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

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

cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). The main facts are not disputed. Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon. G. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid. SY ’06-‘07 . 9 Nov 1967] Facts: The case is an original action for prohibition. SANTIAGO VS. without implementing legislation the same cannot operate.R. GONZALES VS. L-28196. therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. Alexander Padilla. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right. COMELEC [270 SCRA 106. Jesus Delfin. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision. No. 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. 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. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention. as it would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as the synchronization of elections. The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision. (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid. COMELEC [21 SCRA 774.127325. 2 of the 1987 Constitution. considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative. 19 Mar 1997] Facts: Private respondent Atty. 2. Held: Sec.R. filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials. It has been an established rule that what has been delegated. Sec. president of People’s Initiative for Reforms. Public Interest Law Center. No. considering the Court’s decision in the above Issue. Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. A revision cannot be done by initiative. and prohibiting political dynasties. He based this petition on Article XVII. the people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation. the issue of whether or not the petition is a revision or amendment has become academic. and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. No such law has been passed. Issue: Whether or not Sec. 2. At the hearing. is void. Art. the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right to people’s initiative. The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. not to revision thereof. thus. On March 16. However. the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions: Page 5 Section 1-C. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision. G. must first comply with the constitution before complying with RA 6735 Petition is dismissed. through People’s Initiative. the IBP. Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory. with preliminary injunction. Modernization and Action (PIRMA). 1967. 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. Senator Roco. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of the Constitution. the constitutional guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 (2). PCGG [225 SCRA 568. PCGG. that the extent the powers of Congress are impaired. Based on the foregoing. These are purely executive powers. 96541. and as long as a valid warrantless arrest is present. in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces. representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.R. 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. Manson and Woods International. the assets subject of auction were historical relics and had cultural significance. the Commission on Audit through then Chairman Eufemio C. Mateo A. SY ’06-‘07 . then President Aquino. as Members of Congress. and. 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. PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction in the U. After the oral arguments of the parties on 9 January 1991. 24 Aug 1993] Facts: On 9 August 1990. vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18.302. Page 12 Section 1-C. through Chairman Caparas. Suplico et al. 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. It sustained its decision in Philippine Constitution Association v. Whether or not the Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware are embraced in the phrase "cultural treasure of the nation"..T. Article VII.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests assertion that the President acted without factual basis. The fear on warrantless arrest is unreasonable. and Sen. 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. Article VI.. so is the power of each member thereof. then Chairman of PCGG. No. requesting her for authority to sign the proposed Consignment Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines through PCGG and Christie. On 14 August 1990. 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. and SJS Officers/Members have no legal standing to sue. Enriquez. since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. JOYA VS.86 were turned over to the Bureau of Treasury. petitioners Sanlakas and PM.604. the sale at public auction proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of $13. 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. wrote then President Corazon C. Jr. have standing to challenge the subject issuances. 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. through former Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig. Aquino. hence. On 15 August 1990. On 26 October 1990. 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.S. Issue: Whether or not petitioners have legal standing. their disposal was prohibited by law. Pimentel. 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. The issue of usurpation of the legislative power of the Congress is of no moment since the President. According to the agreement. signed the Consignment Agreement with Christie's of New York. On 11 January 1991. Only petitioners Rep. the contract was highly disadvantageous to the government. Caparas. G. was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. his relatives and cronies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The donated amount was spent for such purpose. by virtue of a royal decree granted the plaintiff certain mines. 1189 known as Internal Revenue Act. 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. Negros Occidental.. contending that they were valid perfected mine concessions and it falls within the provisions of sec. for the construction of a new Catholic church in the locality. imposition of the gift tax was valid. 1958. and predecessor of Fr. so the plaintiff appealed. donated 10.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Facts: Sometime in 1957. The plaintiff paid under protest. Held: The deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and the plaintiff. The plaintiff is now the owner of those mines. Estate Inc. Page 43 Section 1-C. 9. 1960. 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. 3473.00 pesos in cash to Fr. Sec. of Bacolod City. M. CASSANOVAS VS. Held: Yes. Issue: Whether or not the imposition of gift tax despite the fact the Fr. No. SY ’06-‘07 . Issue: Whether or Not Sec. 134 of the Internal Revenue Law infringing sec. 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. The obligation of which contract was impaired by the enactment of sec. 5 of the Act of Congress which provides that “no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted”. 600 paid by him as taxes. Judgment reversed. Catholic Parish priest of Victorias did not have juridical personality as the constitutional exemption for religious purpose is valid. He brought an action against the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue to recover the sum of Php. HORD [8 Phil 125. Lladoc. Estate filed the donor's gift tax return. 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. 164 is void or valid. the parish priest of Victorias. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. The Collector of Internal Revenue imposed tax on the properties. A gift tax is not a property by way of gift inter vivos. On March 3.B. the donor M.B.134 of Act No.000. Under date of April 29. Crispin Ruiz. 22 Mar 1907] Facts: The Spanish Govt. Lladoc was not the Parish priest at the time of donation.

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

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

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

the COMELEC is without power to partially or totally annul a proclamation or suspend the effects of a proclamation without notice and hearing. If ever the law infringes upon the said treaty. Mediator-Arbiter Rodolfo S. hence. as petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to present its side. However. PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORP. Page 47 Section 1-C. the instant petition alleging denial of due process on the part of the DOLE to which the mediator-arbiter was under. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or. 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. as applied to administrative proceedings.98050.R. Inc. SY ’06-‘07 . RA 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. (PMPI for brevity). Moreover. G.). ICHONG VS. accountants. L-7995. the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China was violated according to him. Issue: Whether or Not there was denial of due process. analysts. 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. Issue: Whether or Not Republic Act 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. insisted on a hearing to confront and examine the witnesses of the other party. petitioner had all the opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its appeal to the Secretary of Labor. mechanics.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Reyes vs. Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an order granting the petition and directing the holding of a certification election among the "supervisory. 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. etc. 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. and confidential employees. This was protested by the petitioner in this case. PHILPHOS appealed the order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment who rendered a decision through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma dismissing the appeal. professional (engineers. PHIL. petitioner could have. filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner. COMELEC and Gallardo vs. 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. According to him. technical. The said law provides for a prohibition against foreigners as well as corporations owned by foreigners from engaging from retail trade in our country. nurses. the said law violates the international and treaty of the Philippines therefore it is unconstitutional. excluding therefrom the superintendents and the professional and technical employees. NO. there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process. HERNANDEZ [101 PHIL 1155. if it so desired. Specifically. midwives. 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. instead it opted to submit its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter. It was also then provided that police power can not be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract. Milado issued an order directing the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner. TORRES [231 SCRA 335. VS. Held: According to the Court. 31 MAY 1957] Facts: Republic Act 1180 or commonly known as “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” was passed. But it did not. COMELEC. PHILPHOS moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. 17 MAR 1994] Facts: Philphos Movement for Progress. Besides. Held: There was no denial of due process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. DUMLAO VS. The guarantee of equal protection is subject to rational classification based on reasonable and real differentiations. employees 65 years of age have been classified differently from younger employees. Order No. provided that: 1. because of the special risk to which their class was exposed. 2. G. Dept. There is no question that Order No.52 is unconstitutional being contrary to the equal protection and due process rights. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392. 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. Deployment ban of female domestic helper is a valid exercise of police power.1 applies only to female contract workers but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. 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. When an official has retired he has already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same government work. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILS.R. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. Issue: Whether or Not Sec.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 former are subject to compulsory retirement while the latter are not. VS. SY ’06-‘07 . Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. as the right to travel is subjects among other things. WHEREFORE. L-52245. Held: No. 21 APR 1998] Facts: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines. 4 of BP. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE with rule making powers. 3. 4. the classifications made. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. Inc. 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. 1 does not impair the right to travel. to the requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by law. The consequence of the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right. 132922. Held: SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid classification. the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid. It was declared to be Page 58 Section 1-C. 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. COMELEC [289 SCRA 337. It admits of classification. NO. 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. rest on substantial distinctions. 22 JAN 1980] Facts: Petitioner questions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 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. the Filipino female domestics working abroad were in a class by themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason: Discourage entry under false pretenses. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also found. The “Operation Report” read that Andrew Harvey was found together with two young boys. Richard Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room. go through a mock marriage. Under Section 13 just quoted. a native-born Filipino citizen. They were apprehended 17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID in Pagsanjan. Chan Sau Wah married Esteban Morano. first.000 pesos. 1962.69 of Revised Administrative Code. she must depart voluntarily to some foreign country.Recently we confirmed the rule that an alien wife of a Filipino may not stay permanently without first departing from the Philippines. In a letter dated August 31. This Court in a number of cases has ruled. 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. Such a flanking movement. China. the Commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her son. since her entry. both minors. Therefore. to leave the country on or before September 10. G. 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. 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. Chan Sau Wah. 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. he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond. 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. Jr. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation.R. 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. 1962 with a warning that upon failure so to do. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO [162 SCRA 840. and third. Laguna. 58. HARVEY V. Issue: Whether or Not the issuance of the warrant of arrest is unconstitutional. Also. but actually live with another man as husband and wife. She is a nonimmigrant.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests wah arrived in the Philippines with Fu Yan Fun. another charged not for pedophile but working with NO VISA. On 4 March1988. It will not particularly help analysis for petitioners to appeal to family solidarity in an effort to thwart her deportation. 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. We cannot insulate her from the State's power of deportation. marry a Filipino. seemingly is not one who has a high regard for such solidarity. Page 73 Section 1-C. Born to this union on September 1962 was Esteban Morano. Held: Chan Sau Wah entered the Philippines on a tourist-temporary visitor's visa. ply a pernicious trade. and again throw overboard Sections 9 and 13 of the Act. The gravamen of petitioners' argument is that Chan Sau Wah has. 1962. Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles. Chan Sau Wah and Fu Yan Fun obtained several extensions. Esteban Morano. deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under Sec. and thereby skirt the provisions of our immigration law. Proof: She left two of her children by the first marriage. it would be an easy matter for an alien woman to enter the Philippines as a temporary visitor. 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. On January 1962. 82544. is impermissible.Then. her minor son also by the first marriage. second. The last extension expired on September 10. Fu Yan Fun. 28 JUN 1988] Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. To prolong their stay in the Philippines. she must procure from the appropriate consul the proper visa. a woman of undesirable character may enter this country. No breadth of discretion is allowed. the 3 petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. Petitioners are the following: American nationals Andrew Harvey. One released for lack of evidence. Dutch Citizen Adriaan Van Den Elshout. married in Manila a native-born Filipino. we are confident. This is a field closed to judicial action. SY ’06-‘07 . 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. and consistently too. NO. in the care of neighbors in Fukien.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

then that should be followed. Also. FONACIER VS. Jones. What the petitioner’s request is exemption from flag ceremonies and not exclusion from public schools. also an aspirant for said office. ruled that the Page 102 Section 1-C. Petitioner claims that he was not properly removed as Supreme Bishop and his legal successor was Juan Jamias. civic consciousness and form of government are part of the school curricula. the Students expelled were only standing quietly during ceremonies. The 30 yr old previous GERONA decision of expelling and dismissing students and teachers who refuse to obey RA1265 is violates exercise of freedom of speech and religious profession and worship. In the case at bar. Margarito Gonzaga was elected as Municipal Mayor in Alburquerque. Jr. If the congregation adopts the majority rule then the majority should prevail. The expulsion of the students by reason of their religious beliefs is also a violation of a citizen’s right to free education. Held: Supreme Court affirmed CA’s decision. Love for country and admiration for national heroes. that Isabelo De los Reyes and Bayaca have abandoned their faith and formally joined the Prostestant Episcopal Church of America. 34854. PAMIL VS. or contractors for public works of the municipality. By observing the ceremonies quietly. soldiers in active service. The non-observance of the flag ceremony does not totally constitute ignorance of patriotism and civic consciousness. 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. 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. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . TELECOM [86 SCRA 413.R. Petitioner. Therefore. in sustaiing Fr. Expulsion is ANNULLED. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED. expulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified. L-5917. morals.R. CFI rendered judgment declaring Isabelo De Los Reyes. Isabelo De los Reyes Jr. Jehovah’s Witnesses may be exempted from observing the flag ceremony but this right does not give them the right to disrupt such ceremonies.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. 28 JAN 1955] Facts: Case was filed by Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI). if it adopts adherence to duly constituted authorities within the congregation. 20 NOV 1978] Facts: Fr. health and interests where State has right to prevent. represented by its supreme bishop Gerardo Bayaca. G. The expulsion of the petitioners from the school is not justified. COURT OF APPEALS [96 PHIL 417. the Court. persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds. had been elected as the Supreme Bishop. G." The respondent Judge. The legitimate Supreme Bishop of IFI is Isabelo De los Reyes. Jr. He claims that the there was an accounting of his administration and was turned over to bishop Jamias. 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. Gonzaga’s right to the office. citing Watson v. Bohol. it doesn’t present any danger so evil and imminent to justify their expulsion.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests religious freedom is the existence of grave and present danger to public safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If demonstrators are reduced by one-third. not against the employer. Page 121 Section 1-C. To regard the demonstration against police officers. of peaceful assembly and of petition. The more the participants. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of expression. 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. Moreover. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests and of petition for redress of grievances — over property rights has been sustained. stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement.

A motion for recon was made which assails the constitutionality of RA 342.600 of which P4. declared that the continued operation and enforcement of RA 342 at the present time is unreasonable and oppressive.800.1941 Rutter sold to Esteban two parcels of land situated in the Manila for P9.L-24670. and the balance was made payable as follows: P2. The moratorium is postponement of fulfillment of obligations decreed by the state through the medium of the courts or the legislature. 1952. ORTIGAS VS. payment of his obligation cannot be enforced until after the lapse of eight years. and she shall not be entitled to take or remove soil. 2. plaintiff. 25 and 32. ESTEBAN [93 PHIL 68. stones or gravel from it or any other lots belonging to the Seller. FEATI BANK [94 SCRA 533.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE Art 3. 14 DEC 1979] Facts: Plaintiff is engaged in real estate business. and Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles.” RUTTER VS. a first mortgage has been constituted in favor of the plaintiff. Esteban failed to pay the two installments as agreed upon. 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. On July 19. The question is not whether the legislative action affects contracts incidentally. as vendees. and P2. Sec. To secure the payment of said balance of P4. (b) provided with Page 122 Section 1-C. the said vendees transferred their rights and interests over the aforesaid lots in favor of one Emma Chavez. NO. or directly or indirectly. developing and selling lots to the public. 1962. SY ’06-‘07 . This holds true as regards Executive Orders Nos.L-3708. 18 MAY 1953] Facts: On August 20. Its essence is the application of police power. entered into separate agreements of sale on installments over two parcels of land of the Subdivision.400 on or before August 7. However based on the President’s general SONA and consistent with what the Court believes to be as the only course dictated by justice. 1942. particularly the Highway Hills Subdivision along EDSA. The complaint also contains a prayer for sale of the properties mortgaged in accordance with law. as vendor. having filed his claim with the Philippine War Damage Commission for the losses he had suffered as a consequence of the last war. The parcel of land shall be used exclusively for residential purposes. with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum. as well as the interest that had accrued and so Rutter instituted an action to recover the balance due. and that under section 2 of RA 342(moratorium law). All buildings and other improvements (except the fence) which may be constructed at any time in said lot must be. the interest due and the attorney's fees. Held: Yes. “No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. (a) of strong materials and properly painted. NO. and should not be prolonged should be declared null and void and without effect. The complaint was dismissed. Issue: Whether or Not RA 342 unconstitutional on non-impairment clause grounds. 1943. but whether the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end and the measures taken are reasonable and appropriate to that end. On March 4. Esteban claims that this is a prewar obligation contracted and that he is a war sufferer.400 on or before August 27. Both the agreements (of sale on installment) and the deeds of sale contained the stipulations or restrictions that: 1. Upon completion of payment of the purchase price. 10. The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.800 were paid outright. the plaintiff executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Emma Chavez. fairness and righteousness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. Sec. respondent herein. regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE Art 3. freedom to choose one’s residence. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another. 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. Page 129 Section 1-C. owned by Julia Salazar. 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. 1 JAN 1949] Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita Flores who was employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau.L-2690. has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851. 18. Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion. Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment. “(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed. NO.” CAUNCA VS. which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave. to founded or groundless fear. SY ’06-‘07 . for her to work as a maid. freedom to transfer from one place to another. However. which was disallowed by the employment agency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

their motion for reconsideration." Petitioners have a right to pre-emptory challenge. they filed instead a verbal motion for reconsideration which they were again asked to submit in writing. The petition was referred to RTC. On that date. 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. that before conviction bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3. the respondent courts have no authority to order their release and otherwise interfere with the court-martial proceedings. But once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong. Merelyn. The MCTC found him guilty. 95020. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. G. 1990. Whether or not there was a violation of the accused right to bail. Held: No. The RTC now declared that even military men facing court martial proceedings can avail the right to bail. the accused was apprehended and charged. If the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of discretion. Ltc Jacinto Ligot applied for bail on June 5.14. Petitioners now claim that there was no pre-trial investigation of the charges as mandated by Article of War 71. SY ’06-‘07 . Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court. first at the scheduled hearing of February 12. 93177. An appeal to RTC was filed. 1990. the trial court ordered their release. A bond of P25000 was granted for accused’s provisional release. 1990. Held: NO denial of due process. To that extent the right is absolute. A motion for dismissal was denied. 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. DE VILLA [200 SCRA 80. Province of Sorsogon. 2 AUG 1991] Facts: The petitioners in G. but the application was denied by GCM No. 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. Finding after hearing that no formal charges had been filed against the petitioners after more than a year after their arrest. bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. to the police station of the said municipality to report a rape committed against the latter by the accused. * The Regional Page 143 Section 1-C. to submit their counter-affidavits.R. This is without merit. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. and then again after the denial of their motion of February 21. COMMENDADOR VS. The private respondents in G. Nos. (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. Judge of GCM then granted the provisional liberty. However he was not released immediately. In G.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Agripino Gine of Barangay Naburacan.R. Issue: Whether or Not there was a denial of due process. the request for the fixing of bond was denied. Municipality of Matnog.R. Petitioners were given several opportunities to present their side at the pre-trial investigation. when they were given until March 7. 1989. 1990. Alleging denial of due process. Now. bail also becomes a matter of right. The court's discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. NO. It is clear from Section 13. Issue: Whether or Not the accused’s right to bail violated.R. No. 97454 filed with SC a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that they were being detained in Camp Crame without charges. as amended. No. He filed with the RTC a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for provisional liberty and a writ of preliminary injunction. Following this. accompanied his 13-year old daughter. Now accused assails denial of bail on the ground that the same amounted to an undue denial of his constitutional right to bail.

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

recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against former Minister Tatad and Antonio L. 1976 and 1978.00 to said corporation for printing services rendered for the Constitutional Convention Referendum in 1973. because she posted the bail bond. it is futile for the petitioner to question the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. By October 25. it was only on June 5. 3019 against then Secretary of Public Information Francisco S. Tatad. Firstly. Restraining order issued by the Court is lifted and set aside. In the case at bar.000. 1985. the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Page 145 Section 1-C. The City Fiscal in this case did not disagree with the judge’s investigation. (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. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. he has waived whatever defect. Due process (Procedural) and right to speedy disposition of trial were violated. and may release. 21 MAR 1988] Facts: The complainant. Secondly. originally filed what he termed "a report" with the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) on October 1974. NOS. “the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense. L-72335-39. 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. Petitioner questions the validity of the issuance of warrant of arrest by respondent. 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. According to petitioner’s counsel.00 from Roberto Vallar. arguing that the City Fiscal should have conducted the preliminary investigation. there was jurisdictional infirmity. Cantero. for investigation and report. petitioner posted the bail bond. 1985 that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan. On June 16. TATAD VS. According to the Charter of the City of Dagupan. President/General Manager of Amity Trading Corporation as consideration for the release of a check of P588. which require the submission of affidavits and counter-affidavits by the complainant and the respondent and their witnesses. Presidential Security Command. the CIS report was submitted to the Tanodbayan.R. “where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper. Marcos by referring the complaint to the CIS. On December 12. SANDIGANBAYAN [159 SCRA 70. Petition for certiorari is denied.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Callanta brought the suits for certiorari in the Supreme Court. all against petitioner Tatad alone. Act No. G. or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court”. 3019 for giving D' Group. thus obtaining her provisional liberty. paragraph (b) for receiving a check of P125. (2) Violation of Section 3. 1979. Antonio de los Reyes. only after petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos. the 1974 complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan. However. SY ’06-‘07 . Petitioner also erred in arguing that only the City Fiscal can conduct a preliminary investigation. if any. (1) Section 3. paragraph (e) of RA. all affidavits and counteraffidavits were in the case was already for disposition by the Tanodbayan.000. Held: Based on many precedent cases of the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s contentions are to be given merit. without regard to the limits of punishment. the complaint came to life. It was denied hence the appeal. 1980. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on April 1. and agreed with the complaints filed. 1980 which was around two months after petitioner Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. a private corporation controlled by his brother-in-law. in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest”. Held: YES. containing charges of alleged violations of Rep. 1982. 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. departing from established procedures prescribed by law for preliminary investigation. as it were. unwarranted benefits. advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions.

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

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

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

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

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

and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. Wherefore his petition is denied. being a private person. and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. Corpuz claim that he was absent when Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks. After a final demand letter for the total of P50. upon demand by an authorized officer shall be a prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use.159. HOLGADO [85 PHIL 752. 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.07 which was not met. he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive. section 3 of ROC that : “If the defendant appears without attorney." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. Also. Rule 112. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions of Mr. Acting Deputy Provincial Treasurer Bernardo Aluning made to post the amount on his cashbook although he had not received the said amount.823. He is guilty as principal of Malversation of Public Funds. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his claims. The Certificate of turnover revealed a shortage of P72. PEOPLE VS. in which case the scale of justice should be tilt in favor of the accused. Ocampo was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. G.50.” This was violated. Post-Audit is not a preliminary requirement to filing a malversation case. which no evidence was presented to indict the latter.596. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned. was not proven. Corpuz did not deny such facts but he insists that the shortage was malversed by other persons. Held: Yes. There is no such balance in the case at bar. He pleaded guilty (without a counsel) and said that he was just instructed by Mr. He alleged that Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks while he was of leave. The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of the qualified plea of accused.R. On April 13.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests government accounts. The presumed innocence must yield to the positive finding that he is guilty of malversation. 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. Also.L-2809. He was able to pay only P10. Ocampo. the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. 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. 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. a case of malversation was filed against him. The equipoise rule(balancing test) which is the presumption of innocence is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balance. He was convicted in Sandiganbayan. Moreso the guarantees of our Constitution that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law".00. 1981 his designation as Acting Supervising Cashier was terminated and a transfer of accountabilities was effected between him and his successor. Apparently the court became satisfied with the fiscal's information Page 151 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 . Issue: Whether or Not Corpuz is guilty of malversation.. The failure of the public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable. Issue: Whether or Not there was any irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court.

resetting of hearing by the court for alleged reception of evidence when in fact none was conducted. perfunctory queries addressed to the accused whether he understands the charges and the gravity of the penalty. marked bill. hence this instant petition. petitioner demanded Php. In the course of the investigation. 12 AUG 1983] Facts: Soon after appellant was apprehended on August 20. the hearing was re-set for the next day and the court appointed Atty. Tan was given a Php. PEOPLE VS. NO. Issue: Whether or Not the investigation conducted by the petitioner can be regarded as contract or transaction within the purview of . The petitioner. to assure the court that the accused has not misunderstood the nature and effect of his plea of guilty. G. 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. NO. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. who was an Asst.A. are not sufficient compliance. and that the prudent and proper thing to do in capital cases is to take testimony. the severity of the consequences attached thereto as well as the meaning and significance of his plea of guilty. Prior to the next hearing. who fails to genuinely protect the interests of the accused. despite appointment by the court of Atty. Fiscal. 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. hearing was re-set to September 8. Held: YES. G. At the second hearing on September 8. La Union. 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. who was prompted to ask for it because of accused desire to be represented by a de parte counsel. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Atty. Citing People vs. first of which was on August 1. 1970 on motion of Atty. 31 JUL 1984] Facts: Tan was accused of qualified theft. Dominador Cariaso de officio counsel for the accused. 1970.2000. was assigned to investigate. 1970. Mario Rivera as de officio counsel for the accused.L-32888. MAGSI [124 SCRA 64. his arraignment was scheduled before the Criminal Circuit Court of San Fernando. SY ’06-‘07 . The desire to speed up the disposition of cases should not be effected at the sacrifice of the basic rights of the accused. the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as a principal in violating the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.3019). Rivera was reappointed that day as de officio counsel for arraignment purposes only.L-65952. 1970. Tan reported it to the NBI which set up an entrapment. On the third hearing date. Mere pro-forma appointment of de officio counsel.R. Held: Page 152 Section 1-C. Rivera. 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. neither the de parte nor the de officio counsel was in Court. despite a second call of the case. Appellant was found guilty of murder and made to suffer the death penalty. 1970. SORIANO VS.3019. Rivera moved to withdraw as de officio counsel and it was favorably acted on by the court on September 7. On that date. and he had supplied the other half.4000 from Tan as price for dismissing the case. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan.R. After trial. The case was actually set and rescheduled for six (6) times. Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the rights of the accused. But above all. for failure of the de officio and de parte counsels to appear. SANDIGANBAYAN [131 SCRA 184.RA. so Atty.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests that he had investigated Mr.

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

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

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

Appellant was apprehended Page 156 Section 1-C. 1992 when accused left Mexico. of March 6. just a few minutes after reaching his house and while inside his house. Pampanga where he used the name of Rommel Salas and not Elmer Salas. testified that she likewise was awakened by a shout at about 3:00 in the morning.00 by his mother as he also participated in the gambling thereat. a fact known to appellant's family and neighbors. Pampanga where he was ultimately apprehended by the Mexico Police on September 22. earring. may be deemed to surpass even direct evidence in its effect on the court. Held: There was no eyewitness or direct evidence. Pampanga. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free. Mexico. appellant did not present himself to the authorities. another woman.00 which he claims his mother placed in her purse and claims further that at the wake. Pampanga where one Elmer Salas was the victim and was hospitalized at the district hospital at Arayat. 1992. Aguda who autopsied the victim found hematoma on the head and chest.m. 1992 he gave her mother for safekeeping the sum of P1. 1992 in going to the wake. Pampanga. accused had been working for three days before March 6 at Sta. an abrasion on the left chin and stabwound on the neck which stabwound. one Ramil Talens. 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. one Resultay was with Virginia Talens at about 5:00 afternoon of March 5. to the exclusion of all other persons. The fatal stabbing of Virginia Talens occurred at around 3:00 a. He was not seen again from said date.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. and on his yellow slippers after the victim was killed. one Serafia Gutierrez. 1992 after chancing on a radio message by the police of Arayat to their Provincial commander that a vehicular incident occurred at Arayat. came to appellant's house to fetch him for work at around 6:30 to 7:00 a.000. Pampanga and up to March 5. 1992. his residence since childhood.500. Police Investigator Gonzales who immediately responded upon report. Appellant also abandoned his job as a painter in Sta. he did not anymore report for work at Sta. Police investigators found human bloodstains on the front door of appellant's house.00 as in the morning of March 5.00 money. Virginia likewise gambled at the wake. who claims that Virginia had money on a purse as while they were on the way Virginia bet on a jueteng she saw Virginia got money from her purse a P500. on that very date. SY ’06-‘07 . but the following day. Pampanga. on March 6. Despite efforts of the police to find appellant as the principal suspect. rational hypothesis excepting that of guilt.00 was no longer to be found when she was found dead. was the cause of death of the victim. The facts and circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence can constitute evidence which. he likewise found on March 9. the doctor claims. Appellant was nowhere when his co-worker and barrio mate. a son of the victim corroborated the claim of Resultay that Virginia had with her at that time money worth P2. the victim's wristwatch. he asked and was given P50.000. Ana. Pampanga. recovered at the scene a pin. but since March 6. 1992. he returned only on September 19. all the circumstances must be consistent with each other. however. the parents of [the] accused were informed by Investigator Gonzales that their son was the suspect and adviced them to surrender him. Orlando Pangan heard a shout. 1992 at Arayat. 1992. the date of the crime. on his clothing. 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. a ring and P135. either to the robbery or to the homicide and none of the things allegedly stolen were ever recovered. All the circumstances established must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one and fair and reasonable conclusion pointing solely to the accused. direct evidence is not the only matrix from which the trial court may draw its findings and conclusion of culpability. Whether or Not the appellant’s crime homicide or robbery with homicide. leaving behind an unfinished painting project.m. Dr. Eduardo Bagtas. However. consistent with the theory that the accused is guilty of the offense charged. Pampanga. and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other possible. in weight and probative value. of March 6. as the author of the crime. the purse of Virginia containing about P2. 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. Appellant hastily abandoned his house in Barrio San Nicolas. Ana. 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. not at Mexico.00 bill but as she had no change she instead took P8. Ana. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction. 1992.00 from her other pocket.

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

this Court believes that simple frustrated homicide only is committed by the accused Engracio Valeriano only. Bulado. to wit: 'right leg amputated below the knee. before it could commence. 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. the penalty impossable [sic] here will be in its maximum degree. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Catalina. Magpalao.' and did then and there set the house on fire while the aforementioned Rizalina Apatan Silvano was inside said house trying to escape therefrom. After the completion of the re-taking of the testimonies of the witnesses in Branch 37.00) Pesos since this case occurred [sic] in 1980.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. 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. contained no specific dispositive portion. a fire gutted the building where Branch 37 was located and the records of these two cases were burned. In addition. 4585 for the killing of Rizalina ApatanSilvano having been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. Page 158 Section 1-C. Province of Negros Oriental. Philippines. 4584 and 4585 were re-raffled to Branch 33 of the trial court. Silvano. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of parties but until the case is terminated. the accused JUANITO RISMUNDO. Facts are as follows: "That sometime in the evening of the 28th of January. dated 31 October 1991 but promulgated on 20 December 1991. and for all the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30. 103604. Bulado. 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. Criminal Cases Nos. considering the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of nighttime. with intent to kill. The records were subsequently reconstituted upon petition of the prosecuting fiscal. abdomen hacked with viscerae evacerated. MACARIO ACABAL and ABUNDIO NAHID. thereby causing upon said Rizalina Apatan Silvano her death and burning her beyond recognition. The testimonies of the witnesses were retaken. the court has jurisdiction over Magumnang. that is reclusion perpetua taking into account Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. including several 'John Does'. did then and there willfully. conspiring and confederating with one another. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. and with treachery and evident premeditation and being then armed with bolos and 'pinuti'. 1980. Thus. unlawfully and feloniously attack. Criminal Case No.000. Held: The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. Municipality of Sta. G. The reason is that the lower court has jurisdiction over Magumnang the moment the latter was in custody. and Magumnang were all held guilty as principal by direct participation of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. But on 16 May 1987. the abuse of superior strength. The decision of the trial court. Its rulings are found in the last two paragraphs which read as follows: "The elements of murder in this case. per Judge Pacifico S. Ompa. Since all the requisites of trial in absentia are complete. PEOPLE VS. the Constitutional mandate was not violated. ACABAL [226 SCRA 694 . For the wounding of the victim Wilson A. at Nagbinlod. but he remains at large up to the present. 23 SEP 1993] Facts: The accusatory portion in the information for murder. the accused.R. 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. the penalty now for murder is Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua. however. An alias warrant for his arrest was issued on 26 June 1989. NO. left leg hacked behind the knee. then presided over by Judge Pacifico S. and allowing her to be burned inside said house which was burned to the ground.

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

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

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

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

16. 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. that one. Opulencia will fall on the 2 nd kind or definition of double jeopardy wherein it contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. that the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or information.1979 but the fiscal informed the court that it received a telegram stating that the complainant was sick. there is a valid complaint or information filed second. 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. 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. Mr. For double jeopardy to exist these three requisites should be present. 20 FEB 1981] Facts: Petitioners Esmeña and Alba were charged with grave coercion in the Court of Cebu City for allegedly forcing Fr. owing that the first charge constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the second charge was a violation against the revised penal code.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not the accused Mr. 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 conviction or acquittal shall bar to another prosecution for the same act”. On Oct. 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. accused Esmeña and Alba filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of double jeopardy. would place the accused in double jeopardy Held: Yes. In the case at bar. 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. In the case at bar. The fact that Mr.Opulencia. During arraignment. Issue: Whether or Not the revival of grave coercion case. as the case filed was grave coercion. SY ’06-‘07 . that it is done before a court of competent jurisdiction and third.R. it was very evident that the charges filed against Mr. 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.24. L-54110. ESMENA VS. POGOY [102 SCRA 861. Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy as defense for the second offense because as tediously explained in the case of Yap vs Lutero. Sometime later Judge Pogoy issued an order setting the trial Aug. No trial came in after the arraignment due to the priest’s request to move it on another date. Page 165 Section 1-C. G.1979. 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. 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. conviction of the accused. When these three conditions are present then the acquittal. which was dismissed earlier due to complainant’s failure to appear at the trial. 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. NO. the bill of rights give two instances or kinds of double jeopardy. The accused invoked their right to speedy trial. In the case. all three conditions were present. 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. 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. petitioners pleaded “Not Guilty”. Held: Yes. It further explains that even if the offenses charged are not the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful