETA [98 Phil 148. 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. no reason is seen why the state may not levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. Lease or Disposition of Videograms. Antonio Araneta. — There shall be collected on each processed video-tape cassette. Therefore. Held: According to the Court. Taxation may be made with the implement of the state’s police power. it is only rational that the taxes be obtained from those that will directly benefit from it. LUTZ VS.R. said objectives of the Act is a public concern and is therefore constitutional. It was also then provided that police power can not be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract. Held: The tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act is constitutional. thus this appeal before the Supreme Court. SY ’06-‘07 . therefore redounds greatly to the general welfare. The Court of First Instance dismissed his petition. the tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act is held to be constitutional. Furthermore. In addition. ready for playback. L-7859. Hence. Since sugar production is one of the great industries of our nation. No. to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. Section 6 states all the collections made under said Act shall be for aid and support of the sugar industry exclusively. its promotion. as the Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme Ledesma. The tax under said Act is levied with a regulatory purpose. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD [151 SCRA 208. That locally manufactured or imported blank video tapes shall be subject to sales tax. taxes are levied on the owners or persons in control of the lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane. 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. If ever the law infringes upon the said treaty. G. Lutz contends that such purpose is not a matter of public concern hence making the tax levied for that cause unconstitutional and void. No. G.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not Republic Act 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. Provided. TIO VS." "Section 10. A month after the promulgation of the said Internal Revenue Code provided that: Presidential Decree. Under Section 3 of said Act. regardless of length. protection. “An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board" with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry. 1987.

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

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

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

1985. The NMAT rating of each applicant. issued by the then Minister of Education. Issue: Whether or not Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. Objectives. Republic Act 2382. the public order — of the general community. The police power. it is commonplace learning. known as the "Medical Act of 1959" defines its basic objectives in the following manner: "SECTION 1. shall serve as a basis for the issuance of the prescribed certificate of eligibility for admission into the medical colleges. x x x (f) To accept applications for certification for admission to a medical school and keep a register of those issued said certificate. beginning with the school year 1986-1987. — 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.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. s. 52. Nothing in this act shall be construed to inhibit any college of medicine from establishing. The NMAT was conducted and administered as previously scheduled. control and regulation of the practice of medicine in the Philippines. the securing of which no one Page 25 Section 1-C. in addition to the preceding. This Order goes on to state that: "2. shall be determined every year by the Board of Medical Education after consultation with the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. 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.” Section 7 prescribes certain minimum requirements for applicants to medical schools: "Admission requirements. together with the other admission requirements as presently called for under existing rules. The NMAT. based on the scores on the NMAT. Held: Yes. as amended by Republic Acts Nos. created a Board of Medical Education. and MECS Order No. 4224 and 5946. The cutoff score for the successful applicants. 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. from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future.” MECS Order No. 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. and (d) birth certificate. The trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987. (b) a certificate of eligibility for entrance to a medical school from the Board of Medical Education. An important component of that public order is the health and physical safety and well being of the population. do not constitute an unconstitutional imposition. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring certain minimum scores therein as a condition for admission to medical schools in the Philippines. 52. 2382. 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. 1985 are constitutional. among other things. SY ’06-‘07 . — This Act provides for and shall govern (a) the standardization and regulation of medical education. other entrance requirements that may be deemed admissible. (b) the examination for registration of physicians. as amended. s. (c) a certificate of good moral character issued by two former professors in the college of liberal arts. Culture and Sports and dated 23 August 1985. and (c) the supervision." The statute. 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. an aptitude test.

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 trial court has a ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession. 129079. petitioner. for the signature of Benitez. of the property interests in the bundle of rights that constitute ownership. 1985. pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order No.490. Arroyo. G. In the instant case. Although eminent domain usually involves a taking of title. In exercising this power. Page 29 Section 1-C. as vendees. duly represented by then Undersecretary Gloria M. PHRDC and private respondent Helena Z. Under Section 7 of EO 1035. and PHRDC and CMDC. A deposit made by the plaintiff with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the amount of P708. 2 Dec 1998] Facts: Private respondent Helena Z. 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. 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. in pursuit of an objective beneficial to public interest. through the Department of Trade and Industry.R. 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). The Philippine Government. when the government or its authorized agent makes the required deposit. not all. which includes all the rights that may be exercised by an owner over the subject property. A Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession was granted by the court but quashed it subsequently. the CMDC took possession of the property and erected buildings and other related facilities necessary for its operations. instituted a complaint for Eminent Domain. The expropriation of real property does not include mere physical entry or occupation of land. Benitez. was made. its mere physical entry and occupation of the property fall short of the taking of title. among others. signed a Memorandum of Agreement which provides. 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. it is manifest that the petitioner. as vendor. Benitez in her own capacity did not sign the deed of absolute sale. petitioner intended to acquire not only physical possession but also the legal right to possess and ultimately to own the subject property. No. SY ’06-‘07 . PHRDC prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale with Benitez. Failing to acquire the property involved through negotiated sale.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN REPUBLIC VS. 1035. Hence. there may also be compensable taking of only some. 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. electrical and road network installations and other related works necessary to attain its objectives. Dasmariñas. dated June 25.331 square meters more or less. TAGLE [299 SCRA 549. Held: No.00 which is equivalent to the assessed value of the property subject matter hereof based on defendant’s 1990 tax declaration. Pursuant thereto. to which CMDC is attached. In view of the agreement on the sale of the land in question. Benitez is the registered owner of two (2) parcels of land located in Barangay Salawag. seeks to realize the same through its power of eminent domain. through the Philippine Human Resources Development Center (PHRDC).

the state. Subsequently. G. 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. PEOPLE VS. 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. Herein defendant. REPUBLIC VS. prayed for the expropriation of a portion private cemetery for the conversion into an extension of Rizal Avenue. may. is a question that the courts have the right to inquire to. 31 Oct 1919] Facts: The City of Manila.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests CITY OF MANILA VS. 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. the Bureau of Telecommunication. Issue: Whether or not the courts may inquire into. 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. and hear proof of the necessity of the expropriation. L-18841. 14355. PLDT [26 SCRA 320. 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. the plaintiff commenced suit against PLDT asking the court judgment be rendered ordering the PLDT to execute a contract with the plaintiff. After its creation. Held: Yes. The lower court ruled that the said public improvement was not necessary on the particular-strip of land in question. plaintiff herein. 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. PLDT is a public service corporation holding a franchise to install operates and maintains a telephone system. No. 27 Jan 1969] Facts: The plaintiff Republic of the Philippines is a political entity exercising government powers through one of its branches. it must comply with the conditions accompanying the 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. 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. No. CHINESE COMMUNITY [40 Phil 349. 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 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. Issue: Whether or Not PLDT may be compelled to enter into such agreement. SY ’06-‘07 . The moment the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred. 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.R. 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. the same filed an appeal. Thus. Hence this petition. Defendants herein answered that the said expropriation was not necessary because other routes were available. FAJARDO Page 30 Section 1-C.

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

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

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

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. Also Resolution No. free of charge. A few years later. However. 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. because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. Inc. since such action is not feasible at this time since the lot has been used for other purposes. Petitioner Philippine Press Institute. Hence. No. The Comelec space shall be allocated by the Commission. 22 May 1995] Facts: Respondent Comelec promulgated Resolution No. On behalf of the respondent Comelec. Issue: Whether or not Comelec Resolution No. (PPI). considering that the newspapers were not unwilling to sell advertising space. She could then bring an action to recover possession of the land anytime. 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. 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. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY [395 SCRA 494.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. among all candidates to enable them to make known their qualifications. the element of necessity for the taking has not been established by respondent Comelec. REYES VS. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . as borne out by the ocular inspection conducted by the trial court which showed that most of the expropriated properties remain unoccupied. it is claimed that respondent NHA has forfeited its rights Page 34 Section 1-C.R. 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. there is no showing of existence of a national emergency to take private property of newspaper or magazine publishers. GR NO. 2772 directing newspapers to provide free Comelec space of not less than one-half page for the common use of political parties and candidates. then she remains the owner of the lot. G. 119694. Held: The Supreme Court declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. a non-profit organization of newspaper and magazine publishers. 2772 is unconstitutional. impartial and credible election. Moreover. asks the Supreme Court to declare Comelec Resolution No. their stand on public Issue and their platforms of government. In the case at bench. but not without payment of just compensation. 20 JAN 2003] Facts: Respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) filed complaints for the expropriation of sugarcane lands belonging to the petitioners. which is allegedly different from the stated public purpose in the expropriation proceedings. The Comelec space shall also be used by the Commission for dissemination of vital election information. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE VS. 147511. 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. 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 taking of private property for public use is authorized by the constitution. COMELEC [244 SCRA 272.

NO. The case cited by Petitioner involves BP 337. ASLP VS. commercials firms. VM REALTY CORPORATION [292 SCRA 676. It is now settled doctrine that the concept of public use is no longer limited to traditional purposes." "public benefit. 78742. 27. which is obviously no longer in effect. Held: Under Section 19. OF AGRARIAN REFORM [175 SCRA 343. and other private concerns. SEC. Accordingly. 20 JUL 1998] Facts: Petitioner sought to exercise its power of eminent domain based on a resolution by the municipal council. the former being the law itself and the latter only an administrative rule which cannot amend the former. which provides that a resolution authorizes a Local Government Unit to exercise eminent domain. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislature’s power. The expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing for the marginalized sector is in furtherance of social justice. 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 an LGU can exercise its power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution by its law-making body. for the common good and in cooperation with the private sector. MUNICIPALITY OF PARAÑAQUE VS. The term "public use" has now been held to be synonymous with "public interest. whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. RA 7160 prevails over the Implementing Rules.R. 14 JUL 1989] Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case: e. 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. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants. of the present Local Government Code (RA 7160). the former is only an opinion of a law-making body. G. Held: The Supreme Court held in favor of the respondent NHA. 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. entertainment and service companies. 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." and "public convenience. which was the previous Local Government Code. the latter is a law. Petitioner cites a previous case wherein a resolution gave authority to exercise eminent domain. SY ’06-‘07 . NO. Moreover." Thus." "public welfare." In addition. Page 35 Section 1-C. the Constitution itself allows the State to undertake. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. Petitioner also relies on the Implementing Rules. G.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. 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. R. A resolution is not an ordinance. EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. 127820.

and RA were constitutional. A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of the lawful subject and the method. 517. The parties agreed to the construction of the canal provided that the government will pay for the area that has been taken. First. Roxas. however what is to be determined is the method employed to achieve it. is the project manager of NIA. an Page 36 Section 1-C. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares. Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO’s. The petition for review was filed by Mr. 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.00 as right of way damages. South Cotabato. ONORIO [360 SCRA 230. PD. 141. g. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. 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. while the verification or certification were signed by Mr. De Onorio is the owner of the land in Barangay M. 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. 180. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Held: The CA is correct in affirming the decision of the RTC but modifications shall be made regarding the value of the just compensation. Eslaban jr. Mr. Subsequently. RA 6657 is likewise valid. ESLABAN VS. Such land is the subject for the construction of an irrigation canal of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA).55 for taking her property but the petitioner refused. 299. respondent demands that petitioner pay P111. there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative.660 sq meters that have been used for the construction of the canal. 146062. Sto. Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent domain. 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. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under Sec. The following are the points to be considered in arriving in this decision. The RTC held that the NIA should pay respondent the amount of P107. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victoria’s Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent Domain.60 as just compensation for the 24. G. 28 JUN 2001] Facts: Clarita Vda. Issue: Whether or Not the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC. Cesar Gonzales. h. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision of the RTC. Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid. Nino. SY ’06-‘07 .R. Santiago Eslaban Jr. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests f. NO. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. After which. 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. A right-of-way agreement was entered into by the parties in which respondent was paid the amount of P4.

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

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

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

R. Held: The ruling case law rules that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but public purpose. providing P85. PUNSALAN VS. Act appropriating funds for public works. repair. The lower court declared the ordinance invalid and affirmed the validity of the law authorizing it. The decision appealed from is reversed. null and void. 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. and authorize what amounts to double taxation. NO.L-4817. The district engineer. In the case at bar. Petitioners. the appropriation sought a private purpose and hence. were nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads within Antonio Subdivision. The ordinance imposes a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the city and penalizes nonpayment of the same. Antonio Subdivision is owned by the respondent. OF PUBLIC WORKS [110 PHIL 331. SEC. 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. Issue: Whether or Not the ordinance and law authorizing it constitute class legislation. Lower court dismissed the case and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction. the appropriation for the construction was illegal and therefore. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA [95 PHIL 46. assail Ordinance No. extension and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals. However. Jose Zulueta. Issue: Whether or Not the deed of donation and the appropriation of funds stipulated in RA 920 are constitutional. paid the tax under protest as imposed by Ordinance No. the donation was not executed. the governor of the Province of Rizal. which prompted Zuleta to write a letter to the district engineer calling attention the approval of RA 920. The law authorizing said ordinance empowers the Municipal Board of the city to impose a municipal occupation tax on persons engaged in various professions. Respondent offered to donate the said feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig and the offer was accepted by the council. 26 MAY 1954] Facts: Petitioners.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE POWER OF TAXATION PASCUAL VS. The donation did not cure the nullity of the appropriation. having already paid their occupation tax under section 201 of the National Internal Revenue Code. who are professionals in the city.L-10405. SY ’06-‘07 . 3398. 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. void ab initio. Petitioner. prayed for RA 920 be declared null and void and the alleged deed of donation be declared unconstitutional. on the other hand. The land which was owned by Zulueta. a member of the Senate of the Philippines. 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. filed an action for declaratory relief with injunction on the ground that RA 920. therefore a judicial nullification of a said donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of the said appropriation. NO. 3398 together with the law authorizing it (Section 18 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila). reconstruction. G. Held: Page 40 Section 1-C. 29 DEC 1960] Facts: Petitioner.000 for the construction.

R. 1956. SY ’06-‘07 . Pres." He also contends that the "delegation of legislative authority" to the ERB violates 28 (2). inasmuch as the delegation relates to the exercise of the power of taxation. Aquino. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. P.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The Legislature may. the amount of the underrecovery being left for determination by the Ministry of Finance. but also impose a specific limit on how much to tax. the OPSF was reclassified into a "trust liability account. designated as the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). in its discretion. ORBOS [220 SCRA 703.' and that "if a special tax is collected for a specific purpose. Article VI of the Constitution." Petitioner further points out that since "a 'special fund' consists of monies collected through the taxing power of a State. of P.D.' not as a 'trust account' or a 'trust fund. Subsequently. Article VI of the Constitution. ." 12 Issue: Whether or Not the invalidity of the "TRUST ACCOUNT" in the books of account of the Ministry of Energy (now. 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. as amended. G. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned." in virtue of E.O. and ordered released from the National Treasury to the Ministry of Energy. The petitioner argues that "the monies collected pursuant to . tariff rates. import and export quotas. amended P.D. and not channeled to another government objective. and. authorize the President to fix. 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. 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. who (shall) be taxed (and) what the tax is for. 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. as amended. 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. and in its discretion may tax all. "said creation of a trust fund being contrary to Section 29 (3). created pursuant to § 8. the law must not only specify how to tax. Article VI of the Constitution. 1956 creating a Special Account in the General Fund. 31 MAR 1993] Facts: On October 10. "the limits. although the use thereof is limited to the special purpose/objective for which it was created. by law. paragraph 1. must be treated as a 'SPECIAL FUND. Pres. such amounts belong to the State. That matter is within the domain of political departments. the Office of Energy Affairs). OSMEÑA VS. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. 137 on February 27. limitations and restrictions must be quantitative. 1956. and leave others untaxed. if any. Page 41 Section 1-C. within specified limits. She promulgated Executive Order No. the balance. Marcos issued P. No. viz. 1956. 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.D. NO. select what occupations shall be taxed. 1024.D. Judgment of the lower court is reversed with regards to the ordinance and affirmed as to the law authorizing it. or select classes of occupation for taxation. that is. 1984. The petition avers that the creation of the trust fund violates 29(3). the revenue generated therefrom shall 'be treated as a special fund' to be used only for the purpose indicated.: (2) The Congress may. 1987. tonnage and wharfage dues. shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. 99886.

137 dated 27 February 1987. 137. 1956. With regard to the alleged undue delegation of legislative power.D. that the OPSF is a special fund is plain from the special treatment given it by E. as amended by Executive Order No. 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. b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations. § 8(c) of P. do not conveniently permit the setting of fixed or rigid parameters in the law as proposed by the petitioner. The Court is satisfied that these measures comply with the constitutional description of a "special fund. 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. To do so would render the ERB unable to respond effectively so as to mitigate or avoid the undesirable consequences of such fluidity." Indeed. Hence.L-19201. it seems clear that while the funds collected may be referred to as taxes. Although the provision authorizing the ERB to impose additional amounts could be construed to refer to the power of taxation.O." the fund nonetheless remains subject to the scrutiny and review of the COA. as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy. they are exacted in the exercise of the police power of the State. 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. 1956 expressly authorizes the ERB to impose additional amounts to augment the resources of the Fund. for "being an undue and invalid delegation of legislative power to the Energy Regulatory Board. No. manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products. The interplay and constant fluctuation of the various factors involved in the determination of the price of oil and petroleum products. this is not the case. In addition to the general policy of the law to protect the local consumer by stabilizing and subsidizing domestic pump rates. the practice is not without precedent. Moreover. SY ’06-‘07 . and the frequently shifting need to either augment or exhaust the Fund. 1956. As such. 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. What is here involved is not so much the power of taxation as police power. as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy. What petitioner would wish is the fixing of some definite. quantitative restriction. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE [14 SCRA 292." Under P. and while it is placed in what the law refers to as a "trust liability account. paragraph 1 (c) of P. the standard as it is expressed suffices to guide the delegate in the exercise of the delegated power.D. LLADOC VS. as amended by Executive Order No. taking account of the circumstances under which it is to be exercised. 137. No. 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. NO. It is segregated from the general fund. 16 JUN 1965] Page 42 Section 1-C. 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.D.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not the unconstitutionality of 8. but as already discussed." The Court is cited to this requirement by the petitioner on the premise that what is involved here is the power of taxation. or "a specific limit on how much to tax.

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

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

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. Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga. 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. The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. the president and general manager of the second petitioner.L-24693. 1963. 4760. The lower court on July 6. law…” “No person shall be deprived of life. The local legislative body. has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people x x x . by enacting the ordinance. consistently with what has been the accepted standards of constitutional adjudication.R. Its decision cannot be allowed to stand. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . motels and lodging houses would be open for inspection either by the City Mayor. or property without due process of ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSO. on the ground that in the revised charter of the City of Manila or in any other law. As was expressed categorically by Justice Malcolm: "The presumption is all in favor of validity x x x . characterized as legitimate businesses duly licensed by both national and city authorities and regularly paying taxes. the necessity for evidence to rebut it is unavoidable. the lower court deciding the matter on the pleadings and the stipulation of facts. It admits of no doubt therefore that there being a presumption of validity. G. no reference is made to motels. Page 45 Section 1-C. filed a petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. The councilors must. After which the alleged grievances against the ordinance were set forth in detail. and Go Chiu. As underlying questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character. 4760 of the City of Manila is unconstitutional. liberty. Hotel del Mar Inc. The principle has been nowhere better expressed than in the leading case of O'Gorman & Young v. 1963 issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering respondent Mayor to refrain from enforcing said Ordinance No. It was alleged that on June 13. the resumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute. therefore. unless the statute or ordinance is void on its face which is not the case here. VS. 1. 1963 by the then acting City Mayor. Sec.." No such factual foundation being laid in the present case. Issue: Whether or Not Ordinance No. it also being provided that the premises and facilities of such hotels. in the very nature of things. or their duly authorized representatives. approved on June 14. 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. NO. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action. the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 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. MAYOR OF MANILA [20 SCRA 849. or the Chief of Police. the presumption of validity must prevail and the judgment against the ordinance set aside. 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. null and void.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests DUE PROCESS OF LAW Art 3. 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. in both procedural and substantive aspects. 4760 from and after July 8. 1963. 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. 31 JULY 1967] Facts: Petitioners Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association with one of its members.

G. Issue: Whether or Not Ordinance no. and not the petitioners.R. Upon receipt of such letter. the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Palimbang. 2001 enjoys the presumption of regularity and validity since no contest or protest was even filed assailing the same. 10 NOV 1978] Facts: The controverted 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. Held: No. HIU CHIONG [86 SCRA 270. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on February 22. the Commissioner-in-charge for Region XII asked the Law Department. once an alien is admitted he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. herein private respondents were proclaimed winners as well. Held: It is a revenue measure. Hence. hence constituting a violation of the due process principle. 28 OCT 2003] Facts: On May 20. Also it does not lay down any standard to guide the City Mayor in the issuance or denial of an alien employment permit fee. Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings before the COMELEC requires due notice and hearing. 6537 is void and unconstitutional.00 pesos to enable aliens generally to be employed in the city of Manila is not only for the purpose of regulation. as ruled in Fariñas vs. the second part which requires the payment of a sum of 50.6537 violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. 150540. Issue: Whether or Not due the COMELEC has the power to suspend a proclamation or the effects thereof without notice and hearing. Ordinance no. The following day. even though petitioners herein have already taken their oath and have assumed office. the COMELEC issued a Resolution ordering the immediate installation of the private respondents as the newly elected members of the Sangguniang Bayan. SY ’06-‘07 .L-29646. 2001. The petitioners cannot be removed from office without due process of law. Hence. This guarantee includes the means of livelihood. The COMELEC is without power to partially or totally annul a proclamation or suspend the effects of a proclamation without notice and hearing. Sultan Kudarat proclaimed the petitioners as winning candidates for their Sangguniang Bayan. COMELEC [414 SCRA 553. NO. While it is true that the Philippines as a state is not obliged to admit aliens within it's territory. 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. 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. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho. 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. Page 46 Section 1-C.00 pesos is not a regulatory but a revenue measure. The city ordinance which imposes a fee of 50. Petitioners contend that such Resolution is null and void because they were not accorded due notice and hearing. Private respondents claimed that they should be recognized as the winners.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests VILLEGAS VS. All of them found the second proclamation valid. the proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be annulled if he has not been notified of any motion to set aside his proclamation. Furthermore. COMELEC. NO. NAMIL VS. the Regional Election Registrar and the Provincial Elections Supervisor to submit their reports on the matter. 1968 and signed by Mayor Villegas.

However. the instant petition alleging denial of due process on the part of the DOLE to which the mediator-arbiter was under. This was protested by the petitioner in this case. RA 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. If ever the law infringes upon the said treaty. excluding therefrom the superintendents and the professional and technical employees. 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. nurses. insisted on a hearing to confront and examine the witnesses of the other party.). PHILPHOS appealed the order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment who rendered a decision through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma dismissing the appeal. VS. 17 MAR 1994] Facts: Philphos Movement for Progress. TORRES [231 SCRA 335. hence. HERNANDEZ [101 PHIL 1155. SY ’06-‘07 . COMELEC. Issue: Whether or Not Republic Act 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. 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. Page 47 Section 1-C. if it so desired. G. 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. PHIL. accountants. and confidential employees. petitioner had all the opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its appeal to the Secretary of Labor. But it did not. analysts. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Reyes vs. instead it opted to submit its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter. Besides. According to him. Specifically. mechanics. Inc. L-7995. PHILPHOS moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. It was also then provided that police power can not be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract. 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. Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an order granting the petition and directing the holding of a certification election among the "supervisory. The said law provides for a prohibition against foreigners as well as corporations owned by foreigners from engaging from retail trade in our country. Moreover. Issue: Whether or Not there was denial of due process. as applied to administrative proceedings. filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner. ICHONG VS. the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China was violated according to him. as petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to present its side. COMELEC and Gallardo vs. the said law violates the international and treaty of the Philippines therefore it is unconstitutional. technical. Held: According to the Court. the COMELEC is without power to partially or totally annul a proclamation or suspend the effects of a proclamation without notice and hearing. etc. petitioner could have.R. midwives. Mediator-Arbiter Rodolfo S. professional (engineers. PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORP. there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process. 31 MAY 1957] Facts: Republic Act 1180 or commonly known as “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” was passed.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. Held: There was no denial of due process. 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. NO. (PMPI for brevity). Milado issued an order directing the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner.

Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao. NO. In that case. The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO [39 PHIL 660.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests RUBI VS. it will be read. that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days. G. Naujan Lake. 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. Further. 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. somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States. Thereafter. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code. 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. assigned as reasons fort the action. indeed. 2. Mindoro. The Court is further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. (3) The protection of the Manguianes.R. 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. the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao. Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law. 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. But a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy. 14078. and to introduce civilized customs among them. It is. The Solicitor-General adds the following. Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. 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. 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”. when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. against their will. and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. 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. pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code. The preamble of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro which set apart the Tigbao reservation. the provincial governor of Mindoro issued executive order No. (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam. the following: (1) The failure of former attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province. Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. 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. an unusual exercise of that power. 7 MAR 1919] Facts: This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. 25 which states that “provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) are found is authorized. Also. It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. Considered purely as an exercise of the police power.

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

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

and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. 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. Such constituted a violation of his right to due process. 1984. the petitioner went to the Commission on Elections to question the canvass of the election returns. To bolster that requirement. set aside. 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. L-68379-81. NOS. It was also shown in the facts that the PNP had not informed the public of the purpose of setting up the checkpoint. 1984. the eve of the elections. COMELEC [144 SCRA 194. 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. 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. 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 search could not have been valid. 92-0829 is unconstitutional. They must trust the judge. In the case at bar. They must believe in his sense of fairness. On May 13. and therefore. the PNP could not have thoroughly searched the car lawfully as well as the package without violating the constitutional injunction. Thus. Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. Petitioner was also not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. However. Given these circumstances. Hence. SY ’06-‘07 . otherwise they will not go to him at all. Issue: Whether or Not the Second Division of the Commission on Elections authorized to promulgate its decision of July 23. otherwise they will not seek his judgment. 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. Resolution No. Owing to what he claimed were attempts to railroad the private respondent's proclamation. the bitter contest between the two came to a head when several followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed. Without such confidence. 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. the private respondent took his oath as a member of the Batasang Pambansa.R. proclaiming the private respondent the winner in the election. There cannot be equal Page 51 Section 1-C.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. 22 SEPT 1986] Facts: The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 elections. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. the guns were not tucked in Arellano’s waist nor placed within his reach. G. His complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Second Division of the said body. He was not informed by the City Prosecutor that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation. allegedly by the latter's men. They should be sure that when their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. Held: This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" as the indispensable imperative of due process. the firearms obtained from the warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. The petitioner thereupon came to this Court. Absent any justifying circumstance specifically pointing to the culpability of petitioner and Arellano. are now facing trial for these murders. Meanwhile. on the strength of his proclamation. Seven suspects. JAVIER VS. Fair play cans for equal justice. Consequently. including respondent Pacificador.

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

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

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

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

Held: SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid classification. 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. There is no question that Order No.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. The consequence of the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right. 1 does not impair the right to travel. VS. 22 JAN 1980] Facts: Petitioner questions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. NO. 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. Dept. DUMLAO VS. L-52245. Held: No. 3. to the requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by law. 21 APR 1998] Facts: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines. G. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. as the right to travel is subjects among other things. The guarantee of equal protection is subject to rational classification based on reasonable and real differentiations. the classifications made. It was declared to be Page 58 Section 1-C. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE with rule making powers. the Filipino female domestics working abroad were in a class by themselves. COMELEC [289 SCRA 337. employees 65 years of age have been classified differently from younger employees. the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid. 132922. Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. provided that: 1. The former are subject to compulsory retirement while the latter are not. rest on substantial distinctions. because of the special risk to which their class was exposed. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. 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. Issue: Whether or Not Sec. Inc. Deployment ban of female domestic helper is a valid exercise of police power.52 is unconstitutional being contrary to the equal protection and due process rights. 4 of BP. 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. Order No. It admits of classification. 2. 4. When an official has retired he has already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same government work. SY ’06-‘07 .1 applies only to female contract workers but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. WHEREFORE. 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”. In the present case. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILS.R. 1. 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.

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

A.A. R. as regards the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Thus. upon examination of the amended information. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant such a declaration. the Ombudsman filed amended informations before the Sandiganbayan. 7975. pending resolution of their motions. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators to investigate the said incident. Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R. R.A. However. 8249 is not a penal law. and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. 7975. Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police operation.A. 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. or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher.A. (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law. R.” Contrary to petitioner and intervenors’ argument. Held: Petitioner and intervenors’ posture that Sections 4 and 7 of R. charged as principal. a review board modified the panel’s finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six respondents including herein petitioner. Every classification made by the law is presumed reasonable and the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. However. However. 8249. 8249 was approved amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused” in Section 2 of R.A. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when the following concur: (1) it must rest on substantial distinction. In People vs. 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. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. its mode of appeal and other procedural matters. and herein petitioner-intervenors. 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. Issue: Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R. After a reinvestigation. has been declared by the Court as not a penal law.” There is nothing ex post facto in R. Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto statute. provides retroactive effect of penal laws. but clearly a procedural statute. all of which are present in this case. 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.A. 8249. the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. 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. a member of the Criminal Investigation Command. that what actually transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG.A. the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 of R. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. 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 retroactive application of R. The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. they did not qualify under said requisites.A.A. Montejo. The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in “any court. to “all cases pending in any court. Ex post facto law. 7975. 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. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the law is too shallow to deserve merit. asserting that under the amended informations. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes. (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only. one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. SY ’06-‘07 . Not being a penal law. Such intimate relation must be alleged in the information which is essential in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. generally. charged as accessories. where petitioner was charged only as an accessory.

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

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

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

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

Hence. 16 OCT 1997] Facts: Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner Waterous Drug Corporation on 15 August 1988." and to show that any investigation was conducted. In its decision of 30 September 1993. In a letter to Co dated 10 February 1990. and she was granted a 48-hour extension from 1 to 3 February 1990. G. Catolico received a memorandum from WATEROUS Vice President-General Manager Emma R. It found that petitioner's evidence consisted only of the check of P640. On the same date. respondents' case falls apart as it is bereft of evidence which cannot be used as a legal basis for complainant's dismissal. her side of the reported irregularity." Catolico then asked the company to look into the fraudulent activities of Soliven. Catolico did not deny her responsibility but explained that her act was "due to negligence. Catolico requested access to the file containing Sales Invoice No. Rule 131). the dismissal was without just cause and due process.R. Catolico asked for additional time to give her explanation. appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise. In his decision of 10 May 1993. besides she was not authorized to deal directly with the suppliers. Inc.00 drawn by YSP in favor of complainant. On 5 May 1990. “Appellant signed the contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving more weight to the presumption that things which a person possesses." She also averred that the preventive suspension was ill-motivated. NLRC [280 SCRA 735 . On 31 July 1989. issued a memorandum notifying Catolico of her termination. 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. within twenty-four hours.NO. On 5 March 1990. Nevertheless. she would be placed on preventive suspension to protect the interests of the company." 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. explained that the check she received from YSP was a Christmas gift and not a "refund of overprice. Catolico filed before the Office of the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor practice. SY ’06-‘07 . illegal dismissal. as it sprang from an earlier incident between her and Co's secretary. Irene Soliven. 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. she was informed that effective 6 February 1990 to 7 March 1990. Forthwith. However. It concluded: With the smoking gun evidence of respondents being rendered inadmissible.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests No. But. on 2 February 1990. which her co-employee saw when the latter opened the envelope. Bautro warned Catolico against the "rush delivery of medicines without the proper documents. Co issued another memorandum to Catolico warning her not to negotiate with suppliers of medicine without consulting the Purchasing Department.” WATEROUS DRUG VS. In a memorandum dated 21 November 1989. Co warning her not to dispense medicine to employees chargeable to the latter's accounts because the same was a prohibited practice." On 29 January 1990. WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda E. Labor Arbiter Alex Arcadio Lopez found no proof of unfair labor practice against petitioners. Page 65 Section 1-C. WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda Bautro. and illegal suspension. As regards the first memorandum. WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals. or exercises acts of ownership over. Co asked Catolico to explain. Catolico. In said letter she protested Saldaña's invasion of her privacy when Saldaña opened an envelope addressed to Catolico. it declared that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution. in her memorandum dated 37 January 1990. as this would impair the company's control of purchases and. At this point. 113271. 5 [j]. by virtue of the constitutional right invoked by complainants. he decided in favor of Catolico because petitioners failed to "prove what alleged as complainant's dishonesty. are owned by him (Sec. He thus declared the dismissal and suspension illegal but disallowed reinstatement. In a letter dated 2 February 1990. 266 for her to be able to make a satisfactory explanation. through her counsel.

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

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

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

14 JUL 1995] Facts: In August 1988. Issue: Whether or Not the 2 search warrants were validly issued and executed. pistols. the machineries in question. The broad statements in the application and joint affidavit are mere conclusions of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. of the existence of probable cause." Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. 1983. The description of the articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in question are too general. 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. a police team. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. On the enumerated reasons: 1. 885. does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. With regard to the respondents invoking PD 885. It would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place. transceiver with antennae.45 Cal. as amended. this Court takes cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional Issue raised. 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. regulator supply. PEOPLE [246 SCRA 184. Precisely. there is an absence of any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the Minister of National Defense. as petitioners themselves conceded during the hearing on August 9. In Alvarez v.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. NO. 2. P/Sgt. remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant.R. Section 2. dynamite sticks and subversive documents”. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. Court of First Instance. G. It may or may not be owned by him. 5. while in fact bolted to the ground. which were “used or intended to be used” for illegal purposes. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. Rule 126. SY ’06-‘07 . of the Rules of Court. . the petitioners gave an explanation evidencing that they have exhausted other extra-judicial efforts to remedy the situation. This being the case. 4. that an examination had indeed been conducted by respondent judge of Col. hand grenades. Held: In regard to the quashal of warrants that petitioners should have initially filed to the lower court. Abadilla and his witnesses. TAMBASEN VS. Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. This objection may properly be considered moot and academic. handset with antennae. The closure of the premises subjected to search and seizure is contrary to the freedom of the press as guaranteed in our fundamental law. Furthermore. With the contention pertaining to laches. searched the house of petitioner and seized “2 envelopes containing P14000. academy Page 69 Section 1-C. 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. negating the presumption that they have abandoned their right to the possession of the seized property. The search warrants are declared null and void. two search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct premises. Deficient of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause. The application was granted. 3. 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. In September. 89103. The existence of this special circumstance justifies this Court to exercise its inherent power to suspend its rules. President Marcos himself denies the request of military authorities to sequester the property seized from petitioners.

to leave the officers of the law with no discretion. such certification does not bind the judge to come out with the warrant. for the purpose of issuing warrants of arrest. G. Petition granted. The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized. SY ’06-‘07 . The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function. 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. by the President. NOS. subsequently. the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. After the hearing. the judge finds no probable cause. But. 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. PLACER VS. 82585. Held: Judge may rely upon the fiscal’s certification for the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof. 14 NOV 1988] Facts: In these consolidated cases.R. it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of issuing magistrate. Under Section 6 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. and (2) whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were Page 70 Section 1-C. Held: Section 2 Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires that a search warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the articles which were not mentioned in the search warrant was legal. MTCC.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests notebook and assorted papers and handset battery pack”. that unreasonable search and seizure may not be made and that abuses may not be committed. In October. 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. JUDGE VILLANUEVA [126 SCRA 463. Issue: Whether or Not respondent city judge may. Upon receipt of said informations. G. MAKASIAR [167 SCRA 393. People of the Philippines is ordered to return the money seized. in its order. they should remain in custogia legis. petitioner moved that the search and seizure be declared illegal and that the seized articles be returned to him. respondent judge set the hearing of the criminal cases to determine propriety of issuance of warrants of arrest. 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. issue a warrant of arrest. Col. RTC granted the petition. Torres to return the money seized to petitioner ruling that any seizure should be limited to the specified items covered thereby. Petitioners petitioned for certiorari and mandamus to compel respondent to issue warrants of arrest. Petition dismissed.R. If on the face of the information. NO. compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. 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. SOLIVEN VS. 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. In December. The police acts beyond the parameters of their authority if they seize articles not described in the search warrants. L-60349-62. directed Lt.

1988. Page 71 Section 1-C. if any. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. he filed a "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed. III. Hence.affidavits. by the President. With these developments. 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. 2. subsequently. on the basis thereof. Following established doctrine and procedure. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses." in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits.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. calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. 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 writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. Sec. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. to determine probable cause. Subsequent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic. Thus. the allegation of denial of due process of law in the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter. 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. 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. to determine probable cause Held: With respect to petitioner Beltran. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. through their separate acts. It has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. On March 30. A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice on April 7. 1988. On appeal. 1988. if any. houses. 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. 1988. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. This is not an accurate interpretation. affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on May 2. a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained. Sound policy dictates this procedure. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. The second issue. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction." 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 a warrant of arrest. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. 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. The pertinent provision reads: Art. the President. The petitions fail to establish that public respondents. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the Executive Secretary on May 16. with regard to the issuance of the warrants of arrest. through the Executive Secretary. 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. All that is required is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded. petitioners' contention that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law has lost factual support. raised by petitioner Beltran.

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

Fu Yan Fun. 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. In a letter dated August 31. On January 1962. 1962. to leave the country on or before September 10. since her entry. both minors. the 3 petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. The gravamen of petitioners' argument is that Chan Sau Wah has. another charged not for pedophile but working with NO VISA. We cannot insulate her from the State's power of deportation.Recently we confirmed the rule that an alien wife of a Filipino may not stay permanently without first departing from the Philippines. Therefore. Reason: Discourage entry under false pretenses. 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. They were apprehended 17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID in Pagsanjan. 1962. deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under Sec. 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. Such a flanking movement. Chan Sau Wah and Fu Yan Fun obtained several extensions. Issue: Whether or Not the issuance of the warrant of arrest is unconstitutional. and thereby skirt the provisions of our immigration law. he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond. HARVEY V. It will not particularly help analysis for petitioners to appeal to family solidarity in an effort to thwart her deportation. The last extension expired on September 10. and again throw overboard Sections 9 and 13 of the Act. Petitioners are the following: American nationals Andrew Harvey. 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. Chan Sau Wah. 1962 with a warning that upon failure so to do. the Commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her son. The “Operation Report” read that Andrew Harvey was found together with two young boys. 82544. NO. Proof: She left two of her children by the first marriage. 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. in the care of neighbors in Fukien. a woman of undesirable character may enter this country. ply a pernicious trade.69 of Revised Administrative Code. This Court in a number of cases has ruled. 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. China. married in Manila a native-born Filipino. go through a mock marriage. she must depart voluntarily to some foreign country. She is a nonimmigrant. and third. Richard Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room. G. second. Dutch Citizen Adriaan Van Den Elshout. To prolong their stay in the Philippines. 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. 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. 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. is impermissible. it would be an easy matter for an alien woman to enter the Philippines as a temporary visitor. Chan Sau Wah married Esteban Morano. Under Section 13 just quoted. No breadth of discretion is allowed. Jr. Also. and consistently too. marry a Filipino. Born to this union on September 1962 was Esteban Morano.Then. Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO [162 SCRA 840. Held: Chan Sau Wah entered the Philippines on a tourist-temporary visitor's visa. Esteban Morano. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also found. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests wah arrived in the Philippines with Fu Yan Fun. we are confident. One released for lack of evidence.R. seemingly is not one who has a high regard for such solidarity. Laguna. first. but actually live with another man as husband and wife. 28 JUN 1988] Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. SY ’06-‘07 . a native-born Filipino citizen. her minor son also by the first marriage. she must procure from the appropriate consul the proper visa. Page 73 Section 1-C. On 4 March1988.000 pesos. This is a field closed to judicial action.

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

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

etc. and using the key entrusted to Edna Soguilon. The questions were already mimeographed and all the witness had to do was fill in their answers on the blanks provided.. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. Hence.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not Search Warrant No. The officers who implemented the search warrant clearly abused their authority when they seized the money of Antonieta Silva. 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. a plastic bag containing assorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the master's bedroom. LAYAGUE [210 SCRA 97. A search of the children's recreation and study area revealed a big travelling bag containing assorted polo shirts. The care and upkeep of their residence in Davao City was left to two (2) houseboys. Skyline Village. an officer of the PC/INP. Davao City and a long time family friend of the Veroys. Judge Ontal is guilty of grave abuse of discretion when he rejected the motion of Antonieta Silva seeking the return of her money. Obrero and Major Macasaet then entered the children's room and conducted the search. a telescope. Petitioner Ma. Luisa Veroy. record -the judge before issuing the warrant.R. where the circuit breakers were located. was entrusted to Edna Soguilon to give her access in case of an emergency. 1 is invalid due to the failure of the judge to examine the witness in the form of searching questions and answers. Gandhi brand. 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. only the key to the kitchen. SY ’06-‘07 . a road map of the Philippines. East Kamias. 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. sweat shirt. Catalunan Grande. Capt. Capt. The warrant did not indicate the seizure of money but only for marijuana leaves. Leo Justalero was instructed by Capt. 95630. they were able to gain entrance into the kitchen. two (2) pieces polo barong and short sleeve striped gray polo. Held: Search Warrant No. one blanket. 1 is declared null and void. WON the officers abused their authority in seizing the money of Antonieta Silva. men's brief. Petitioner Ma.S. However. containing a book entitled "Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nation". who had their assigned quarters at a portion of the premises. Jimmy Favia and Eric Burgos. since 1988. The questions asked were leading as they are answerable by mere yes or no. Davao City.. Page 76 Section 1-C. 1988. The following day. *** Sec 4 Rule 126 Rules of Court Examination of the complainant. 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. The caretakers facilitated their entry into the yard. 13 Isidro St. cigarettes. where they are presently residing. 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. 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. 18 Jun 1992] Facts: Petitioners are husband and wife who owned and formerly resided at No. 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. Three (3) half-full jute sacks containing printed materials of RAM-SFP were also found in the children's room. Such questions are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause. a towel made in U.. Capt. When petitioner Leopoldo Veroy was promoted to the position of Assistant Administrator of the Social Security System sometime in June.. Luisa was contacted by telephone in her Quezon City residence by Capt. Search Warrant No.A. VEROY VS. Obrero recovered a . No. two (2) pairs men's socks.1 is invalid. Obrero to make an inventory and receipt of the articles seized. Quezon City. in the house. Police Officers had an information that the petitioner’s residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. he and his family transferred to 130 K-8th St. a small black bag. 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. While the Veroys had the keys to the interior of the house. G. handgun with a magazine containing seven (7) live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an unlocked drawer. Sgt.45 cal.

No. The permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. Panga. (2) a search of a moving vehicle. it was merely for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged "rebel" soldiers. 1866. houses. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III. Undeniably. 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. hence. Petitioners question the admissibility in evidence of the articles seized in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. he did not persist in entering the house but rather contacted the Veroys to seek permission to enter the same. Petitioners were not found in actual possession of the firearm and ammunitions. "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. therefore. A search warrant is still necessary. However. or at least the third paragraph of Section 1 thereof. 1991 [193 SCRA 122]). violative of their constitutional rights As such. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution). Hence. No. where this Court held that the declaration of unconstitutionality of the third paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. products of an illegal search. No bail was recommended. 1866 is bereft of merit.R. the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum but it does not follow that the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. 88017. 1866 upon the sole circumstance that the house wherein the items were found belongs to them. They cannot be used as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms. 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 Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. Petitioners contend that Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. G. Lo Ho Wing. still in mala Page 77 Section 1-C. assuming that there was indeed a search warrant. its meaning and the intention of the legislature must be determined from the language employed. Petitioners' contention that Republic Act 6968 has repealed Presidential Decree No. This shows that he himself recognized the need for a search warrant. In a resolution dated August 6. Issue: Whether or Not Presidential Decree No. and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view (People v. 1866 is couched in general or vague terms.R. Permission was indeed granted by Ma. "acquire". Luisa Veroy to break open the door of their residence. G. 1990 (181 SCRA 648). It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous. They were in Quezon City while the prohibited articles were found in Davao City. the articles seized were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. 145 SCRA 689-690 [1986]). Under the circumstances it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not. None of these exceptions pertains to the case at bar. Held: The issue of constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1866 has been laid to rest in the case of Misolas v. Besides. Among the recognized exceptions thereto are: (1) a search incidental to an arrest. January 21. The terms "deal in". the rule having been violated and no exception being applicable. January 30. there is no room for construction.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. Gonzales. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of Rebellion). SY ’06-‘07 . Obrero was able to enter the compound. While Capt. the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one. he did not enter the house because he did not have a search warrant and the owners were not present. is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. Petitioners aver that while they concede that Capt. and where there is no ambiguity in the words. 1990. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Yet they were being charged under Presidential Decree No. The items taken were. Obrero had permission from Ma. Fiscal Ponferrada recommended the filing of an information against herein petitioners for Violation of Presidential Decree No. (Roan v. they are inadmissible in evidence against them. 83341.

which authorized the search and seizure of an undetermined quantity of methamphetamine and its paraphernalia’s.22 caliber pistol with 3 live ammunition.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. She was brought to the police station and was detained. PEOPLE VS. III of the constitution specifically provides that a search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. 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. About 2pm that day.R. The court renders judgment finding the accused guilty. 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. The accused begged the police not to search and to leave the house. Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime. They confronted the accused and insisted that the bags belonged to her. she saw Sgt. particularly methamphetamine or shabu. NO. Sec 2 art. Wherefore the decision is reversed and the accused is acquitted. He actually saw the accused selling marijuana to his civilian informer and that same day Luciano applied for a search warrant. 1986. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the firearms was proper. 89373. NO. Issue: Page 78 Section 1-C. in the morning of Nov. G. She was made to sign a prepared document. PEOPLE VS. According to the accused. GESMUNDO [219 SCRA 743. While inside the house Yte showed the accused something he claimed as a search warrant. After the issuance of the search warrant. while there is no need of criminal intent. when the police arrived at her house. there must be knowledge that the same existed. an entrapment was planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario and to the seizure of the shabu. Yte to enter her house while Luciano was left in the jeep that was parked near the house. The police still searched the house and was led to the kitchen. the only objects to be seized that the warrant determined was the methamphetamine and the paraphernalia’s therein. DEL ROSARIO [234 SCRA 246. 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. Yte and PFC Jose Luciano. The police also recovered from a native “uway” cabinet dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in 3 pieces of komiks paper. 109633. The seizure of the firearms was unconstitutional. PO Jose Luciano gave money and instructed his civilian informer to buy marijuana from the accused at the Cocoland Hotel. 19 MAR 1993] Facts: According to the prosecution. PREMISES CONSIDERED. SY ’06-‘07 . 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.R. 17. the petition as granted and the criminal case against the petitioners for illegal possession of firearms is DISMISSED. Accused denied the accusation and told them that she doesn’t know anything about it. Held: No. She invited Sgt. its paraphernalia’s and of a . In herein case. G.

subversion. Bagong Barrio.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not the evidence was properly obtained by the police. Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested. Page 79 Section 1-C. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon. Roosevelt Avenue. While confined thereat. SY ’06-‘07 . Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM. 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. South City Homes. It was not proved that the marijuana belonged to her. 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. to verify a confidential information which was received by their office. G. There must sufficient evidence that the marijuana was actually surrendered by the accused. Remorosa. the trial court concluded that these inconsistencies are trivial. in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. This requirement is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant. 3 OCT 1991] Facts: On 1 February 1988. The claim that the marijuana was planted was strengthen as the police violated sec 7. about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. There were inconsistencies insofar the prosecution is concerned. Lot 4. Violation of said rule is in fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised Penal Code.. However. 81567. for security reasons. before a road hump along Macanining St. military agents were dispatched to the St. 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. the arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested. an outlawed subversive organization. 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. Judgment is reversed. these duties are mandatory and are required to preclude substitution of the items seized by interested parties. The guilt of the accused was has not been established. Subversion being a continuing offense. rule 126 rules of the court provides no search of a house. Quezon City. Caloocan City. Agnes Hospital. but it also imposes upon the person making the search the duty to issue a detailed receipt for the property seized. there was no mention of any marijuana obtained from a flower pot in any of their testimonies. as to what was recovered and where. he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols. 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. Again. The crimes rebellion. Biñan. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon. In view of this verification." twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10. Not only does the law require the presence of witnesses when the search is conducted. He is likewise required to deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant. 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. Laguna however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. 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. RAMOS [187 SCRA 311. NO. Held: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA. UMIL VS. together with a true and accurate inventory thereof duly verified under oath.R. As held in PP vs.

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

"D"— Five (5) small transparent plastic bags each containing suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of seventeen grams. The other group acted as their back up. As accused-appellant pulled out his wallet. Exh. Guttierez at the PNP Headquarters in Camp Pepito. Forthwith. Article III of R. Conviction is reversed and set aside and accused is acquitted. since the operation was conducted after the actual exchange. Exh. 4 Feb 2003] Facts: Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua was charged with violation of Section 16. i. SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag hurriedly accosted him and introduced themselves as police officers. "B"— Fifty (50) grams of suspected dried marijuana leaves and seeds contained inside a white colored plastic labelled "Robertson". Afterwards. as amended by R. Surprisingly. No.A. a small transparent plastic bag with a crystalline substance protruded from his right back pocket. he saw that it contained a crystalline substance. PEOPLE VS. The group positioned themselves across McArthur Highway near Bali Hai Restaurant. who acted as the poseur buyer. Failure to do so would be fatal to the cause of the prosecution. the PNP Chief formed a team of operatives. Said raid also violated accused’ right against unreasonable search and seizure. Exh. SY CHUA [396 SCRA 657. SPO2 Nulud subjected him to a body search which yielded twenty (20) pieces of live . SY ’06-‘07 . As such. 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. the Zest-O juice box. G. their informer pointed to a car driven by accused-appellant which just arrived and parked near the entrance of the hotel. testified that appellant sold him 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic bag. Evidently. because they easily could. So. fronting the hotel. "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. "A"—Thirty (30) grams of suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops contained inside a transparent plastic bag. these prohibited articles were among those confiscated during the so-called follow-up raid in the house of Rodrigueza’s father. 6425. 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. In People vs. the existence thereof must be proved with certainty and conclusiveness. Page 81 Section 1-C. Angeles City. have first secured a search warrant during that time. "E"— One plastic syringe.R. 7659. 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. 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. then they should. as the situation did not fall in the circumstances wherein a search may be validly made even without a search warrant. when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest. SPO2 Nulud and the other police operatives who arrived at the scene brought the confiscated items to the office of Col. and for Illegal Possession of Ammunitions and Illegal Possession of Drugs in two separate Informations.22 caliber firearm bullets from his left back pocket.136066-67. Angeles City. Exh.22 caliber firearm bullets and the car used by accused-appellant. the twenty (20) pieces of .A. After accused-appellant alighted from the car carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests person posing as a buyer. Rubio. when it involves prohibited articles in plain view. When SPO2 Nunag peeked into the contents of the Zest-O box. The unanswered question then arises as to the identity of the marijuana leaves that became the basis of appellant's conviction. and no plausible explanation has been advanced therefor. SPO2 Nulud instantly confiscated the small transparent plastic bag.e.

absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers. 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.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.45 caliber gun and made him face his car with raised hands. for this exception to apply. Accused-appellant did not act in a suspicious manner. accused-appellant was first arrested before the search and seizure of the alleged illegal items found in his possession. Issue: Whether or Not the arrest of accused-appellant was lawful. When he called the attention of the onlooker. or is attempting to commit a crime. He refused. He felt sleepy. Accused-appellant alleged that he was driving the car of his wife to follow her and his son to Manila. Guttierez arrived. Guttierez opened the box and accused-appellant was made to hold the box while pictures were being taken. The police officer had to act quickly and there was no more time to secure a search warrant. he noticed a man approaches and examines the inside of his car. he was brought to a police station and was held inside a bathroom for about fifteen minutes until Col. 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.. is actually committing. to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.815 grams of shabu. two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. “Reliable information” alone. It should also be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply. pulled him away from his car in a nearby bank. the law requires that there first be arrest before a search can be made—the process cannot be reversed. We find the two aforementioned elements lacking in the case at bar. the police officer’s companions arrived at the scene in two cars. To reiterate. While at the store. yet convicted him for Illegal Possession of 1. while the others searched his car. A genuine reason must exist. is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. The trial court confused the concepts of a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. Col. The search is valid being akin to a “stop and frisk”.g. the man immediately pulled out a . Thereafter. so he decided to take the old route along McArthur Highway. in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions. or is attempting to commit a crime. During the course of the arrest. the legality of the arrest is questioned. e. He stopped in front of a small store near Thunder Inn Hotel to buy cigarettes and candies. 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. who ordered his men to call the media. there was no overt manifestation that accused-appellant has just committed. Hence. In the presence of reporters. Finally. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest. At this time. Accordingly. The foregoing circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. so the policeman took his car keys and proceeded to search his car. is actually committing. SY ’06-‘07 . With regard to the concept of “stop-and frisk”: mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stopand-frisk”. who just arrived at the scene. The lower court acquitted Sy Chua for the Illegal Possession of Ammunitions. as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. 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.955. The Page 82 Section 1-C. 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. and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. A stop-and-frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street. In this instance. interrogate him. PO2 Nulud. The man later on identified himself as a policeman. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. this appeal to the Court. For all intents and purposes. the policeman took out his wallet and instructed him to open his car.

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

Issue: Whether or Not the warantless search is valid. Held: Based on many precedent cases of the Supreme Court. if any. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was unsuccessful. in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest”. a smoke (tear gas) grenade. Page 84 Section 1-C. 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. In the course of the same. 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. he has waived whatever defect. indeed. It is further alleged that the arrest without a warrant of the petitioner was lawful under the circumstances. COURT OF APPEALS [188 SCRA 288. In the case at bar. Davao City. Didoy the officer then on duty. 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. in the case at bar. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Held: In justifying the warrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the petitioner. 2 AUG 1990] Facts: Members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force. NO. argues that under Section 12. without regard to the limits of punishment. Such an exercise may prove to be useless. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. 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. They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court”.22 caliber gun. Pat. it is reasonable considering that it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. Restraining order issued by the Court is lifted and set aside. POSADAS VS. and may release.38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests the bail bond. Petition for certiorari is denied. They brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation. thus obtaining her provisional liberty. futile and much too late. Petitioner also erred in arguing that only the City Fiscal can conduct a preliminary investigation. While in the vicinity of Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously. Umbra Umpar conducted surveillance along Magallanes Street.R. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s contentions are to be given merit. He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber . 89139. there is no question that. “where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper. two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a . because she posted the bail bond. “the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense.38 caliber gun. and two (2) live ammunitions for a . G. 770196. SY ’06-‘07 . According to the Charter of the City of Dagupan. and agreed with the complaints filed. it is futile for the petitioner to question the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. The City Fiscal in this case did not disagree with the judge’s investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition is remanded to the RTC of Manila. They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash katutak”. and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. NO. Customs search. Highly regulated by the government. 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. the accused claimed that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a movie “Balweg”. G. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. 13. In the absence of clear facts no permanent relief can be given. P/Lt. the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. there is no erring soldier or policeman whom the court can order prosecuted. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. 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" . 3. However. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. Consented warrantless search.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests foreign media joined the operation to witness and record such event. when the informer pointed out who “Aling Rosa” was. 6. Held: The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law: 1. In her testimony. 13 APR 1998] Facts: On Dec. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626. 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. In the circumstances of this taxpayers' suit. 1988. 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. When Abello asked “aling Rosa” about the contents of her bag. 5. the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. Search of a moving vehicle. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are. at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus coming from Baguio. the court temporary restraint the alleged violations which are shocking to the senses. Rule 2. The next day. In the meantime where there is showing that some abuses were committed. 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence Seizure of evidence in "plain view." 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.Based on the facts stated by the parties. the remedy should not be brought by a tazpaer suit where not one victim complaints and not one violator is properly charged. Issue: Whether or Not the saturation drive committed consisted of violation of human rights. 7.R. PEOPLE VS. 4. when she was later on arrested by the police. no search warrant was presented. Also. the latter handed it out to the police. While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder bag. Instead of presenting its evidence. Page 91 Section 1-C. 120515. She has no knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found. Stop and Frisk. 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.

RULES OF COURT Section 2. SY ’06-‘07 . she was merely crossing the street and was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude that she was committing a crime. Arrest without warrant. or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. return and proceedings thereon. RULES OF COURT Section 5. A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. — The officer. There was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s bag. shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. Page 92 Section 1-C. the person to be arrested has committed. if the criminal action has already been filed. If the return has been made. 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. there was no probable cause and the accused was not lawfully arrested. arrest a person: (a) When. is actually committing. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. RULE 126. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and they did not do so.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. 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. RULE 113. 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. when lawful. Right to break door or window to effect search. in his presence. The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime. (b) When an offense has just been committed. Section 12. Section 7. (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. and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known. (b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant. 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 result. (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant. or is attempting to commit an offense. without a warrant. together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. and other actions of the judge. However. and if none. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above. — A peace officer or a private person may. — An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. b) For compelling reasons stated in the application. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. The seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence. the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority.

denying his leave to travel abroad. NO.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF TRAVEL Art 3. freedom to choose one’s residence. NO. which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave. for her to work as a maid. as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission. freedom to transfer from one place to another. respondent herein. SY ’06-‘07 . If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another. to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will.R. L-62100. Page 93 Section 1-C. both trial judges denied the same. 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.” CAUNCA VS." stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States. Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion. “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. 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. 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. 30 MAY 1986] Facts: Petitioner was charged with estafa. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency. The Court of Appeals denied the petition." The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing. owned by Julia Salazar. respectively. He posted bail. MANOTOC VS. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. 1982. or public health. Sec. Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence. COURT OF APPEALS [142 SCRA 149. 6. public safety. 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. which was disallowed by the employment agency. G.L-2690. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851. Petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled. of Judges Camilon and Pronove. "relative to his business transactions and opportunities. 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. to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security. 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. to founded or groundless fear. as may be provided by law. regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment. has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. "motion for permission to leave the country. However.

Such rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the national security. The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of the Former Pres. NO. Thus. They contended that Pres. What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state". 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. which has been ratified by the Philippines. public health or morals or the separate rights of others. G. Essentially. MANGLAPUS [177 SCRA 668. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right. SY ’06-‘07 . Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason. Nor the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. etc. 15 SEPT 1989] Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. Page 94 Section 1-C. independent from although related to the right to travel. the right to leave the country. the right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to one's country. The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel. On the other hand. 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. 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. 88211. Petitioner has not shown the necessity for his travel abroad. as a generally accepted principle of International Law and under our Constitution as part of the law of the land. including his own. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. 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. in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution. MARCOS VS. Issue: Whether or not. Indeed. However. right to enter one's country cannot be arbitrarily deprived. There is no indication that the business transactions cannot be undertaken by any other person in his behalf. 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. They further assert that under international law. a distinct right under international law. 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. he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. 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. but it is a well considered view that the right to return may be considered. Held: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. Issue: Whether or Not his constitutional right to travel has been violated. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. the President (Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. To issue a travel documents to former Pres. public order. specifically Sections 1 and 6. 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. 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.R.

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. The Sandiganbayan deferred it.000 so she filed a motion for acceptance of cash bail bond. Article III. 53622. 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. ])." a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution. 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.. Cruz. Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order. 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. compelled to return (Constitutional Law. VASQUEZ [217 SCRA 633. Vol. the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. but petitioner asked for the cancellation of her bail bond and that she be allowed provisional release on recognizance. p. 25 April 1980..R.S. There is a valid restriction on the right to travel. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security. 138). SY ’06-‘07 . 97 SCRA 121). The RTC ordered the DFA to cancel petitioner’s passport. Page 95 Section 1-C.. the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. 99289-90. 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. Bernas.. with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS. SILVERIO VS. it is imposed that the accused must make himself available whenever the court requires his presence. In the instant motion she submitted before the S. Joaquin G. Her arraignment was set.J. The Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure order against petitioner. Sec. 20 [2nd par. 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.15. Isagani A. she argues that her right to travel is impaired. by reason of the announcement she made that she would be leaving for the U. Hermoso & Travel Processing Center. public safety.R. which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party (See Salonga vs. No. Respondent filed to cancel the passport of the petitioner and to issue a hold departure order. Issue: Whether or Not the right to travel may be impaired by order of the court. G.C. G. 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. COURT OF APPEALS [195 SCRA 760 .S. to accept a fellowship a Harvard. or public health" and "as may be provided by law. I. 27 JAN 1993] Facts: An information was filed against petitioner with the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 1987 Edition. 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. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the Philippines. First Edition. 263). 000. 8 APR 1991] Facts: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 2 (4) of the revised securities act. NOS. Apparently. 15. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality without undue delay. if abroad. 94284. p. 1987.

) MARCOS VS. asking for "expert opinion on coronary medicine". G. 115132-34. This was supported by several medical reports that were prepared by her doctor Roberto Anastacio. Gregorio B. Again another Motion to leave was filed by Mrs. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . She may legally be prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case. the petitioner assumed obligations. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a "Motion to Admit Clinical Summary and to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration. 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. NO. Page 96 Section 1-C. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or Not the petitioner’s right to travel is impaired.A. She holds herself amenable at all times to the orders and process of eth court. 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. Marcos to US and Europe for treatment of several Heart diseases alleging that the tests were not available here. contacted Dr. Patacsil. decisions or orders or any judicial action of respondent court. The court could not be expected to just accept the opinion of petitioner's physician in resolving her request for permission to travel. Then she again filed an "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Permission to Travel Abroad" to undergo diagnosis and treatment in China. The presiding justice. 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. 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. The court still found no merit to allow the petitioners motion to leave and denied all of the motions. 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." Attached was a recent medical report and letters of Vice President Joseph E. that she he every intension of leaving the country to pursue higher studies abroad. Garchitorena. and later wrote him a letter. Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Heart Center. 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. C. Held: The petitioner does not deny and as a matter of fact even made a public statement. when she posted bail bond. Also. Respondent court had to seek expert opinion because petitioner's motion was based on the advice of her physician. 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. Held: No. (Manotoc v. SANDIGANBAYAN [247 SCRA 127.R.

(3) The protection of the Manguianes. Naujan Lake. It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. 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. and to introduce civilized customs among them. Mindoro. based on her heart condition. RUBI VS. Further. 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. in two of which she was convicted although the decision is still pending reconsideration. NO. The heart ailments of the petitioner were not as severe as that was reported by Dr. should petitioner still desire. against their will. Wherefore. 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. 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 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. Page 97 Section 1-C. 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. 14078. 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. and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. 25 wherein non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) will be directed to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands. Also. Anastacio. The Solicitor-General adds the following. that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code. WON Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty pf abode. the petitioner is Dismissed without prejudice to the filling of another motion for leave to travel abroad. pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court is further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. 7 MAR 1919] Facts: The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. It should be emphasized that considering the fact that she is facing charges before the courts in several cases. were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO [39 PHIL 660. Assigned as reasons for the action: (1) attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province. (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam. the petitioner failed to prove the necessity for a trip abroad. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao. On the third issue. 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. in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests In disregarding the medical reports. Thus. Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. In that case. (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes.

Therefore. Habeas corpus can. SY ’06-‘07 . “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. petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. therefore. Page 98 Section 1-C. 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. No man can do exactly as he pleases. None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law.

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

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS. NO. For this reason. and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. 12 appointed Brgy. G.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Resolution No. The priest with Andres Garces. Right of the determination of custody is their right. shall forever be allowed. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. there is no violation of the Constitution. freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property. 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. CITY OF MANILA [101PHIL 386. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over the custody of the image. which carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Practically. contends that Sec. the Court do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution. Captain Veloso as a representative to the case. The priest. SY ’06-‘07 . as amended. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution. 8 Article IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated. The provision aforequoted is a constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. 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. Resolution No. without discrimination or preference. 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). The New York Court of Appeals. 2529. nor tax the exercise of religious practices. The Appellate Division reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint since the appellant have no standing. The Board of Education contended that said statute was invalid and violative of the State and Federal Constitutions. cannot be applied to appellant. including those in private schools. therefore it is their property. Held: No. Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint(such as the acquisition) is not illegal. 9637. It was the council’s funds that were used to buy the image. 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. Page 100 Section 1-C. Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated. and even if they decided to give it to the Church. since private funds were used. in his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. 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. The trial court held the statute unconstitutional. 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. 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. 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 Court believe that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. 3000. a member of the Aglipayan Church. With respect to Ordinance No.R. Held: Section 1. ruled that the appellants have standing but the law is not unconstitutional. as amended. provides that: (7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the replevin case against the priest for the recovery of the image.

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

the Students expelled were only standing quietly during ceremonies. L-5917. The expulsion of the petitioners from the school is not justified. 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. Jones. 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. Therefore. ruled that the Page 102 Section 1-C. expulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified. He claims that the there was an accounting of his administration and was turned over to bishop Jamias. Jehovah’s Witnesses may be exempted from observing the flag ceremony but this right does not give them the right to disrupt such ceremonies. that Isabelo De los Reyes and Bayaca have abandoned their faith and formally joined the Prostestant Episcopal Church of America. Jr. The non-observance of the flag ceremony does not totally constitute ignorance of patriotism and civic consciousness. If the congregation adopts the majority rule then the majority should prevail.R." The respondent Judge. Isabelo De los Reyes Jr. persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds. Petitioner claims that he was not properly removed as Supreme Bishop and his legal successor was Juan Jamias.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. SY ’06-‘07 . Margarito Gonzaga was elected as Municipal Mayor in Alburquerque. In the case at bar. Gonzaga’s right to the office. 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. G. then that should be followed. it doesn’t present any danger so evil and imminent to justify their expulsion. soldiers in active service. or contractors for public works of the municipality. G.R. Petitioner. TELECOM [86 SCRA 413. The legitimate Supreme Bishop of IFI is Isabelo De los Reyes. COURT OF APPEALS [96 PHIL 417. in sustaiing Fr. 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. had been elected as the Supreme Bishop. FONACIER VS. Love for country and admiration for national heroes. What the petitioner’s request is exemption from flag ceremonies and not exclusion from public schools. 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. if it adopts adherence to duly constituted authorities within the congregation. represented by its supreme bishop Gerardo Bayaca. the Court. 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. Also. Expulsion is ANNULLED. also an aspirant for said office. health and interests where State has right to prevent.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests religious freedom is the existence of grave and present danger to public safety. 28 JAN 1955] Facts: Case was filed by Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI). Jr. 34854. Bohol. CFI rendered judgment declaring Isabelo De Los Reyes. citing Watson v. civic consciousness and form of government are part of the school curricula. morals. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED. PAMIL VS. Held: Supreme Court affirmed CA’s decision.

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

only practicing Muslims are qualified to slaughter animals for food. the actual need to certify food products as halal and also due to halal food producers' request.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. properly labeled and safe. Page 104 Section 1-C. On 2001. orient manufacturers on halal food and issue halal certifications to qualified products and manufacturers. 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. The RISEAP accredited petitioner to issue halal certifications in the Philippines. respondent Office of the Executive Secretary issued EO 465 creating the Philippine Halal Certification Scheme and designating respondent OMA to oversee its implementation. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [405 SCRA 497. Inc. like herein petitioner. petitioner began to issue. Thus the conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized for it constitutes an exemption to the law based on her right to freedom of religion. A government agency like herein respondent OMA cannot therefore perform a religious function like certifying qualified food products as halal. 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. Also. provided it does not offend compelling state interests. certifications to qualified products and food manufacturers. According to petitioner. especially to Muslim communities. Unlike EO 46. classifying a food product as halal is a religious function because the standards used are drawn from the Qur'an and Islamic beliefs. respondent OMA has the exclusive authority to issue halal certificates and perform other related regulatory activities. ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. In that same year. for a fee.GR 153888. SY ’06-‘07 . these laws do not encroach on the religious freedom of Muslims. 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. 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. By giving OMA the exclusive power to classify food products as halal. Petitioner even adopted for use on its halal certificates a distinct sign or logo registered in the Philippine Patent Office. Petitioner alleges that. Without doubt. (IDCP) is a corporation that operates under Department of Social Welfare and Development. In the case at bar. the State has in effect forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah on halal food. 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. This benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion. petitioner formulated in 1995 internal rules and procedures based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah for the analysis of food. 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. among the functions petitioner carries out is to conduct seminars. Issue: Whether or Not EO violates the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State. we find no compelling justification for the government to deprive Muslim organizations. inspection thereof and issuance of halal certifications. 9 JUL 2003] Facts: Petitioner Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines. Assuming arguendo that the OSG has proved a compelling state interest. entity or scholars can lawfully and validly perform for the Muslims. Thus. 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. by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications. Thus. Under the EO. a non-governmental organization that extends voluntary services to the Filipino people.

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

It is measured alone by the extent of the circulation of the publication in which the advertisements are carried. 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. The court ruled in favor of the newspaper companies hence the appeal. as this court has said. 231 of the Louisiana Legislature. Freedom of speech and of the press are rights of the same fundamental character. GROSJEAN VS. The suit assailed Act No. In such case the Executive Branch seeks judicial aid in preventing publication. does not permit an invasion of the constitutional immunity against restraint. Page 106 Section 1-C.000 copies per week. It is not measured or limited by the volume of advertisements. First. Nor can it be said that the constitutional freedom from previous restraint is lost because charges are made of derelictions which constitute crimes. and. as it could be if valid it well might result in destroying both advertising and circulation. Judge Cooley has laid down the test to be applied: The evils to be prevented were not the censorship of the press merely. 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. The form in which the tax is imposed is in itself suspicious. The word 'liberty' contained in that amendment embraces not only the right of a person to be free from physical restraint. NEW YORK TIMES VS. The tax here involved is bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appellees. A free press stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. SY ’06-‘07 . This is plain enough when we consider that. by virtue of the very reason for its existence. its effect is to curtail the amount of revenue realized from advertising." Said articles reveal the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war. Issue: Whether or Not Act 23 unconstitutional. and the business as a nuisance. [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. does not depend. if it were increased to a high degree.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests discussion in the press. second. its direct tendency is to restrict circulation. and not in proceedings to restrain the publication of newspapers and periodicals. It is bad because. Characterizing the publication as a business. find their remedies for false accusations in actions under libel laws providing for redress and punishment. as their freedom of the press was abridged in contravention to the due process clause. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy. 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 preliminary freedom. The Act operates as a restraint in a double sense. 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. safeguarded by the due process of law clause. Held: Yes. with the plain purpose of penalizing the publishers and curtailing the circulation of a selected group of newspapers.S. but the right to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties as well. on proof of truth. AMERICAN PRESS CO.

there being the substantive evil of elections. 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. being debased and degraded by unrestricted campaigning. 1967.” It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force. 4880 could indeed be looked upon as a limitation on the preferred rights of speech and press. Fernandez there are two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction on freedom of speech. It is Page 107 Section 1-C. 18 APR 1969] Facts: RA 4880 which took effect on June 17. the U. Petitioner Cabigao was. 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. 1967. Tañada was asked to appear as amicus curiae. whether for national or local officials. violence. excess of partisanship and undue concentration in politics with the loss not only of efficiency in government but of lives as well. or unlawfulness. COMELEC [27 SCRA 835. Respondents contend that the act was based on the police power of the state. SY ’06-‘07 . the basic liberties of free speech and free press. It provides the criterion as to what words may be publicly established. on the other hand. or prior restraints. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. then such words are punishable. of assembly and of association. The Philippine Bar Association. It has the advantage of establishing according to the above decision a definite rule in constitutional law. and elucidated that Act No. freedom of assembly and freedom of association are invoked to nullify the act. Law Center and the U. would render the constitutional rights of petitioners meaningless and without effect. He did justify its enactment however under the clear and present danger doctrine. 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. prohibiting the too early nomination of candidates and limiting the period of election campaign or partisan political activity was challenged on constitutional grounds. Held: Yes. at the time of the filing the petition. The language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news. As held in Cabansag v. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force. The danger to be guarded against is the 'substantive evil' sought to be prevented. Held: Yes. 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. petitioner Gonzales. in the absence of clear and present danger to the state. Issue: Whether or Not RA 4880 unconstitutional. These are the “clear and present danger” rule and the 'dangerous tendency' rule. More precisely.P. Senator Lorenzo M.P. 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. injunctions. a registered voter in the City of Manila and a political leader of his co-petitioner. Women Lawyers' Circle were requested to give their opinions. L-27833. is a private individual.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or not the freedom of the press was abridged. the Civil Liberties Union.R." No branch of government could abridge the people's rights granted by the Constitution including the freedom of the press. whatever the source. without censorship. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. The first. G. GONZALES VS. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. violence. or unlawfulness be advocated.

Held: Yes. Sr. Religious dogmas and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers." On November 28. Mendez reversing the decision of the respondent Board. unclean they may be. SY ’06-‘07 . Any act that restrains speech is accompanied with presumption of invalidity. 19861 in relation to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. 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. its act of censorship will be struck down. The board contended that it outrages Catholic and Protestant's beliefs. The program presents and propagates petitioner's religious beliefs. The prohibition of any speeches. however. 119. As in the case of freedom of expression.. Amante. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. 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. 121 and 128. 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. “attack” is different from “offend” any race or religion. This is true in this case. RTC’s ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. So-called "attacks" are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. As the author Tañada clearly explained. 1992. except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. 128 which allowed it through a letter of former Executive Secretary Edelmiro A. The very idea of a government. 119. announcements or commentaries. In their Answer. 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. or the undertaking of any campaign literature or propaganda for or against any candidate or party is repugnant to a constitutional command. respondent Board invoked its power under PD No. Under our constitutional scheme. it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. 119673. the Page 108 Section 1-C. It cited its TV Program Series Nos. it appealed to the Office of the President the classification of its TV Series No. this right is not to be limited. 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. NO. COURT OF APPEALS [259 SCRA 529. CA however reversed it hence this petition. 115. 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.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. If it fails to discharge this burden. 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. Petitioner also filed Civil Case.R. 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. especially the fanatics. Petitioner submitted to the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television the VTR tapes of 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. doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with other religions. republican in form. 116. 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. dishonesty and corruption as well as violence that of late has invariably marred election campaigns and partisan political activities in this country. G. much less denied. It is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. against the solicitation of votes whether directly or indirectly. Issue: Whether or Not the "ang iglesia ni cristo" program is not constitutionally protected as a form of religious exercise and expression. addressed for Henrietta S. 121 and 128.

television and print political advertisements. 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. its impact cannot be measured. including religious speech. being a neophyte in the field of politics stands to suffer grave and irreparable injury with this prohibition. and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger. 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. the expression becomes a statement by the owner. should lean in favor of freedom. COMELEC [207 SCRA 712." A system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. Section 1. public or private. and the causal connection between the speech and the evil apprehended cannot be established. ADIONG VS. 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. 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. The determination of the question as to whether or not such vilification. In addition. The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like cars and other moving vehicles does not endanger any substantial government interest. the petitioner believes that with the ban on radio. 2347 which provides that decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas. and orderly elections. local officials and COMELEC.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. Held: The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's fundamental right of free speech. Issue: Whether or Not the COMELEC’s prohibition unconstitutional. to convince others to agree with him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it placed on his private vehicle. 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. Article III of the Bill of Rights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. a senatorial candidate in the May 11. The restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizen's private property. 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. unless the speech is first allowed. primarily his own and not of anybody else. prohibiting posting in "mobile" places. G. Allegedly. he. and if the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the constitutionally sanctioned objective. another cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution would be violated. cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil. The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and. 103956. by displaying it on his car. 31 MAR 1992] Facts: COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 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. 1992 elections now assails the Resolution. The basis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas. NO.R. which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle. 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. even if said religion happens to be the most numerous church in our country. place or manner of speech. Prior restraint on speech. if it cuts off the flow of media reporting. SY ’06-‘07 . if it restricts one's expression of belief in a candidate or one's opinion of his or her qualifications. Page 109 Section 1-C. In consequence of this prohibition. Respondent board cannot censor the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other religions. the police. Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong. 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. honest.

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. NO. By virtue of the operation of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution. Further. 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. 66461 invades and violates the constitutional guarantees comprising freedom of expression. because it selects and singles out for suppression and repression with criminal sanctions.e. without regard to the level of financial resources that one may have at one's disposal.R. Moreover.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. 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.. US VS. It is principally argued by petitioners that Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. Section 11 (b) as designed to cover only paid political advertisements of particular candidates. is clearly an important value. function and duty to provide adequate channels of public information and public opinion relevant to election Issue. 731. 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. COMELEC [201 SCRA 1. It is asserted that the prohibition is in derogation of media's role. political parties and programs of government. and programs and so forth. Section 11 (b) is limited in its applicability in time to election periods. media-based election or political propaganda during the election period of 1992. their qualifications. "during the election period. SY ’06-‘07 . and taxpayers and voters who claim that their right to be informed of election Issue and of credentials of the candidates is being curtailed. 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 limiting impact of Section 11 (b) upon the right to free speech of the candidates themselves is not unduly repressive or unreasonable. 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. 8 MAR 1918] Page 110 Section 1-C. Section 11 (b) is not to be read as reaching any report or commentary other coverage that. The Court considers that Section 11 (b) has not gone outside the permissible bounds of supervision or regulation of media operations during election periods. L-12592.R. 6646 constitutional. in responsible media. G." 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. opinions and beliefs are not in fact advertisements for particular candidates covertly paid for. equality of opportunity to proffer oneself for public office. One of the basic state policies given constitutional rank by Article II. It seems a modest proposition that the provision of the Bill of Rights which enshrines freedom of speech. 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. Issue: Whether or Not Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. their qualifications. so long at least as such comments. BUSTOS [37 PHIL. G. petitioners contend that Section 11 (b) abridges the freedom of speech of candidates. 1026653. Petitioners maintain that the prohibition imposed by Section 11 (b) amounts to censorship." In our own society. is not paid for by candidates for political office. 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. namely. NATIONAL PRESS CLUB VS. Held: Yes. only publications of a particular content. In sum. two (2) individuals who are candidates for office (one for national and the other for provincial office) in the coming May 1992 elections.

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

as superintendent of Western Police District of the City of Manila. Plaintiff also filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against indiscriminate seizure. and his movie production company. reproduction and/or exhibition of his name. It is easier said than done to say. 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. 2. appropriation. 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. 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 proposed motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was endorsed by the MTRCB as and other government agencies consulted. and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure.R. petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was deleted from the movie script. The court provides that the authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge. film or other medium for advertising or commercial exploitation. 29 APR 1988] Facts: Petitioner McElroy an Australian film maker. and petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion picture. 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. if in their opinion an obscenity seizure is in order and that. Ayer Productions. and utilizing actual documentary footage as background.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. David Williamson is Australia's leading playwright and Professor McCoy (University of New South Wales) is an American historian have developed a script. confiscation and burning of plaintiff's "Pinoy Playboy" Magazines. or picture. L-82380. they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography. envisioned. for commercial viewing and for Philippine and international release. However. publishers and sellers of obscene publications. 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. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed obscene. pending hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction. The Court granted the temporary restraining order. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure violative of the freedom of expression of the petitioner. and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press." Another is whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. SY ’06-‘07 . or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television production. AYER PRODUCTIONS VS. 1. the pictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection. Using the Kottinger rule: the test of obscenity is "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene. by way of a search warrant. It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour mini-series television play. The case was set for trial upon the lapse of the TRO. CAPULONG [160 SCRA 861. a complaint was filed by Enrile invoking his right to privacy. The question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge’s sound discretion. 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. Enrile declared that he will not approve the use. G. artistic and educational magazine which is not per se obscene. This was affirmed by the CA. However. NO. the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. that if the pictures here in question were used not exactly for art's sake but rather for commercial purposes. presented in a "docu-drama" style. RTC ruled that the seizure was valid." 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. Ramos also signified his approval of the intended film production. creating four fictional characters interwoven with real events. as indeed we have laws punishing the author. sometime in 1987.

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

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

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

the State in pursuing its mandate to protect the public from obscene. 1982. This is without prejudice to the taking of disciplinary action for conduct. along with other students. 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. QUI)." The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed students of educational institutions.M. Playhouse. 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. Copies of New Rave Magazines with nude obscene pictures.R. there was an infringement of the right to peaceable assembly and its cognate right of free speech. "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. Erotic. Copies of IOU Penthouse Magazine with nude obscene pictures. The same day. immoral and indecent materials must justify the regulation or limitation. MALABANAN VS. NO. Student leaders are likely to be assertive and dogmatic. Fernando Music Fair (Music Fair) in Quiapo. The penalty was suspension for one academic year. they were informed that they were under preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an illegal assembly. Necessarily. 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. Gallery. 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. It was outside the area covered by their permit. Held: No. 1982.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Acting on reports of sale and distribution of pornographic materials. d. Rave. the place indicated in such permit. As obscenity is an unprotected speech which the State has the right to regulate. They were asked to explain on the same day why they should not be held liable for holding an illegal assembly. the utmost leeway and scope is accorded the content of the placards Page 118 Section 1-C. Petitioners were charged and convicted. and Sports. they held a general assembly at the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science basketball court (VMAS).M. to 12:00 P. G. Then on September 9. Hence this petition. Held: Yes. As a corollary. SY ’06-‘07 . no clear and present danger of public disorder is discernible. 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. has a right to present. on August 27. they marched toward the Life Science Building and continued their rally. Copies of Hustler International Magazine with nude obscene pictures. Issue: Whether on the facts as disclosed resulting in the disciplinary action and the penalty imposed. Swank. b. not in the basketball court as therein stated but at the second floor lobby. 21 MAY 1984] Facts: Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of respondent University. c. They sought and were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from 8:00 A. CA affirmed the decision hence this appeal. Penthouse. They would be ineffective if during a rally they speak in the guarded and judicious language of the academe. 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. But with the activity taking place in the school premises and during the daytime.62270. (Kottinger Rule Applied). which they deemed pornographic. Even they rallied beyond the period allowed. officers of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in the National Capital Region conducted police surveillance on the store Gaudencio E. and Copies of VHS tapes containing pornographic shows. Culture. RAMENTO [129 SCRA 359. Pursuant to such permit. Issue: Whether or Not the CA erred in affirming RTC’s decision.

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

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

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests and of petition for redress of grievances — over property rights has been sustained. To regard the demonstration against police officers. The more the participants. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of expression. the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally. 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. then by that much the circulation of the Issue raised by the demonstration is diminished. is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression. If demonstrators are reduced by one-third. Moreover. SY ’06-‘07 . stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement. not against the employer. of peaceful assembly and of petition. 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. Page 121 Section 1-C.

FEATI BANK [94 SCRA 533. payment of his obligation cannot be enforced until after the lapse of eight years. The moratorium is postponement of fulfillment of obligations decreed by the state through the medium of the courts or the legislature. a first mortgage has been constituted in favor of the plaintiff. Its essence is the application of police power. Esteban failed to pay the two installments as agreed upon.L-3708. 1952. and she shall not be entitled to take or remove soil. developing and selling lots to the public. ESTEBAN [93 PHIL 68. and Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles. 1943. This holds true as regards Executive Orders Nos. “No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. declared that the continued operation and enforcement of RA 342 at the present time is unreasonable and oppressive. Esteban claims that this is a prewar obligation contracted and that he is a war sufferer.800 were paid outright. The parcel of land shall be used exclusively for residential purposes. ORTIGAS VS. entered into separate agreements of sale on installments over two parcels of land of the Subdivision. the plaintiff executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Emma Chavez. All buildings and other improvements (except the fence) which may be constructed at any time in said lot must be. and the balance was made payable as follows: P2. particularly the Highway Hills Subdivision along EDSA. Issue: Whether or Not RA 342 unconstitutional on non-impairment clause grounds. but whether the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end and the measures taken are reasonable and appropriate to that end. Sec. On March 4.800. 2. with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum. stones or gravel from it or any other lots belonging to the Seller. SY ’06-‘07 .600 of which P4.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE Art 3. fairness and righteousness.L-24670. On July 19. Upon completion of payment of the purchase price.” RUTTER VS. 1962. A motion for recon was made which assails the constitutionality of RA 342. The question is not whether the legislative action affects contracts incidentally. 14 DEC 1979] Facts: Plaintiff is engaged in real estate business. Held: Yes. plaintiff. To secure the payment of said balance of P4. having filed his claim with the Philippine War Damage Commission for the losses he had suffered as a consequence of the last war.1941 Rutter sold to Esteban two parcels of land situated in the Manila for P9. and that under section 2 of RA 342(moratorium law).400 on or before August 7. (b) provided with Page 122 Section 1-C. The complaint also contains a prayer for sale of the properties mortgaged in accordance with law. the interest due and the attorney's fees. However based on the President’s general SONA and consistent with what the Court believes to be as the only course dictated by justice. The complaint was dismissed. 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. (a) of strong materials and properly painted.400 on or before August 27. The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts. 1942. and P2. or directly or indirectly. 18 MAY 1953] Facts: On August 20. and should not be prolonged should be declared null and void and without effect. 10. NO. as vendor. 25 and 32. Both the agreements (of sale on installment) and the deeds of sale contained the stipulations or restrictions that: 1. the said vendees transferred their rights and interests over the aforesaid lots in favor of one Emma Chavez. as well as the interest that had accrued and so Rutter instituted an action to recover the balance due. NO. as vendees.

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

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

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. The 1st 32 cases were filed on july 25. This declaration is only a basis of Section 4 of the Act. 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. NO. 2. And does not violate the constitutional provision against ex post facto law. Subversive Organizations besides the CPP.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. On Mach 16. In case of CPP. the continued pursuance of its subversive purpose. 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. Accdg to the RPC suspension from employment and public office during trial shall not be considered as a penalty.L-61861. The court did not make any judgment on the crimes of the accused under the Act. while Bayot ran for municipal mayor of Amadeo Cavite and was elected on January 1980. BAYOT VS. The EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL justifies the limitation to the exercise of “Freedom of Expression and Association” in this matter. 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 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. with some other employees from the said ministry. SANDIGANBAYAN [128 SCRA 383. if acquitted the official who is suspended shall be entitled to reinstatement and the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. careful investigations by the Congress were done. 1982 Batas Pambansa Blg 195 was passed amending RA 3019. 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 Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the TRIAL COURT. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. In fact. 1987. 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. The court set basic guidelines to be observed in the prosecution under RA1700. Membership is willfully and knowingly done by overt acts. It is not a penalty because it is not a result of a judicial proceeding. Issue: Whether or Not it would be violative of the constitutional guarantee against an ex post facto law. 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. is a penal provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto law.L-61776 TO NO. Membership is willfully and knowingly done by overt acts. Held: The court finds no merit in the petitioner’s contention that RA 3019 as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg 195. the following elements must also be established: 1. Before the enactment of the statute and statements in the preamble. In addition to proving circumstances/ evidences of subversion.

SY ’06-‘07 . period of prescription was 10 years. amending Sec.R. NO.1986 and December 9. Agusan del Sur. 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. 3326. G. being a special law the computation of the period for the prescription of the crime is governed by Sec. 1982. 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. Now the motion to quash was being assailed. BP 195 which was approved on March 16. Additionally. He misrepresented to a Lands Inspector of the Bureau of Lands that the lands subject herein are disposable lands. 101724. On August 10. a political leader of Governor Valentina Plaza. RA 3019. Plaza as OIC/provincial Governor of Agusan del Sur on March 1986 The complaint questioned the issuance to Governor Paredes. 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. PEOPLE VS. 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. 1976. SANDIGANBAYAN [211 SCRA 241. as it is prejudicial to the accused. 29 of Act No. 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. 1986. Held: Yes. therefore it has prescribed in 1986. thereby inducing said inspector to recommend approval of his application for free patent. Page 126 Section 1-C. Said motion was granted. The crime was committed on January 21. 3 JUL 1992] Facts: Two letter complaints were filed with the Tanodbayan by Teofilo Gelacio on October 28. wife of Congressman Democrito Plaza of Agusan del Sur. 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. shortly after private respondent had replaced Mrs. Issue: Whether or Not the motion to quash validly granted. which begins to run from the day of the commission of the crime and not the discovery of it.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests from office.

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

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

” CAUNCA VS. owned by Julia Salazar. 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. for her to work as a maid. 18. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851. regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid. which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave. freedom to transfer from one place to another.L-2690. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. NO. Sec. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. respondent herein. Page 129 Section 1-C. has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. “(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. freedom to choose one’s residence. to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. However. Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence. to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed. Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion. which was disallowed by the employment agency. to founded or groundless fear. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE Art 3. 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.

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

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

He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. Ramos pleaded not guilty. is actually put to the witness. petitioner was not.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests should then and there be assisted by counsel. SY ’06-‘07 . The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. MAQUEDA [242 SCRA 565. Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and statement of accused. Held: No. Page 132 Section 1-C. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense. incriminatory in character. G. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. 7 JUL 1989] Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines. or to refuse to testify altogether. no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. JUDGE AYSON [175 SCRA 216.000.112983. On the right to due process." the right can be claimed only when the specific question. in any way. Hence this appeal. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76.” It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry. 2) nor force. The findings of the Audit team were given to him. whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena. unless he waives the right. and to be informed of such right. assigned at its Baguio City station. G. It is a right that a witness knows or should know. PEOPLE VS. NO. This is accorded to every person who gives evidence. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and statement. It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged. PEOPLE VS.R. or administrative proceeding. to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed. 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. as he was duly represented by a counsel.R. 85215. Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right against self-incrimination (only to witnesses other than accused. Arizona: the rights of the accused include: 1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. intimidation. He must claim it and could be waived.not present in case at bar). the PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. deprived of this substantive and constitutional right. in any civil. 22 MAR 1994] Facts: shall be used against him. and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. violence. The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself. or any other means which vitiates the free will 3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. threat. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial. but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. NO. and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. It cannot be claimed at any other time. and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. criminal. only that he chose not to. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline.

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

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

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

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

they went to the factory of the Zesto Juice (owned by the father of Eduardo Macam) for him to get his payment (50. Manoc-Manoc Malay. Samsonite attache case. Any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. typewriter. assorted jewelry. The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant.C. G. Also. He and his brother was suddenly apprehended by the security guards and brought to the police headquarters in Q. CAS-997. CO2 refiller. Ernesto Roque. he went with the accused inside the house to have lunch." at Sitio Angol. Nilo and Salvacion was also stabbed but survived. E. Wherefore. A. . A police line-up is considered a “critical” stage of the proceedings. Things taken: 2 toygun. betamax tapes. in handcuffs and bore contusions on their faces caused by blows inflicted in their faces during investigation. Instead of paying him. with caliber . 700.00) . On the following day. After a while Leticia was brought to the bathroom and after she screamed she was stabbed and killed by A. They tied up the wife (Leticia Macam). Issue: Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated. When Eugenio Cawilan pulled a gun and announced the hold-up. chessboard. Cawilan and D. Upon hearing such phrase he escaped and went home using his tricycle. Upon arriving. Aklan (Boracay) situated on the Island which Page 137 Section 1-C. 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. Held: It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before trial. PEOPLE VS. Roque remained in the tricycle. TOYOTA Crown Car Plate No. Eduardo Macam grabbed the clutch bag of Benito Macam and pulled out his uncle’s gun then declared a hold-up. Benito asked his maid Salvacion Enrera to call the companions of Eduardo who were waiting in a tricycle outside the house. After which. After all the accused had taken their lunch. the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant’s identification at the line-up. was brought to the QC General Hospital before each surviving victims and made to line-up for identification. children. together with his brother. 23 FEB 1988] Facts: Pat. 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”. accused did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up. SY ’06-‘07 . Benito. maid (Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara and brought them to the room upstairs.38 as suspect to the shooting incident at "Benny's Bar. he was asked to gather some things and which he abided out of fear. Eugenio Cawilan was also charged with Anti-fencing Law but was acquitted in the said case. 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. Benito invited the former to have lunch.R. airgun riffle. WON the arrest was valid. DY [158 SCRA 111. Cedro. TV. betamax rewinder. WON the evidence from the line-up is admissible.00. Thereafter he washed the dishes and swept the floor.00. HOWEVER. Cedro. 74517. 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. he was given a calling card by Eduardo Macam so that he can be paid the following day. The total value of the items taken was P536. Roque entered the house while E. decision of lower court is Affirmed. The witnesses identified the accused again in open court. 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.22 gun and money. while remaining outside the house served as a looked out.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Ferma Road QC. The court believed the version of the prosecution. Upon the arrival of the accused. he together with all the accused. HOWEVER. Padilla reported along with Benny Dy. They were also forced to admit certain things.

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

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

SY ’06-‘07 .79269. (c) the Court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. (b) the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged. that is. JUDGE DONATO [198 SCRA 130. and Bantug’s son. DE GUZMAN [224 SCRA 93. In the case at bar. gunshots were fired in succession. several gunmen approached them. and at the backseat are his mother in law. However. Furthermore. The other three informations charged them with the murder of Francisco Carteciano y Sorilla and Antonio S. Major Carteciano took his . 98321-24. Nuñez demanded Lorna to give Nuñez her husband’s pistol. May 9. Lorna. However. and (d) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished. WHEREFORE. and his wife Lorna were hit. Jr. while Victor Nuñez was found guilty. 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. and the other co-accused were acquitted only because there was reasonable doubt. and he should not be convicted with the charges filed. Private respondent filed with a Motion to Quash alleging that: (a) the facts alleged do not constitute an offense. with costs against accusedappellant PEOPLE VS. neighbor Bantug. the civil indemnity imposed by the trial court should be increased to P50. Then the gunmen hijacked another jeep and took off. her mother Juanita Ricaplaza. 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.45 cal pistol and fired.the right to counsel attaches only upon the start of an investigation. Near the intersection. body.R. Therefore. so he cannot question the credibility of the witnesses. Nuñez shot Major Carteciano’s head point blank. G.000 in conformity with our recent rulings on the matter. gunshots were heard from the left side of the street. accused-appellant is still convicted of the four charges against him. Cebu City where he was stationed as medical officer of the PC/INP Provincial Command. In the front seat with him is his wife Lorna.000. 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. At such point or stage. the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in all other respects. he is estopped from questioning the validity of his arrest. therefore. the Supreme Court held that-. son. when accused was subjected to a paraffin test. brother Francisco. Lorna identified Nuñez as the one who shot her husband.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests PEOPLE VS. Nuñez pleaded not guilty at the arraignment. he was not then under custodial investigation. When the jeep stopped. then their acquittal negates conspiracy among them. the Court held that conspiracy was still proven by the evidence. Regarding his right to counsel. Issue: Whether or not the accused Nuñez’s constitutional right was violated Held: No. Accused-appellant also argued that since his coaccused were acquitted. 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. and the frustrated murder of Lorna V. 5 JUN 1991] Facts: Private respondent and his co-accused were charged of rebellion on October 2. The facts shown by evidence are: One morning. Then. Major Antonio Carteciano was driving his private jeep Camp General Arcadio Maxilom in Lahug. NOS.R. We. G. 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. Carteciano. and her son Reiser Carteciano positively identified the accused. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused. This was denied. and skull. The witnesses also positively identified the accused. Therefore. The other 8 accused were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. his brother Francisco. 1986 for acts committed before and after February 1986. 1987 Page 140 Section 1-C. to the heirs of each victim who died is hereby increased to P50. The victim Jose Bantug was found with gunshots in the head. Lorna asked to take her valuables instead. except for the modification that the civil indemnity to be paid by accusedappellant Victor Nuñez. However. NO. Carteciano. Jose Bantug. and Major Carteciano.

the Acting Executive Judge of said court issued an order of arrest against Escaño recommending no bail for his provisional liberty. whereas his co-detainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be released immediately. We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. 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. Bail in the instant case is a matter of right. 6968 approved on 24 October 1990. Republic Act No. Accused validly waived his right to bail in another case(petition for habeas corpus). 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. morals. therefore prosecution has no right to present evidence. 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.00 was offered and paid for his arrest. Cainoy. 942 and 1834 amending ART. However it was wrong for the Judge to change the amount of bail from 30K to 50K without hearing the prosecution. Pursuant to Ministry Order No. The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and was an escapee from detention when arrested. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Respondent filed a petition for bail. It was contended that: 1. among others. providing a penalty of reclusion perpetua to the crime of rebellion. Judge Donato now granted the bail. On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order No. a reward of P250. 3.000. MAGLALANG [196 SCRA 41. 4. 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. is not applicable to the accused as it is not favorable to him. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. Four days later. Cesar Diego who acted on the warrant returned to the court with a certification issued by NBI agent Gonzales. which was opposed that the respondent is not entitled to bail anymore since rebellion became a capital offense under PD 1996. 942 and 1834 and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees. Pat. P. Said petition for HC was dismissed. SY ’06-‘07 .000. 19 APR 1991] Facts: On January 8. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law. 1-A dated 11 January 1982 . Hence the appeal. 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. He was not arrested at his residence as he had no known address.D. It is only when it is a capital offense that the right becomes discretionary. that in view of the finding of NBI agents that the other accused and Page 141 Section 1-C. stating therein that accused was still under investigation. Kawit. 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. or good customs. Cavite. 135 of RPC. 1987. public policy. Issue: Whether or Not the private respondent has the right to bail. 187 repealing. CARPIO VS. The address he gave "Panamitan. or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. there was a waiver. 6. This however was denied. Through counsel Rolando T. 1996. G. He and his companions were on board a private vehicle with a declared owner whose identity and address were also found to be false. which was fixed at P30. with a condition that they will submit themselves in the jurisdiction of the court.R. Ergo. 5. It is absolute since the crime is not a capital offense. public order. This was granted. (Chairman of CPP-NPA) 2. 78162. Nos. NO. Held: Yes." turned out to be also a false address.

in the summary proceeding on a motion praying for admission to bail. Escaño's counsel Rolando T. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. G. 25 JUN 1993] Facts: Page 142 Section 1-C. 1987 that "capital punishment" in Section 4. the public prosecutor averred that the accused was charged with a capital offense for which no bail may be availed of. the order is defective and voidable. in the exercise of said discretion. however. Section 13. also without a warrant.000. the court should spell out at least a resume of the evidence on which its order granting or denying bail is based. the applicable provisions of the Constitution and the statutes. he was represented by counsel. NO. and that during the custodial investigation. thereafter.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. are the exceptions to the rule that the right to bail should be made available to all accused. by the rules which this Court may promulgate. Article III of the Constitution explicitly provides that "(a)ll persons. that Mayor Payumo was killed on August 20. 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. resolved the application for bail pursuant to Section 13. Otherwise. Also. it was for the best interest of Escaño that he be detained at the NBI lock-up cell where security measures were adequate. The order granting bail had been rendered moot not only by the fact that he had been released from NBI custody. second. Issue: Whether or Not the order granting right to bail was proper. 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. the Court resolved the issue of the legality of the order granting bail to Escaño. 1986 when the 1973 Constitution allowing the death penalty was still in force and that the application for bail was made on March 5. by those principles of equity and justice that are deemed to be part of the laws of the land. and concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not "sufficiently strong" to deny bail to Escaño. In the case at bar the RTC erred in not summarizing the factual basis of its order granting bail. The RTC has the discretion in the consideration of the strength of the evidence at hand. the prosecution should be afforded procedural due process. when evidence of guilt is strong. the court is controlled by the following: first. The court granted the application for bail fixing the same at P30. Article III. Cainoy filed an application for bail stating that Escaño was arrested by NBI agents on December 7. Held: No. The facts. Thus. the court should have proceeded accordingly: i. that said agents. and third." As the phrase "capital offenses" has been replaced by the phrase "offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua. 1987 during the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution which abolished the death penalty. shall before conviction. Article III of the Constitution. Notwithstanding. alleging that he did not authorize his counsel to execute the first motion. and that during the custodial investigation. Rule 114 has been amended to reclusion perpetua. 25 crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua instead of those punishable by the death penalty.. that he was subjected to inhuman torture and forced to admit participation in the killing of Mayor Payumo and to implicate other persons. that the reasons advanced in said application would be overcome by strong and sufficient evidence. Director Carpio was ordered to justify his actions and so as not to be considered in contempt. be bailable by sufficient sureties. All it had to do was to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong in the light of the provision of Section 13.R. 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. the prosecution should be given the opportunity to present evidence and. As the court itself acknowledged in its order of April 2.e. However another motion was executed by Escaño stating that he now wants to be detained in the NBI. should not have gotten in the way of resolving the application for bail in accordance with the Constitution and procedural rules. he was not represented by counsel. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. the court merely stated the number of prosecution witnesses but not their respective testimonies. but also because Escaño jumped bail and did not appear on the date set for his arraignment. 90643. SY ’06-‘07 . having found no sufficient evidence against accused. in the judicial determination of the availability of said right. searched his house when he was arrested. 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. However. FORTES [223 SCRA 619. Although the right to bail is principally for the benefit of the accused. In opposing said application.

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

if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason. Issue: Whether or Not the right to bail a matter of right. Felipe Villanueva. denied the motions to quash the complaints. 1982. In G. 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.R. G. The City Judge of Dagupan City. G. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. VILLANUEVA [77 SCRA 377. MANOTOC VS. 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. Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right.R. the petition is granted. he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. of Judges Camilon and Pronove. in G. 96948. L-62100. SY ’06-‘07 . 93177. 30 MAY 1986] Facts: Petitioner was charged with estafa. and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are hereby reversed and set aside. Nos. On the contention that they had not been charged after more than one year from their arrest. In G. 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. 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. No costs. Petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. No. both trial judges denied the same. NOS.R. 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.R. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. respectively. Indeed. There is no indication that the business transactions cannot be undertaken by any other person in his behalf. 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. Petitioner has not shown the necessity for his travel abroad. Accordingly. the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. He posted bail. prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other bodies and on petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto. denying his leave to travel abroad. COURT OF APPEALS [142 SCRA 149. NO." stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States. Thus. The right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist." The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing. 95020 and 97454. CALLANTA VS. "relative to his business transactions and opportunities. the petitions are also granted. petitioner Page 144 Section 1-C. as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission. "motion for permission to leave the country. No. The right to bail invoked by the private respondents has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the military.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.R. there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process and the right to a speedy trial. 24646 & L-24674. 20 JUN 1977] Facts: Two complaints for grave oral defamation were filed against Faustina Callanta. and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to exercise the right of peremptory challenge under article 18 of the articles of war.

Due process (Procedural) and right to speedy disposition of trial were violated.000. there was jurisdictional infirmity. 3019 against then Secretary of Public Information Francisco S. departing from established procedures prescribed by law for preliminary investigation. the 1974 complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan. L-72335-39. Held: Based on many precedent cases of the Supreme Court. Presidential Security Command. SANDIGANBAYAN [159 SCRA 70.00 from Roberto Vallar. The City Fiscal in this case did not disagree with the judge’s investigation. Firstly. On December 12. 1980 which was around two months after petitioner Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. the complaint came to life. It was denied hence the appeal. because she posted the bail bond. SY ’06-‘07 . The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on April 1. 3019 for giving D' Group. After the issuance of the warrants of arrest and the bail fixed at P600. Five criminal informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 12. advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions. as it were. containing charges of alleged violations of Rep. Marcos by referring the complaint to the CIS. (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. paragraph (e) of RA. he has waived whatever defect. thus obtaining her provisional liberty. Restraining order issued by the Court is lifted and set aside. 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. According to the Charter of the City of Dagupan. 1982. In the case at bar. 1985 that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan. all affidavits and counteraffidavits were in the case was already for disposition by the Tanodbayan. in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest”. without regard to the limits of punishment. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. (1) Section 3. 1985. a private corporation controlled by his brother-in-law. and may release. Petitioner questions the validity of the issuance of warrant of arrest by respondent. NOS. paragraph (b) for receiving a check of P125. Held: YES. for investigation and report. 1980. it is futile for the petitioner to question the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. 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. Antonio de los Reyes.000. “the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense. Act No. recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against former Minister Tatad and Antonio L. However. unwarranted benefits. Petition for certiorari is denied. the CIS report was submitted to the Tanodbayan. Cantero. According to petitioner’s counsel. all against petitioner Tatad alone. or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court”.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Callanta brought the suits for certiorari in the Supreme Court. the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Page 145 Section 1-C. 21 MAR 1988] Facts: The complainant. On June 16.00 to said corporation for printing services rendered for the Constitutional Convention Referendum in 1973. (2) Violation of Section 3. if any. Petitioner also erred in arguing that only the City Fiscal can conduct a preliminary investigation. President/General Manager of Amity Trading Corporation as consideration for the release of a check of P588. it was only on June 5. only after petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos. Secondly. TATAD VS. which require the submission of affidavits and counter-affidavits by the complainant and the respondent and their witnesses. 1979.R. “where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper. Tatad. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s contentions are to be given merit. originally filed what he termed "a report" with the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) on October 1974. and agreed with the complaints filed. 1976 and 1978. G. arguing that the City Fiscal should have conducted the preliminary investigation. By October 25. petitioner posted the bail bond.

the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse. Held: Page 146 Section 1-C. on the other hand. Aquino could have shot him. The law (P. 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). He was killed from his plane that had just landed at the Manila International Airport. SY ’06-‘07 . the instant case had become moot and academic. 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. 911) prescribes a ten-day period for the prosecutor to resolve a case under preliminary investigation by him from its termination. Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining respondent court from rendering a decision in the two criminal cases before it. " while the chairman's minority report would exclude nineteen of them. Marcos stated that evidence shows that Galman was the killer. Then Pres. it can not be disregarded or ignored completely. the Court resolved by nine-to-two votes 11 to issue the restraining order prayed for. However. 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. 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. justice and freedom.72670.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Presidential Security Command for finding investigation and report. But ten days later.D. SANDIGANBAYAN [144 SCRA 43. 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. petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. 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. Hence. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. NO. with absolute impunity. declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability. not a communist plot. 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. No. G. resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the TRO issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. Thus. Jr. and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. Respondents submitted that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal. 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. same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired pointblank into the back of his head by an assassin. While we agree with the respondent court that this period fixed by law is merely "directory.R." yet. 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. that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy. respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the accused of the crime charged. Whether or not there was a violation of the double jeopardy clause. Only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. 12 SEP 1986] Facts: Assassination of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino. GALMAN VS. Thereafter.

A conference was held in an inner room of the Palace. not a source of wonder that President Marcos would want the case disposed of in a manner consistent with his announced theory thereof which. The assignment of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran. presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see the President. Pres. no evidence at all that the assignment was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle. therefore. Herrera. in the case at bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth. There was no double jeopardy. According to J. Marcos expressed his thanks to the group and uttered 'I know how to reciprocate'. therefore. The courts would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice. 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. such a procedure would be a better arrangement because. More so was there suppression of vital evidence and harassment of witnesses. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are void. Malacañang wanted dismissal to the extent that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel. It was." 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. 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. would clear his name and his administration of any suspected guilty participation in the assassination. the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential directive. 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. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was clearly obvious. Also predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total absolution of the twenty-six respondents-accused of all criminal and civil liability. and after an agreement was reached. 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." 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. in legal effect. The custody of the accused and their confinement in a military camp. mag moro-moro na lamang kayo. Marcos came up with a public statement aired over television that Senator Aquino was killed not by his military escorts. "This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst. The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15 months later when former Pres. It neither binds nor bars anyone. petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the TRO enjoining the Page 147 Section 1-C. During the conference. The conferees were told to take the back door in going to the room where the meeting was held. More so. No double jeopardy attaches.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. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant Justice Lazaro were with the President. Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead. Courts' Resolution of acquittal was a void judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. The disappearance of witnesses two weeks after Ninoy's assassination. but by a communist hired gun. "nobody was looking for these persons because they said Marcos was in power. at the same time. 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. Pres. By it no rights are divested. decided that the presiding justice. except the uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran himself. Justice Pamaran. 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. (First Division) would personally handle the trial." Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. instead of in a civilian jail. Marcos told them 'Okay.' and that on their way out of the room Pres. 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. deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth. A void judgment is. no judgment at all. if the accused are charged in court and subsequently acquitted. and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake. The monitoring of proceedings and developments from Malacañang and by Malacañang personnel. In this case. In rendering its decision. SY ’06-‘07 .

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

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

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

823. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his claims.R.596.07 which was not met. Ocampo. PEOPLE VS. 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. upon demand by an authorized officer shall be a prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use. 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 able to pay only P10. The equipoise rule(balancing test) which is the presumption of innocence is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balance. being a private person. Corpuz did not deny such facts but he insists that the shortage was malversed by other persons. in which case the scale of justice should be tilt in favor of the accused. and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. There is no such balance in the case at bar. G. which no evidence was presented to indict the latter. section 3 of ROC that : “If the defendant appears without attorney. He alleged that Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks while he was of leave. was not proven.” This was violated. Wherefore his petition is denied. Also. he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned. 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. HOLGADO [85 PHIL 752. Post-Audit is not a preliminary requirement to filing a malversation case. Also.L-2809. Moreso the guarantees of our Constitution that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law". the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. The presumed innocence must yield to the positive finding that he is guilty of malversation. Issue: Whether or Not Corpuz is guilty of malversation. Rule 112." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. a case of malversation was filed against him. After a final demand letter for the total of P50..159. Held: Yes. He pleaded guilty (without a counsel) and said that he was just instructed by Mr. The failure of the public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions of Mr. Corpuz claim that he was absent when Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks. The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of the qualified plea of accused. he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive.50. 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. and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. On April 13. SY ’06-‘07 .00. Acting Deputy Provincial Treasurer Bernardo Aluning made to post the amount on his cashbook although he had not received the said amount. The Certificate of turnover revealed a shortage of P72. 1981 his designation as Acting Supervising Cashier was terminated and a transfer of accountabilities was effected between him and his successor. He was convicted in Sandiganbayan. Apparently the court became satisfied with the fiscal's information Page 151 Section 1-C. Issue: Whether or Not there was any irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests government accounts. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. Ocampo was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. He is guilty as principal of Malversation of Public Funds.

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. In the course of the investigation. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. resetting of hearing by the court for alleged reception of evidence when in fact none was conducted. Rivera was reappointed that day as de officio counsel for arraignment purposes only. 12 AUG 1983] Facts: Soon after appellant was apprehended on August 20. hence this instant petition. G. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner.R. The case was actually set and rescheduled for six (6) times. Held: YES. was assigned to investigate. 31 JUL 1984] Facts: Tan was accused of qualified theft. The desire to speed up the disposition of cases should not be effected at the sacrifice of the basic rights of the accused. the hearing was re-set for the next day and the court appointed Atty. Issue: Whether or Not the investigation conducted by the petitioner can be regarded as contract or transaction within the purview of . On that date. despite a second call of the case. Citing People vs.3019. SY ’06-‘07 .San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests that he had investigated Mr.3019).RA.4000 from Tan as price for dismissing the case. 1970. SANDIGANBAYAN [131 SCRA 184. La Union.R. so Atty.A. Mere pro-forma appointment of de officio counsel. who was an Asst. and he had supplied the other half. Atty. 1970. SORIANO VS. Fiscal. for failure of the de officio and de parte counsels to appear. first of which was on August 1. Held: Page 152 Section 1-C. perfunctory queries addressed to the accused whether he understands the charges and the gravity of the penalty. 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. But above all. Appellant was found guilty of murder and made to suffer the death penalty. 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. Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the rights of the accused. petitioner demanded Php. despite appointment by the court of Atty. his arraignment was scheduled before the Criminal Circuit Court of San Fernando. 1970 on motion of Atty. NO. who fails to genuinely protect the interests of the accused. On the third hearing date. Tan reported it to the NBI which set up an entrapment. After trial. Prior to the next hearing. 1970. neither the de parte nor the de officio counsel was in Court. Rivera.L-32888. 1970. MAGSI [124 SCRA 64. Dominador Cariaso de officio counsel for the accused. 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. to assure the court that the accused has not misunderstood the nature and effect of his plea of guilty. Rivera moved to withdraw as de officio counsel and it was favorably acted on by the court on September 7. G. the severity of the consequences attached thereto as well as the meaning and significance of his plea of guilty. PEOPLE VS. At the second hearing on September 8. marked bill. Tan was given a Php. hearing was re-set to September 8.L-65952. the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as a principal in violating the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R. Mario Rivera as de officio counsel for the accused. NO. are not sufficient compliance. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan.2000. who was prompted to ask for it because of accused desire to be represented by a de parte counsel. and that the prudent and proper thing to do in capital cases is to take testimony.

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

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

RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE TV OF TRIAL OF JOSEPH ESTRADA [360 SCRA 248. SALAS [143 SCRA 163. PEOPLE VS. conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. Nevertheless. San Nicolas. Sarino and. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed 180 days from the 1st day of trial. 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. jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred to win. Mexico. Trial shall commence within 30 days from arraignment as fixed by the court. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history. along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. both Page 155 Section 1-C. sit in the available seats. 1992. where a plea of not guilty is entered. Thereafter. NO. where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. this does not apply. on the other hand. 29 JUL 1986] Facts: At about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of March 6. It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public. where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded. 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. within the courthouse. she was last seen alive at about 3:00 o'clock early morning of March 6. Cesar N. whichever date last occurs. Pampanga.R. 8493 “THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT” The arraignment of an accused shall be held within 30 days from filing of the information. or from the date the accused has appeared before the justice. NO 01-4-03-SC. REPUBLIC ACT NO. a 60 year old woman. but in this case. Issue: Whether or Not live media coverage of the trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests bar another prosecution for the same offense. the order of dismissal is annulled and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come. L-66469. the accused shall have at least 15 days to prepare for trial. The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public information.M. 1992 by Orlando Pangan and Richard Pangan who were with her going home coming from the wake of one Leonardo Flores. An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him. A. Estrada should be permitted by the court. except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." The request was seconded by Mr. 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. 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. identified as Virginia Talens was found lying dead in a canal at Bo. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. 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. more than anyone else. 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. judge or court in which the charge is pending. SY ’06-‘07 . still later. G. Therefore. When these rights race against one another.

one Ramil Talens.00 from her other pocket. Ana. to the exclusion of all other persons. the purse of Virginia containing about P2. All the circumstances established must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one and fair and reasonable conclusion pointing solely to the accused. However. Aguda who autopsied the victim found hematoma on the head and chest. Pampanga where one Elmer Salas was the victim and was hospitalized at the district hospital at Arayat. he returned only on September 19. the parents of [the] accused were informed by Investigator Gonzales that their son was the suspect and adviced them to surrender him. Police investigators found human bloodstains on the front door of appellant's house. Appellant was nowhere when his co-worker and barrio mate. as the author of the crime. 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.00 money. one Serafia Gutierrez. accused had been working for three days before March 6 at Sta. 1992. Orlando Pangan heard a shout. an abrasion on the left chin and stabwound on the neck which stabwound. Pampanga. Pampanga where he was ultimately apprehended by the Mexico Police on September 22. 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. 1992 in going to the wake. 1992 when accused left Mexico. either to the robbery or to the homicide and none of the things allegedly stolen were ever recovered. Mexico. Pampanga. 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. Ana. however. was the cause of death of the victim. 1992 he gave her mother for safekeeping the sum of P1. 1992. 1992. the doctor claims. and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other possible. appellant did not present himself to the authorities. 1992. 1992.m. of March 6.00 as in the morning of March 5. earring. Pampanga where he used the name of Rommel Salas and not Elmer Salas. Despite efforts of the police to find appellant as the principal suspect. Eduardo Bagtas. his residence since childhood. a fact known to appellant's family and neighbors. Pampanga. 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. a ring and P135.m. He was not seen again from said date. testified that she likewise was awakened by a shout at about 3:00 in the morning.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. Virginia likewise gambled at the wake. 1992 after chancing on a radio message by the police of Arayat to their Provincial commander that a vehicular incident occurred at Arayat. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction. Pampanga and up to March 5. Held: There was no eyewitness or direct evidence. one Resultay was with Virginia Talens at about 5:00 afternoon of March 5.00 bill but as she had no change she instead took P8. consistent with the theory that the accused is guilty of the offense charged. but since March 6.000. the victim's wristwatch.00 was no longer to be found when she was found dead. Whether or Not the appellant’s crime homicide or robbery with homicide.000. in weight and probative value. on his clothing. Ana. The facts and circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence can constitute evidence which. 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. Orlando Pangan saw the accused gambled in the wake. 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. but the following day. all the circumstances must be consistent with each other. of March 6. the date of the crime. may be deemed to surpass even direct evidence in its effect on the court. on March 6. another woman. and on his yellow slippers after the victim was killed.00 which he claims his mother placed in her purse and claims further that at the wake. a son of the victim corroborated the claim of Resultay that Virginia had with her at that time money worth P2. just a few minutes after reaching his house and while inside his house. Police Investigator Gonzales who immediately responded upon report. not at Mexico. 1992 at Arayat. he asked and was given P50. leaving behind an unfinished painting project. he likewise found on March 9. SY ’06-‘07 . rational hypothesis excepting that of guilt. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free. Dr. Appellant hastily abandoned his house in Barrio San Nicolas. he did not anymore report for work at Sta. came to appellant's house to fetch him for work at around 6:30 to 7:00 a. Appellant also abandoned his job as a painter in Sta.00 by his mother as he also participated in the gambling thereat. Pampanga. on that very date. Appellant was apprehended Page 156 Section 1-C.500. Pampanga. recovered at the scene a pin.

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

ACABAL [226 SCRA 694 . the court has jurisdiction over Magumnang. and allowing her to be burned inside said house which was burned to the ground. thereby causing upon said Rizalina Apatan Silvano her death and burning her beyond recognition. 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. did then and there willfully. then presided over by Judge Pacifico S. Silvano.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests the trial in absentia continued as to him. Magumnang was presumed innocent during his trial in absentia. For the wounding of the victim Wilson A. that is reclusion perpetua taking into account Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. G. 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. Municipality of Sta. Catalina. MACARIO ACABAL and ABUNDIO NAHID. and for all the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30. before it could commence. Philippines. at Nagbinlod. Facts are as follows: "That sometime in the evening of the 28th of January. 1980. 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. Bulado. per Judge Pacifico S. NO. the penalty now for murder is Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua. The testimonies of the witnesses were retaken. conspiring and confederating with one another. the accused. Thus. 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. After the completion of the re-taking of the testimonies of the witnesses in Branch 37. Criminal Case No. the accused JUANITO RISMUNDO. considering the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of nighttime. unlawfully and feloniously attack. left leg hacked behind the knee. The reason is that the lower court has jurisdiction over Magumnang the moment the latter was in custody. The decision of the trial court. Bulado. to wit: 'right leg amputated below the knee. abdomen hacked with viscerae evacerated. dated 31 October 1991 but promulgated on 20 December 1991.' and did then and there set the house on fire while the aforementioned Rizalina Apatan Silvano was inside said house trying to escape therefrom. and Magumnang were all held guilty as principal by direct participation of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. the penalty impossable [sic] here will be in its maximum degree. In addition. a fire gutted the building where Branch 37 was located and the records of these two cases were burned. 4585 for the killing of Rizalina ApatanSilvano having been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. Province of Negros Oriental. 4584 and 4585 were re-raffled to Branch 33 of the trial court. Its rulings are found in the last two paragraphs which read as follows: "The elements of murder in this case. the abuse of superior strength. 23 SEP 1993] Facts: The accusatory portion in the information for murder. Held: The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The records were subsequently reconstituted upon petition of the prosecuting fiscal. this Court believes that simple frustrated homicide only is committed by the accused Engracio Valeriano only. Magpalao. the Constitutional mandate was not violated. Since all the requisites of trial in absentia are complete.R. however. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of parties but until the case is terminated. Ompa. with intent to kill. including several 'John Does'. contained no specific dispositive portion. But on 16 May 1987. An alias warrant for his arrest was issued on 26 June 1989. PEOPLE VS. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. and with treachery and evident premeditation and being then armed with bolos and 'pinuti'. 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. Criminal Cases Nos. 103604.000. but he remains at large up to the present. SY ’06-‘07 .00) Pesos since this case occurred [sic] in 1980.

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

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

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

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. As it was stated on the requirements of a valid defense of double jeopardy it says: That there should be a valid complaint. 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. PEOPLE VS. SY ’06-‘07 . 1975. another case was filed against Mr. convicted or dismissed or otherwise terminated without express consent of the accused in which were all present in the case at bar. when the proceedings have been reasonably prolonged as to violate the right of the accused to a speedy trial. 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. it was done with the consent of the accused therefore waiving there defense of double jeopardy.062. 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. 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. where in the case was dismissed. 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. On Nov 24. 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.L-45129. In the 2 requisites given. It was also mentioned that the accused pleaded not guilty and during the time of trial. 6 MAR 1987] FACTS: In this petition for certiorari and mandamus. The accused on the other hand. RELOVA [149 SCRA 292.. Relova quashing an information for theft filed against Mr. NO. Millan and Jochico which was filed at a competent court with jurisdiction on the said case. Issue: Page 164 Section 1-C. 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. They discovered electric wiring devices have been installed without authority from the city government and architecturally concealed inside the walls of the building.R. There was indeed a valid.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. G. Opulencia filed a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. Issue: Whether or Not the grant of petition by the court would place the accused Sensio.Opulencia. Batangas police together with personnel of Batangas Electric Light System. People asserts that the plea of double jeopardy is not tenable even if the case at bar was dismissed because according to them. Opulencia on the ground of double jeopardy and denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.16. Before arraignment. 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.1 1975. 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. Said devices are designed purposely to lower or decrease the readings of electric current consumption in the plant’s electric meter. On Feb. 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. legitimate complaint and concern against the accused Sensio. 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. 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. People of the Philippines seeks to set aside the orders of Respondent Judge Hon.

Opulencia. 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.R. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. owing that the first charge constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the second charge was a violation against the revised penal code. In the case.16. Sometime later Judge Pogoy issued an order setting the trial Aug.1979 but the fiscal informed the court that it received a telegram stating that the complainant was sick. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . would place the accused in double jeopardy Held: Yes. On Oct. During arraignment.24. 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. For double jeopardy to exist these three requisites should be present. The fact that Mr. G. ESMENA VS. Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy as defense for the second offense because as tediously explained in the case of Yap vs Lutero. NO. Held: Yes. L-54110. Issue: Whether or Not the revival of grave coercion case. 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. 20 FEB 1981] Facts: Petitioners Esmeña and Alba were charged with grave coercion in the Court of Cebu City for allegedly forcing Fr. conviction of the accused. 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. as the case filed was grave coercion. there is a valid complaint or information filed second. In the case at bar. it was very evident that the charges filed against Mr.1979. 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. Page 165 Section 1-C. petitioners pleaded “Not Guilty”. all three conditions were present. It further explains that even if the offenses charged are not the same. The accused invoked their right to speedy trial. 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 bill of rights give two instances or kinds of double jeopardy. 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. accused Esmeña and Alba filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of double jeopardy. 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. When these three conditions are present then the acquittal. Mr. that one.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not the accused Mr. 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. In the case at bar. No trial came in after the arraignment due to the priest’s request to move it on another date.

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

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

1988. 4. SY ’06-‘07 . Sec. FRIVALDO VS. and the Omnibus Election Code. On October 27. His election did not cure this defect because the electorate of Sorsogon could not amend the Constitution. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. filed with the COMELEC a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo. 1988. Held: The reason for this inquiry is the provision in Article XI. of Filipino mothers. 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. The ultimate purpose was to prevent Frivaldo from continuing as governor. Sorsogon Chapter. As an alien. G. Estuye. His naturalization. 1. Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election on January 18. 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. 5. (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. 1973. 1983. In their Comment. Sec. having been naturalized in the United States on January 20.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests CITIZENSHIP Art. 23 JUN 1989] Facts: Petitioner Juan G. NO. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with 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. (3) Those born before January 17. COMELEC [174 SCRA 245. He was therefore not qualified to run for and be elected governor." He added that he had returned to the Philippines after the EDSA revolution to help in the restoration of democracy. the Local Government Code. represented by its President. and assumed office in due time. Sec. Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. 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. under the law. unless by their act or omission they are deemed. who was also suing in his personal capacity. he said. 3. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship. 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. he was disqualified from public office in the Philippines. as provincial governor of Sorsogon. 1988. 4 Sec. 1988. election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. his candidacy and election being null and void ab initio because of his alienage. Speaking for the public respondent. 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. 2. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22. the League of Municipalities. and (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. 1988.R. was "merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Law Dictator's agents abroad. 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. 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. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. to have renounced it. In his answer dated May 22. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner Juan G. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3). 87193. Section 9. Sec.

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful