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

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

Page 1 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

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

Page 2 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

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

Page 3 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

petitioners contending that Sec. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. 427 and General Order No. 2003. Suplico et al. command and direction of known and unknown leaders have seized the Oakwood Building in Makati. v. providing for preliminary investigation. 159085. and that there is no factual basis for such proclamation. Section 18. and all persons acting in their behalf. none of the petitioners here have. they complained of the corruption in the AFP and declared their withdrawal of support for the government. Article VII. 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. however. and by virtue of Proclamation No. petitioners contending that there was usurpation of the power of Congress granted by Section 23 (2). not prejudicial to claim of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. the following petitions were filed: (1) SANLAKAS AND PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA VS. Article VI of the Constitution. 4. 2001 siege of Malacañang. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . 435. 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. the Philippines was declared under the State of Rebellion. declaring the Cessation of the State of Rebellion was issued. supported their Page 11 Section 1-C. commanding the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law. 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. (3) Rep. together with their agents. Hon. 18 Article VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the AFP.R. acting upon instigation. Petition is dismissed. et al. 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. furthermore. To declare the hold departure orders null and void ab initio must be made in the proper proceedings initiated for that purpose. While the Court may examine whether the power was exercised within constitutional limits or in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. 38. Finally. otherwise the officer responsible for such may be penalized for the delay of the same. Article VII does not expressly prohibit declaring state or rebellion. petitioners contending that the proclamation is a circumvention of the report requirement under the same Section 18. 427 and General Order No. SANLAKAS VS. Negotiations took place and the officers went back to their barracks in the evening of the same day. The President in addition to its Commander-in-Chief Powers is conferred by the Constitution executive powers. Executive Secretary. Petitioners’ prayer for relief regarding their alleged impending warrantless arrests is premature being that no complaints have been filed against them for any crime.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests courts for all acts committed prior to and until May 1. These acts constitute a violation of Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code. demanding the resignation of the President. 3 Feb 2004] Facts: During the wee hours of July 27. 2003. the arresting officer can be charged with arbitrary detention. 2001. and Proclamation No. Under Section 5. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [421 SCRA 656. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. No. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. 427 and General Order No. (4) Pimentel v. G. (2)SJS Officers/Members v. representatives. If the detention should have no legal ground. thus the warrantless arrests are not based on Proc. consistent and congruent with their undertaking earlier adverted to. Petitioners were neither assailing the validity of the subject hold departure orders. some three-hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP. Publicly. 4 are constitutional. Respondents. et al. the writ of habeas corpus is uncalled for since its purpose is to relieve unlawful restraint which Petitioners are not subjected to. Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief. President Macapagal-Arroyo and Executive Secretary Romulo. providing for the period in which a warrantlessly arrested person must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities. In the interim. both the Proclamation and General Orders were lifted. Romulo. nor were they expressing any intention to leave the country in the near future. On August 1. Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. Petitioner’s prayer for mandamus and prohibition is improper at this time because an individual warrantlessly arrested has adequate remedies in law: Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. by way of proof. No. authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion in suppressing the rebellion if the circumstances so warrant.

Based on the foregoing. hence. G. Mateo A.86 were turned over to the Bureau of Treasury. then President Aquino. Whether or not the Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware are embraced in the phrase "cultural treasure of the nation". Caparas. vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18. On 26 October 1990. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges "such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of Issue upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. that the extent the powers of Congress are impaired. Aquino. 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. the sale at public auction proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of $13.302. After the oral arguments of the parties on 9 January 1991. Issue: Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.S. his relatives and cronies.R.. PCGG. The fear on warrantless arrest is unreasonable. 24 Aug 1993] Facts: On 9 August 1990. Manson and Woods International. PCGG [225 SCRA 568. The issue of usurpation of the legislative power of the Congress is of no moment since the President.T. petitioners Sanlakas and PM. since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. No. Pimentel. 96541. 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. 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. then Chairman of PCGG. as Members of Congress. through former Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig. Article VI. On 15 August 1990. was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. 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. Enriquez. Only petitioners Rep. representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. and. On 11 January 1991. JOYA VS. and such other property as may subsequently be identified by PCGG and accepted by CHRISTIE'S to be subject to the provisions of the agreement. the contract was highly disadvantageous to the government. the Commission on Audit through then Chairman Eufemio C. and Sen. signed the Consignment Agreement with Christie's of New York. 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. and as long as a valid warrantless arrest is present. their disposal was prohibited by law. and SJS Officers/Members have no legal standing to sue. so is the power of each member thereof..604.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests assertion that the President acted without factual basis. PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction in the U. SY ’06-‘07 . through Chairman Caparas. the assets subject of auction were historical relics and had cultural significance. According to the agreement. wrote then President Corazon C. as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 (2). On 14 August 1990. It sustained its decision in Philippine Constitution Association v. in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces. 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. Page 12 Section 1-C. 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. requesting her for authority to sign the proposed Consignment Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines through PCGG and Christie. 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. Jr. These are purely executive powers. have standing to challenge the subject issuances. Article VII. Suplico et al.

possessing outstanding historical. although the public has been given the opportunity to view and appreciate these paintings when they were placed on exhibit. petitioners argue that this case should be resolved by this Court as an exception to the rule on moot and academic cases. If these properties were already acquired by the government. There are certain instances however when this Court has allowed exceptions to the rule on legal standing. Petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit. They lack basis in fact and in law. The ownership of these paintings legally belongs to the foundation or corporation or the members thereof. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. and if so. 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." On the other hand. "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. whether the above Issue warrant resolution from this Court. that although the sale of the paintings and silver has long been consummated and the possibility of retrieving the treasure trove is nil. and when a taxpayer questions the validity of a governmental act authorizing the disbursement of public funds. a "national cultural treasures" is a unique object found locally. and that all persons having interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. Having failed to show that they are the legal owners of the artworks or that the valued pieces have become publicly owned. Held: This is premised on Sec. petitioners are not challenging any expenditure involving public funds but the disposition of what they allege to be public properties. an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. such as the case before us. Whether or not the petition has become moot and academic. 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. the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Neither can this petition be allowed as a taxpayer's suit. 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. 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. The term "interest" is material interest. yet the novelty and importance of the Issue raised by the petition deserve this Court's attention. of the Rules of Court which provides that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. SY ’06-‘07 . petitioners do not possess any clear legal right whatsoever to question their alleged unauthorized disposition. A case becomes moot and academic when its purpose has become stale. The confiscation of these properties by the Aquino administration however should not be understood to mean that the ownership of these paintings has automatically passed on the government without complying with constitutional and statutory requirements of due process and just compensation. It is worthy to note that petitioners admit that the paintings and antique silverware were acquired from private sources and not with public money. Anent the second requisite of actual controversy.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. Moreover. Page 13 Section 1-C. the Issue raised in the petition have become moot and academic. Obviously. there must be an actual case of controversy — one which involves a conflict of legal rights. 2. Rule 3. Whether or not PCGG has complied with the due process clause and other statutory requirements for the exportation and sale of the subject items. 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. 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. or a mere incidental interest. For a court to exercise its power of adjudication. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the eve of the elections. On May 13. He was not informed by the City Prosecutor that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation. proclaiming the private respondent the winner in the election. Petitioner was also not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. L-68379-81. However.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. otherwise they will not go to him at all. Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. His complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Second Division of the said body. Hence. the petitioner went to the Commission on Elections to question the canvass of the election returns. In the case at bar. are now facing trial for these murders. Without such confidence.R. the search could not have been valid. 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. Consequently. Resolution No. as they were neatly packed in gun cases and placed inside a bag at the back of the car. the guns were not tucked in Arellano’s waist nor placed within his reach. COMELEC [144 SCRA 194. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. 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. the private respondent took his oath as a member of the Batasang Pambansa. the firearms obtained from the warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. Meanwhile. 92-0829 is unconstitutional. it cannot be contended that petitioner was fully given the opportunity to meet the accusation against him as he was not informed that he was himself a respondent in the case. They should be sure that when their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. SY ’06-‘07 . 1984. Absent any justifying circumstance specifically pointing to the culpability of petitioner and Arellano. there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect. Thus. 22 SEPT 1986] Facts: The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 elections. They must believe in his sense of fairness. Owing to what he claimed were attempts to railroad the private respondent's proclamation. on the strength of his proclamation. JAVIER VS. They must trust the judge. NOS. Held: This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" as the indispensable imperative of due process. including respondent Pacificador. Seven suspects. 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. allegedly by the latter's men. set aside. 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. Given these circumstances. G. Such constituted a violation of his right to due process. Issue: Whether or Not the Second Division of the Commission on Elections authorized to promulgate its decision of July 23. It was also shown in the facts that the PNP had not informed the public of the purpose of setting up the checkpoint. the PNP could not have thoroughly searched the car lawfully as well as the package without violating the constitutional injunction. the bitter contest between the two came to a head when several followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed. Fair play cans for equal justice. and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. To bolster that requirement. a warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search. and therefore. otherwise they will not seek his judgment. 1984. There cannot be equal Page 51 Section 1-C. The petitioner thereupon came to this Court.

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

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

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

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

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILS. 1. SY ’06-‘07 . to the requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by law. 4. VS. 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. 4 of BP. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. NO. DUMLAO VS. 21 APR 1998] Facts: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines. Dept. rest on substantial distinctions. provided that: 1.52 is unconstitutional being contrary to the equal protection and due process rights. 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. Held: SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid classification. 1 does not impair the right to travel. It was declared to be Page 58 Section 1-C. There is no question that Order No. When an official has retired he has already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same government work. 132922. as the right to travel is subjects among other things. 22 JAN 1980] Facts: Petitioner questions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. employees 65 years of age have been classified differently from younger employees. the Filipino female domestics working abroad were in a class by themselves. L-52245. 3. In the present case. The former are subject to compulsory retirement while the latter are not. The guarantee of equal protection is subject to rational classification based on reasonable and real differentiations. Retirement is not a reasonable disqualification for elective local officials because there can be retirees who are even younger and a 65 year old retiree could be as good as a 65 year old official who is not a retiree. Issue: Whether or Not Sec. Held: No. because of the special risk to which their class was exposed. 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. 2. Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. Order No. The consequence of the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392.R. Inc. WHEREFORE. It admits of classification.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.1 applies only to female contract workers but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. the classifications made. 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. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE with rule making powers. the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid. G. Deployment ban of female domestic helper is a valid exercise of police power. COMELEC [289 SCRA 337. 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 1992 it lost P22. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [301 SCRA 298. All broadcasting. on the other hand.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. For this purpose. 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. whether radio or by television stations.” Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the same law requires COMELEC to procure print space in newspapers and magazines with payment.R. were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). They are merely given the temporary privilege to use them. during the period of campaign. among other reasons. which are given franchises. Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and petitioner-intervenors.498. Petitioner operates radio and television broadcast stations in the Philippines affected by the enforcement of Section 92. 881. LACSON VS. an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies.980. 881 constitutes taking of property without due process of law and without just compensation. To require the broadcast industry to provide free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the industry gets. Issue: Whether of not Section 92 of B. Thus it contends that Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time. 128096. No. Petitioner GMA Network. B. Thus.P. it was not able to show that it was to suffer from actual or threatened injury as a result of the subject law. Regulation of the broadcast industry requires spending of public funds which it does not do in the case of print media. B. 20 JAN 1999] Facts: Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. No. Held: Petitioner’s argument is without merit. had the requisite standing to bring the constitutional challenge.00 in view of COMELEC’s requirement that it provide at least 30 minutes of prime time daily for such. SY ’06-‘07 .850. Page 59 Section 1-C. Whether or not Section 92 of B. no private property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the COMELEC. do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images.00 in providing free air time for one hour each day and. such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service. In granting the privilege to operate broadcast stations and supervising radio and television stations.560. As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves. G. the state spends considerable public funds in licensing and supervising them. No. in this year’s elections. NO. free of charge. is licensed by the government. Radio and television broadcasting companies.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests without legal standing to sue in this case as. No. According to petitioners. the franchise of all radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or television time. Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92. Section 92 provides that air time shall be procured by COMELEC free of charge. 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.P. 881 which provides: “Comelec Time.P. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast that there are frequencies to assign. it stands to lost P58.P. 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. 881 denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws.

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

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

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

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

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

113271. Irene Soliven." and to show that any investigation was conducted. But." She also averred that the preventive suspension was ill-motivated. 16 OCT 1997] Facts: Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner Waterous Drug Corporation on 15 August 1988. In his decision of 10 May 1993. she would be placed on preventive suspension to protect the interests of the company. issued a memorandum notifying Catolico of her termination. On 31 July 1989. As regards the first memorandum. At this point. the dismissal was without just cause and due process. appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise. besides she was not authorized to deal directly with the suppliers. In its decision of 30 September 1993. G." On 29 January 1990. are owned by him (Sec. through her counsel. In a letter dated 2 February 1990. WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda Bautro. 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. it declared that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution. “Appellant signed the contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving more weight to the presumption that things which a person possesses. It concluded: With the smoking gun evidence of respondents being rendered inadmissible. 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. In a memorandum dated 21 November 1989. SY ’06-‘07 . Co warning her not to dispense medicine to employees chargeable to the latter's accounts because the same was a prohibited practice. or exercises acts of ownership over. in her memorandum dated 37 January 1990. On the same date. explained that the check she received from YSP was a Christmas gift and not a "refund of overprice. he decided in favor of Catolico because petitioners failed to "prove what alleged as complainant's dishonesty. she was informed that effective 6 February 1990 to 7 March 1990. 5 [j]. by virtue of the constitutional right invoked by complainants.NO. 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.R. WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals. within twenty-four hours. However. In a letter to Co dated 10 February 1990.00 drawn by YSP in favor of complainant." Catolico then asked the company to look into the fraudulent activities of Soliven." 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. Inc. NLRC [280 SCRA 735 . on 2 February 1990. Catolico asked for additional time to give her explanation. On 5 March 1990. Co asked Catolico to explain.” WATEROUS DRUG VS. Nevertheless. Labor Arbiter Alex Arcadio Lopez found no proof of unfair labor practice against petitioners. illegal dismissal.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests No. respondents' case falls apart as it is bereft of evidence which cannot be used as a legal basis for complainant's dismissal. Hence. In said letter she protested Saldaña's invasion of her privacy when Saldaña opened an envelope addressed to Catolico. Co issued another memorandum to Catolico warning her not to negotiate with suppliers of medicine without consulting the Purchasing Department. as this would impair the company's control of purchases and. and she was granted a 48-hour extension from 1 to 3 February 1990. Catolico requested access to the file containing Sales Invoice No. Rule 131). WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda E. which her co-employee saw when the latter opened the envelope. and illegal suspension. Page 65 Section 1-C. Catolico filed before the Office of the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor practice. It found that petitioner's evidence consisted only of the check of P640. her side of the reported irregularity. He thus declared the dismissal and suspension illegal but disallowed reinstatement. On 5 May 1990. 266 for her to be able to make a satisfactory explanation. Bautro warned Catolico against the "rush delivery of medicines without the proper documents. as it sprang from an earlier incident between her and Co's secretary. Forthwith. Catolico.

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

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

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

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

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

On appeal. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The pertinent provision reads: Art. All that is required is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded. the allegation of denial of due process of law in the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter." has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. issue a warrant of arrest. if any. 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. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. 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. calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. 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. The petitions fail to establish that public respondents. a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained. through the Executive Secretary. 1988. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the Executive Secretary on May 16. if any. subsequently. petitioners' contention that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law has lost factual support. the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue. 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. Page 71 Section 1-C. on the basis thereof. A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice on April 7. affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on May 2. On March 30. 1988. It has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. 2. 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 President. houses. Sec. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 1988. Hence. by the President. With these developments.affidavits. 1988. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. Sound policy dictates this procedure. to determine probable cause. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. 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. The second issue." in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses. with regard to the issuance of the warrants of arrest. to determine probable cause Held: With respect to petitioner Beltran. This is not an accurate interpretation. 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. Subsequent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. through their separate acts. Thus. raised by petitioner Beltran. III. he filed a "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . Following established doctrine and procedure.

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

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. 28 JUN 1988] Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. Proof: She left two of her children by the first marriage. HARVEY V.R. Therefore. She is a nonimmigrant. go through a mock marriage. 1962. and again throw overboard Sections 9 and 13 of the Act. Reason: Discourage entry under false pretenses. 1962 with a warning that upon failure so to do. One released for lack of evidence. 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. ply a pernicious trade. 58. both minors. 1962. Under Section 13 just quoted. we are confident. he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond. a native-born Filipino citizen. Held: Chan Sau Wah entered the Philippines on a tourist-temporary visitor's visa. to leave the country on or before September 10. Petitioners are the following: American nationals Andrew Harvey. since her entry. Chan Sau Wah married Esteban Morano. her minor son also by the first marriage. 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. We cannot insulate her from the State's power of deportation.69 of Revised Administrative Code. married in Manila a native-born Filipino. NO. deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under Sec. Also. marry a Filipino. Laguna. China. another charged not for pedophile but working with NO VISA. Jr. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO [162 SCRA 840. she must depart voluntarily to some foreign country. 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. the Commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her son. Page 73 Section 1-C. The last extension expired on September 10. a woman of undesirable character may enter this country. Born to this union on September 1962 was Esteban Morano. she may therefore be admitted if she were a qualified and desirable alien and subject to the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 9. 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. Issue: Whether or Not the issuance of the warrant of arrest is unconstitutional. No breadth of discretion is allowed. in the care of neighbors in Fukien. SY ’06-‘07 . Dutch Citizen Adriaan Van Den Elshout. first.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests wah arrived in the Philippines with Fu Yan Fun. In a letter dated August 31. is impermissible. and third. 82544. Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles. The gravamen of petitioners' argument is that Chan Sau Wah has. It will not particularly help analysis for petitioners to appeal to family solidarity in an effort to thwart her deportation. On January 1962. it would be an easy matter for an alien woman to enter the Philippines as a temporary visitor. 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. 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. and thereby skirt the provisions of our immigration law. she must procure from the appropriate consul the proper visa. seemingly is not one who has a high regard for such solidarity. To prolong their stay in the Philippines. On 4 March1988. second. and consistently too.Recently we confirmed the rule that an alien wife of a Filipino may not stay permanently without first departing from the Philippines. Chan Sau Wah and Fu Yan Fun obtained several extensions. G. but actually live with another man as husband and wife. Such a flanking movement. Richard Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room.Then. This is a field closed to judicial action. the 3 petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. They were apprehended 17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID in Pagsanjan. The “Operation Report” read that Andrew Harvey was found together with two young boys. This Court in a number of cases has ruled. Fu Yan Fun. Chan Sau Wah. Esteban Morano. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation. 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.000 pesos. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also found.

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

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

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

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

R. while there is no need of criminal intent. The police also recovered from a native “uway” cabinet dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in 3 pieces of komiks paper. She was made to sign a prepared document. when the police arrived at her house. she saw Sgt. 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. She was brought to the police station and was detained. the only objects to be seized that the warrant determined was the methamphetamine and the paraphernalia’s therein. 20 JUL 1994] Facts: Accused was charged and convicted by the trial court of illegal possession of firearms and illegal possession and sale of drugs. The police was allowed to enter the house upon the strength of the warrant shown to the accused. Wherefore the decision is reversed and the accused is acquitted. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the firearms was proper. Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime. III of the constitution specifically provides that a search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. the petition as granted and the criminal case against the petitioners for illegal possession of firearms is DISMISSED. She invited Sgt. PO Jose Luciano gave money and instructed his civilian informer to buy marijuana from the accused at the Cocoland Hotel. in the morning of Nov. 17. Yte and PFC Jose Luciano. an entrapment was planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario and to the seizure of the shabu. G.R. particularly methamphetamine or shabu. Accused denied the accusation and told them that she doesn’t know anything about it. 19 MAR 1993] Facts: According to the prosecution. G. After the issuance of the search warrant. GESMUNDO [219 SCRA 743. The police still searched the house and was led to the kitchen. Held: No. PREMISES CONSIDERED. Yte to enter her house while Luciano was left in the jeep that was parked near the house.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests prohibita. 1986. The court renders judgment finding the accused guilty. NO. He actually saw the accused selling marijuana to his civilian informer and that same day Luciano applied for a search warrant. DEL ROSARIO [234 SCRA 246. While inside the house Yte showed the accused something he claimed as a search warrant.22 caliber pistol with 3 live ammunition. 89373. About 2pm that day. 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. which authorized the search and seizure of an undetermined quantity of methamphetamine and its paraphernalia’s. PEOPLE VS. The accused begged the police not to search and to leave the house. NO. The seizure of the firearms was unconstitutional. there must be knowledge that the same existed. In herein case. According to the accused. 109633. PEOPLE VS. Issue: Page 78 Section 1-C. Sec 2 art. 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. its paraphernalia’s and of a . SY ’06-‘07 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

and there they found marijuana leaves. Judgment is reversed and set aside. The patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side. Accused-appellant is acquitted. The weapons were taken from them and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. which he reported to the police including the revolver. One of them the accused-appellant was found with a . The suspects were then searched. or is attempting to commit an offense.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Clearly. At around 9:30pm they noticed a person. Issue: Whether or Not there was an unlawful search due to lack of search warrant. according to the arresting officers themselves. carrying a traveling bag who acted suspiciously. the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen.R. Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead. He was convicted for violation of P. the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures has not been violated. G. Moreover a person may not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion. MENGOTE [210 SCRA 174. An information was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm.4 art. inspected his bag. one of whom holding his abdomen. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. 6 Apr 1990] Facts: Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conducting surveillance at the San Fernando Victory Liner Terminal.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE V. The accused was then taken to the Police Headquarters for further investigations. A witness testified that the weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop. At the time of the arrest in question. For his part. 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. TANGLIBEN [184 SCRA 220.38 caliber with live ammunitions in it. Medel Tangliben. The TC found Tangliben guilty of violating sec. They confronted him. 87059. 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.5 of the Rules of Court. (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed. They approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen. III sec 32 of the Constitution. 2 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.D. NO. whereupon the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen surrounded them. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. Rule 113 sec. the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions heretofore discussed. No. he claimed that the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest. Held: An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. is actually committing. Manila. and hence.L-63630.R. provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has committed. 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. Page 85 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 . while his companion had a fan knife. G. 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. PEOPLE VS.

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

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

110995. In his defense. who was eventually convicted .m. 5 SEPT 1994] Facts: On or about 8 July 1992. However the RTC rejected his allegations. 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. Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana. who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged. averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket. Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. and the latter willingly obliged. Inside that maong wallet. two shirts and two pairs of pants. SAYCON [236 SCRA 325.2 grams in total. the coastguard asked Saycon to open his bag. G. An information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Saycon was then invited to the Coastguard Headquarters at the Pier area. a certain Miagme. instructed them to intercept the suspect. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. PEOPLE VS. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. at about 6:00 in the morning. there was a Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu". which was arriving at that moment in Dumaguete City. To all appearances. and trial proceeded only against the accusedappellant. Issue: Whether or not search of defendant’s bag is legal. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. When Alvaro Saycon was arrested. he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana. Then Saycon." Issue: Whether or Not the warrantless search was valid. the Coastguard chief officer CPO Tolin. NO. At the PC headquarters. that same morning at Pier 1 in Dumaguete City. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. Saycon merely bowed his head. At the moment of his arrest.R. 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. The MV Doña Virginia docked at 6:00 a. 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. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes.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 was not committing a crime. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against the defendant. At the headquarters. Saying that he only has two watches during that time and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained. more widely known as "shabu. the NARCOM agents did not have a warrant of arrest. Held: The search was illegal. he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. Held: Page 88 Section 1-C. 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. In it were personal belongings and a maong wallet. the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen. He willingly went with them. SY ’06-‘07 . A combined team of NARCOM agents and Philippine Coastguard personnel consisting of CPO Tolin. Later. Subsequently. When police officer Winifredo Noble asked Saycon whether the Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu" was his. his bag and the suspected "shabu" were brought to the NARCOM office for booking. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. and Senior Police Officers Ruben Laddaran and Winifredo Noble of NARCOM posted themselves at the gate of Pier 1. which could allow warrantless arrest or search. 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." The motion was granted. Upon receipt of the information. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto. consisted of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. NO.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or Not the petitioner’s right to travel is impaired. Patacsil. Garchitorena. The presiding justice. Then she again filed an "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Permission to Travel Abroad" to undergo diagnosis and treatment in China. She holds herself amenable at all times to the orders and process of eth court. The court could not be expected to just accept the opinion of petitioner's physician in resolving her request for permission to travel. asking for "expert opinion on coronary medicine". The former first lady Imelda Marcos was found guilty by the First Division of the Sandiganbayan of violating 3 of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The 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. Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Heart Center. SY ’06-‘07 . Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a "Motion to Admit Clinical Summary and to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration. The court still found no merit to allow the petitioners motion to leave and denied all of the motions. She may legally be prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case. contacted Dr. decisions or orders or any judicial action of respondent court. Marcos to US and Europe for treatment of several Heart diseases alleging that the tests were not available here. 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. C. Page 96 Section 1-C. when she posted bail bond. 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. (Manotoc v. and later wrote him a letter. 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.A. the petitioner assumed obligations. that she he every intension of leaving the country to pursue higher studies abroad. This was also denied by the Court also stating their express disapproval of the involvement of the VP and the Cabinet members so as to influence the resolutions. Respondent court had to seek expert opinion because petitioner's motion was based on the advice of her physician. 115132-34. Held: The petitioner does not deny and as a matter of fact even made a public statement. Gregorio B.R. This was supported by several medical reports that were prepared by her doctor Roberto Anastacio. G." Attached was a recent medical report and letters of Vice President Joseph E.) MARCOS VS. Again another Motion to leave was filed by Mrs. 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. Held: No. SANDIGANBAYAN [247 SCRA 127. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue: Whether or Not the "ang iglesia ni cristo" program is not constitutionally protected as a form of religious exercise and expression. Amante. 19861 in relation to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms. This is true in this case. it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. 119. 119673. except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. addressed for Henrietta S. its act of censorship will be struck down. Petitioner also filed Civil Case. much less denied. If it fails to discharge this burden. the Page 108 Section 1-C. Under our constitutional scheme. however. The program presents and propagates petitioner's religious beliefs. 116. 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. 119. 121 and 128. So-called "attacks" are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. The Iglesia ni Cristo insists on the literal translation of the bible and says that our (Catholic) veneration of the Virgin Mary is not to be condoned because nowhere it is found in the bible. republican in form. The very idea of a government. 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. 128 which allowed it through a letter of former Executive Secretary Edelmiro A.R. CA however reversed it hence this petition. COURT OF APPEALS [259 SCRA 529. against the solicitation of votes whether directly or indirectly. SY ’06-‘07 .. The prohibition of any speeches. 115. doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with other religions. 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. 1992. NO. it appealed to the Office of the President the classification of its TV Series No. respondent Board invoked its power under PD No." On November 28. 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. RTC’s ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. 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. 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. this right is not to be limited. announcements or commentaries. 26 JUL 1996] Facts: Petitioner has a television program entitled "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" aired on Channel 2 every Saturday and on Channel 13 every Sunday. especially the fanatics. Held: Yes. Religious dogmas and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers. It cited its TV Program Series Nos. In their Answer. It is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption. Petitioner submitted to the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television the VTR tapes of its TV program Series Nos. or the undertaking of any campaign literature or propaganda for or against any candidate or party is repugnant to a constitutional command.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. The board contended that it outrages Catholic and Protestant's beliefs. 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. As the author Tañada clearly explained. Mendez reversing the decision of the respondent Board. “attack” is different from “offend” any race or religion. dishonesty and corruption as well as violence that of late has invariably marred election campaigns and partisan political activities in this country. unclean they may be. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. Sr. G. Any act that restrains speech is accompanied with presumption of invalidity. As in the case of freedom of expression. 121 and 128.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inc. PBM EMPLOYEES VS. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management. The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. those whose object is to affect the decision in a pending case. NO. C. L-31195. It brings disrepute to the court. filed a charge against petitioners and other employees who composed the first shift. de Leon.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests dignity of the courts. 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. Tulfo is found in contempt of court and is gravely censured.M.M. and of the CBA providing for 'No Strike and No Lockout. Held: Yes. Tulfo's article constituted both. utilizing only the weapons afforded them by the Constitution — the untrammelled enjoyment of their basic human rights.' Petitioners were held guilty in by CIR for bargaining in bad faith. A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion. b. 875(Industrial Peace Act). There are two kinds of publications which can be punished for contempt: a. G. the primacy of human rights — freedom of expression. The Management. hence this appeal. Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. As heretofore stated. It was to the interest herein private respondent firm to rally to the defense of. the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration. 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. The employees' pathetic situation was a stark reality — abused. on March 4. Tulfo said. was a matter that vitally affected their right to individual existence as well as that of their families. and petitioners. because at the end of his article. Nothing constructive can be gained from them. PBM [51 SCRA 189. 1969. watch out!" Also. "So you bobo justices. 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. Herein respondent employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local police. to 2 P. vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits.. therefore. harassment and persecuted as they believed they were by the peace officers of the municipality. the employees and laborers of herein private respondent firm were fighting for their very survival. thru Atty. they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4.R. in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police. so that they can report to work free from harassment. he said he was not sorry for having written the articles. Quoting is not an excuse also. would be amounting to an illegal strike. This is not present in the case. As above intimated. but if its object is only to degrade and ridicule. for a violation of Republic Act No. 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. 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. of peaceful assembly Page 120 Section 1-C. Issue: Whether or Not the petitioners right to freedom of speech and to peaceable assemble violated. Being emotional is no excuse for being insulting. namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. Petitioners claim that on March 1. 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. Company personnel manager. particularly . 1969.. the condition in which the employees found themselves vis-a-vis the local police of Pasig. It should have been okay to criticize if respectful language was used.S. who shall fail to report for work the following morning shall be dismissed. 1969. Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner Union. SY ’06-‘07 . is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights. those whose object is to bring courts to discredit. its employees. then it is clearly an obstruction of justice. because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and. and take up the cudgels for.

the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally. of peaceful assembly and of petition.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. The more the participants. To regard the demonstration against police officers. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of expression. If demonstrators are reduced by one-third. then by that much the circulation of the Issue raised by the demonstration is diminished. Moreover. is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression. 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. not against the employer. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . Page 121 Section 1-C.

The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts. ORTIGAS VS. This holds true as regards Executive Orders Nos.” RUTTER VS.L-24670. Sec.400 on or before August 27.L-3708. payment of his obligation cannot be enforced until after the lapse of eight years. stones or gravel from it or any other lots belonging to the Seller. (a) of strong materials and properly painted. particularly the Highway Hills Subdivision along EDSA. and she shall not be entitled to take or remove soil. having filed his claim with the Philippine War Damage Commission for the losses he had suffered as a consequence of the last war. 25 and 32. 2. NO. 1943. To secure the payment of said balance of P4. The parcel of land shall be used exclusively for residential purposes. On July 19. FEATI BANK [94 SCRA 533. 1952. plaintiff.600 of which P4. Both the agreements (of sale on installment) and the deeds of sale contained the stipulations or restrictions that: 1.1941 Rutter sold to Esteban two parcels of land situated in the Manila for P9. entered into separate agreements of sale on installments over two parcels of land of the Subdivision. a first mortgage has been constituted in favor of the plaintiff. 1962.400 on or before August 7. Esteban failed to pay the two installments as agreed upon. Upon completion of payment of the purchase price. Issue: Whether or Not RA 342 unconstitutional on non-impairment clause grounds. 10. On March 4. as well as the interest that had accrued and so Rutter instituted an action to recover the balance due. 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. as vendees. 14 DEC 1979] Facts: Plaintiff is engaged in real estate business. the interest due and the attorney's fees. Held: Yes. The question is not whether the legislative action affects contracts incidentally. declared that the continued operation and enforcement of RA 342 at the present time is unreasonable and oppressive. and that under section 2 of RA 342(moratorium law). the plaintiff executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Emma Chavez. ESTEBAN [93 PHIL 68. “No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. The complaint also contains a prayer for sale of the properties mortgaged in accordance with law. 18 MAY 1953] Facts: On August 20. The moratorium is postponement of fulfillment of obligations decreed by the state through the medium of the courts or the legislature. Its essence is the application of police power. and should not be prolonged should be declared null and void and without effect. NO. and Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles. the said vendees transferred their rights and interests over the aforesaid lots in favor of one Emma Chavez. (b) provided with Page 122 Section 1-C. Esteban claims that this is a prewar obligation contracted and that he is a war sufferer. 1942. SY ’06-‘07 . with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum. fairness and righteousness. The complaint was dismissed.800 were paid outright.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE Art 3. but whether the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end and the measures taken are reasonable and appropriate to that end.800. However based on the President’s general SONA and consistent with what the Court believes to be as the only course dictated by justice. as vendor. A motion for recon was made which assails the constitutionality of RA 342. or directly or indirectly. developing and selling lots to the public. and the balance was made payable as follows: P2. and P2. All buildings and other improvements (except the fence) which may be constructed at any time in said lot must be.

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

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

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

as it is prejudicial to the accused. Said motion was granted. 1986. 3 JUL 1992] Facts: Two letter complaints were filed with the Tanodbayan by Teofilo Gelacio on October 28. Page 126 Section 1-C. The crime was committed on January 21. NO. 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. 29 of Act No. Now the motion to quash was being assailed. which begins to run from the day of the commission of the crime and not the discovery of it. SANDIGANBAYAN [211 SCRA 241. Agusan del Sur. Held: Yes. 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. 3326.1986 and December 9. wife of Congressman Democrito Plaza of Agusan del Sur.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests from office. PEOPLE VS. 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. RA 3019. Additionally. 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. 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. 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. period of prescription was 10 years. He misrepresented to a Lands Inspector of the Bureau of Lands that the lands subject herein are disposable lands. being a special law the computation of the period for the prescription of the crime is governed by Sec. On August 10. 1982. a political leader of Governor Valentina Plaza. BP 195 which was approved on March 16. shortly after private respondent had replaced Mrs. Plaza as OIC/provincial Governor of Agusan del Sur on March 1986 The complaint questioned the issuance to Governor Paredes. therefore it has prescribed in 1986. SY ’06-‘07 . G.R. amending Sec. Issue: Whether or Not the motion to quash validly granted. thereby inducing said inspector to recommend approval of his application for free patent. 101724. 1976.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cedro.00. he was given a calling card by Eduardo Macam so that he can be paid the following day. The witnesses identified the accused again in open court. Nilo and Salvacion was also stabbed but survived.22 gun and money. Cawilan and D. TOYOTA Crown Car Plate No. Eugenio Cawilan was also charged with Anti-fencing Law but was acquitted in the said case. The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. together with his brother. they went to the factory of the Zesto Juice (owned by the father of Eduardo Macam) for him to get his payment (50.00. Defense’s version: Danilo Roque stated that he being a tricycle driver drove the 4 accused to Benito’s house for a fee of P50. he together with all the accused. decision of lower court is Affirmed. After which. Benito invited the former to have lunch. Cedro. 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. The court believed the version of the prosecution. in handcuffs and bore contusions on their faces caused by blows inflicted in their faces during investigation. E. Wherefore. chessboard. assorted jewelry. When Eugenio Cawilan pulled a gun and announced the hold-up. the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant’s identification at the line-up. CAS-997. 700. Held: It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before trial. children. A police line-up is considered a “critical” stage of the proceedings. 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”. Benito. Roque entered the house while E. They were also forced to admit certain things. G. he went with the accused inside the house to have lunch. 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. Issue: Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated. SY ’06-‘07 .38 as suspect to the shooting incident at "Benny's Bar. typewriter. Any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. maid (Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara and brought them to the room upstairs. Upon arriving. airgun riffle.00) . 74517. Ernesto Roque. The total value of the items taken was P536. Padilla reported along with Benny Dy. A. . HOWEVER. Samsonite attache case. was brought to the QC General Hospital before each surviving victims and made to line-up for identification. DY [158 SCRA 111.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Ferma Road QC. betamax rewinder. Manoc-Manoc Malay. PEOPLE VS. accused did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up. with caliber . Things taken: 2 toygun. Roque remained in the tricycle. After all the accused had taken their lunch. 23 FEB 1988] Facts: Pat." at Sitio Angol. Aklan (Boracay) situated on the Island which Page 137 Section 1-C. WON the evidence from the line-up is admissible. On the following day. After a while Leticia was brought to the bathroom and after she screamed she was stabbed and killed by A.C. TV. while remaining outside the house served as a looked out. Eduardo Macam grabbed the clutch bag of Benito Macam and pulled out his uncle’s gun then declared a hold-up.R. he was asked to gather some things and which he abided out of fear. Instead of paying him. Upon hearing such phrase he escaped and went home using his tricycle. Benito asked his maid Salvacion Enrera to call the companions of Eduardo who were waiting in a tricycle outside the house. WON the arrest was valid. They tied up the wife (Leticia Macam). Thereafter he washed the dishes and swept the floor. CO2 refiller. Upon the arrival of the accused. HOWEVER. 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. He and his brother was suddenly apprehended by the security guards and brought to the police headquarters in Q. Also. betamax tapes.

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

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

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

R. He and his companions were on board a private vehicle with a declared owner whose identity and address were also found to be false. It is only when it is a capital offense that the right becomes discretionary. However it was wrong for the Judge to change the amount of bail from 30K to 50K without hearing the prosecution. MAGLALANG [196 SCRA 41. public order. Four days later. Nos. Through counsel Rolando T. 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. CARPIO VS. (Chairman of CPP-NPA) 2. 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.D. 942 and 1834 and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees. 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.000. is not applicable to the accused as it is not favorable to him. 4.00 and imposed a condition that he shall report to the court once every two months within the first ten days of every period thereof. This was granted. which was opposed that the respondent is not entitled to bail anymore since rebellion became a capital offense under PD 1996. 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. stating therein that accused was still under investigation. 3. Hence the appeal. or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. He was not arrested at his residence as he had no known address. the Acting Executive Judge of said court issued an order of arrest against Escaño recommending no bail for his provisional liberty. with a condition that they will submit themselves in the jurisdiction of the court. 1-A dated 11 January 1982 . 942 and 1834 amending ART. 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. 1987. public policy. morals. Bail in the instant case is a matter of right. Cavite. Judge Donato now granted the bail. whereas his co-detainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be released immediately. 78162. The address he gave "Panamitan. 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. Cainoy. On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order No. P. Agreements were made therein: accused to remain under custody. a reward of P250.000. Pursuant to Ministry Order No. providing a penalty of reclusion perpetua to the crime of rebellion.00 was offered and paid for his arrest. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law. Said petition for HC was dismissed. 5. 6. that in view of the finding of NBI agents that the other accused and Page 141 Section 1-C. therefore prosecution has no right to present evidence. there was a waiver. 135 of RPC. G. It was contended that: 1. or good customs. Republic Act No. The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and was an escapee from detention when arrested. among others. 187 repealing. This however was denied. 1996. Pat. Issue: Whether or Not the private respondent has the right to bail. Held: Yes. It is absolute since the crime is not a capital offense. Cesar Diego who acted on the warrant returned to the court with a certification issued by NBI agent Gonzales. 6968 approved on 24 October 1990. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. Ergo." turned out to be also a false address.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Respondent filed a petition for bail. which was fixed at P30. NO. Kawit. Accused validly waived his right to bail in another case(petition for habeas corpus). 19 APR 1991] Facts: On January 8. We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. SY ’06-‘07 .

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

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

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

the CIS report was submitted to the Tanodbayan. TATAD VS. departing from established procedures prescribed by law for preliminary investigation. there was jurisdictional infirmity. for investigation and report. However. the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Page 145 Section 1-C. Held: Based on many precedent cases of the Supreme Court. 21 MAR 1988] Facts: The complainant. 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. 1980. On December 12. Petition for certiorari is denied. recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against former Minister Tatad and Antonio L.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Callanta brought the suits for certiorari in the Supreme Court. 1985. paragraph (e) of RA. and may release. Act No. which require the submission of affidavits and counter-affidavits by the complainant and the respondent and their witnesses.00 from Roberto Vallar. According to the Charter of the City of Dagupan. Tatad. In the case at bar. It was denied hence the appeal. a private corporation controlled by his brother-in-law. because she posted the bail bond. petitioner posted the bail bond. Presidential Security Command. Marcos by referring the complaint to the CIS. thus obtaining her provisional liberty. he has waived whatever defect. L-72335-39. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s contentions are to be given merit.000. it is futile for the petitioner to question the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Petitioner questions the validity of the issuance of warrant of arrest by respondent. and agreed with the complaints filed. (3) Violation of Section 7 on three (3) counts for his failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the calendar years 1973. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on April 1. G. Restraining order issued by the Court is lifted and set aside. 1976 and 1978. (2) Violation of Section 3. Cantero. By October 25. 1979. President/General Manager of Amity Trading Corporation as consideration for the release of a check of P588. containing charges of alleged violations of Rep. Secondly. On June 16. Antonio de los Reyes. it was only on June 5. advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions. all affidavits and counteraffidavits were in the case was already for disposition by the Tanodbayan. paragraph (b) for receiving a check of P125. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court”. After the issuance of the warrants of arrest and the bail fixed at P600. “where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper.000. SY ’06-‘07 . as it were. unwarranted benefits. The City Fiscal in this case did not disagree with the judge’s investigation. 1980 which was around two months after petitioner Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. only after petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos. 1985 that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan. “the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense. SANDIGANBAYAN [159 SCRA 70. arguing that the City Fiscal should have conducted the preliminary investigation. Due process (Procedural) and right to speedy disposition of trial were violated. 3019 for giving D' Group. Firstly. without regard to the limits of punishment. According to petitioner’s counsel. in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest”.00 to said corporation for printing services rendered for the Constitutional Convention Referendum in 1973. originally filed what he termed "a report" with the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) on October 1974. Held: YES. 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. (1) Section 3. Petitioner also erred in arguing that only the City Fiscal can conduct a preliminary investigation. if any. the complaint came to life. 3019 against then Secretary of Public Information Francisco S. NOS. all against petitioner Tatad alone. Five criminal informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 12.R. 1982. the 1974 complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan.

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. NO. respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the accused of the crime charged. The same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's memorandum for the prosecution (which apparently was not served on them). The law (P. the Court resolved by nine-to-two votes 11 to issue the restraining order prayed for. declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Presidential Security Command for finding investigation and report. G. Respondents submitted that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal. 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. not a communist plot. Whether or not there was a violation of the double jeopardy clause. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired pointblank into the back of his head by an assassin. Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining respondent court from rendering a decision in the two criminal cases before it. it can not be disregarded or ignored completely. 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. While we agree with the respondent court that this period fixed by law is merely "directory. the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse. No. and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the TRO issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. on the other hand. " while the chairman's minority report would exclude nineteen of them. Only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. Hence.R. GALMAN VS. justice and freedom. that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy. petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. Then Pres. with absolute impunity. Thus. SANDIGANBAYAN [144 SCRA 43. Thereafter. 12 SEP 1986] Facts: Assassination of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. SY ’06-‘07 . same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. 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. Marcos stated that evidence shows that Galman was the killer. Jr. Held: Page 146 Section 1-C. He was killed from his plane that had just landed at the Manila International Airport. 911) prescribes a ten-day period for the prosecutor to resolve a case under preliminary investigation by him from its termination. Aquino could have shot him. However. 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. 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." yet. But ten days later. 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. the instant case had become moot and academic. The fact is that both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the military version stating that "the evidence shows to the contrary that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations.D.72670.

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

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

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

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

Corpuz claim that he was absent when Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks. PEOPLE VS. which no evidence was presented to indict the latter. He alleged that Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks while he was of leave.L-2809. he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned. Issue: Whether or Not Corpuz is guilty of malversation. he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive. Ocampo. G. HOLGADO [85 PHIL 752. On April 13. Issue: Whether or Not there was any irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court. The presumed innocence must yield to the positive finding that he is guilty of malversation. The failure of the public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable. Ocampo was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. Held: Yes. was not proven. upon demand by an authorized officer shall be a prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use. The equipoise rule(balancing test) which is the presumption of innocence is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balance. Acting Deputy Provincial Treasurer Bernardo Aluning made to post the amount on his cashbook although he had not received the said amount. section 3 of ROC that : “If the defendant appears without attorney. Also. Moreso the guarantees of our Constitution that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law".50. 22 MAR 1950] Facts: Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal detention because according to the information.159. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his claims. The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of the qualified plea of accused.00. Apparently the court became satisfied with the fiscal's information Page 151 Section 1-C. and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions of Mr.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests government accounts.823. in which case the scale of justice should be tilt in favor of the accused. 1981 his designation as Acting Supervising Cashier was terminated and a transfer of accountabilities was effected between him and his successor. After a final demand letter for the total of P50. Post-Audit is not a preliminary requirement to filing a malversation case.” This was violated. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. He pleaded guilty (without a counsel) and said that he was just instructed by Mr. a case of malversation was filed against him.07 which was not met. 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. 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. He was convicted in Sandiganbayan. being a private person. The Certificate of turnover revealed a shortage of P72. Wherefore his petition is denied.596. Held: It is a subtle way of camouflaging the embezzlement of the money equivalent when 1 of the 4 checks issued and encashed in the same day was entered in the accused’s cash book 3 months after such encashments. and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. Corpuz did not deny such facts but he insists that the shortage was malversed by other persons. Rule 112. He was able to pay only P10. There is no such balance in the case at bar..R. the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. He is guilty as principal of Malversation of Public Funds. SY ’06-‘07 .

who fails to genuinely protect the interests of the accused. 1970. SORIANO VS. despite a second call of the case. Fiscal. was assigned to investigate. his arraignment was scheduled before the Criminal Circuit Court of San Fernando. Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the rights of the accused. La Union. perfunctory queries addressed to the accused whether he understands the charges and the gravity of the penalty. In the course of the investigation. Mere pro-forma appointment of de officio counsel. who was prompted to ask for it because of accused desire to be represented by a de parte counsel. Prior to the next hearing. the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as a principal in violating the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R. At the second hearing on September 8. neither the de parte nor the de officio counsel was in Court. for failure of the de officio and de parte counsels to appear. and that the prudent and proper thing to do in capital cases is to take testimony. The desire to speed up the disposition of cases should not be effected at the sacrifice of the basic rights of the accused.3019). G. MAGSI [124 SCRA 64.3019. On that date.2000. Dominador Cariaso de officio counsel for the accused. to assure the court that the accused has not misunderstood the nature and effect of his plea of guilty.4000 from Tan as price for dismissing the case. G. are not sufficient compliance. SY ’06-‘07 . petitioner demanded Php. Held: YES. marked bill. Rivera was reappointed that day as de officio counsel for arraignment purposes only. On the third hearing date. who was an Asst. and he had supplied the other half. Citing People vs. so Atty. NO.A. hence this instant petition. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. 31 JUL 1984] Facts: Tan was accused of qualified theft. 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.L-65952. Appellant was found guilty of murder and made to suffer the death penalty. After trial. despite appointment by the court of Atty. Held: Page 152 Section 1-C. Tan was given a Php.RA. 1970. 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. Atty. resetting of hearing by the court for alleged reception of evidence when in fact none was conducted. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. 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. Rivera.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests that he had investigated Mr. 1970 on motion of Atty. 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. the severity of the consequences attached thereto as well as the meaning and significance of his plea of guilty.R.L-32888. The petitioner. 1970. Rivera moved to withdraw as de officio counsel and it was favorably acted on by the court on September 7. Tan reported it to the NBI which set up an entrapment. first of which was on August 1. hearing was re-set to September 8. 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. 1970. PEOPLE VS.R. But above all. The case was actually set and rescheduled for six (6) times. Mario Rivera as de officio counsel for the accused. Issue: Whether or Not the investigation conducted by the petitioner can be regarded as contract or transaction within the purview of . SANDIGANBAYAN [131 SCRA 184. NO.

3. 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. A transaction like a contract is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions.3 (b). present. The absence of an arraignment can be invoked at anytime in view of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial. Corrupt practices of public officers . The court agrees with the petitioner.A. It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of possible loss of freedom. BORJA VS. 1973. It was also alleged that without any notice to petitioner and without requiring him to submit his memorandum. transaction as used hereof. With the violation of the constitutional right to be heard by himself and counsel being thus manifest. Senining dated December 28. 20 JUN 1977] Facts: Borja was accused of slight physical injuries in the City of Cebu. At the very least then.3 (b). That not withstanding.210 of the RPC. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s constitutional right was violated when he was not arraigned. respondent Judge Senining proceeded with the trial in absentia and rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime charged. Held: Yes. in connection with any contract or transaction between the Govt. is nullified and set aside. and any other party wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. a decision on the appealed case was rendered The Solicitor General commented that the decision should be annulled because there was no arraignment.3019 sec. The case was appealed to the Court o First Instance in Cebu presided by respondent Judge Mendoza. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift. 3019 Sec. 3019 sec. MENDOZA [77 SCRA 422. The decision of respondent Judge Romulo R. the decision of respondent Judge Rafael T.A. respondent Judge Senining convicted petitioner notwithstanding the absence of an arraignment. Likewise. for the first time. the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx b. Petitioner is guilty of direct bribery under Art. is nullified and set aside. And this element is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner. Page 153 Section 1-C. The petitioner stated that the facts make out a case of direct bribery under Art. depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. The offense of direct bribery is not the offense charged and is not included in the offense charged which is violation of R.L-45667. share percentage or benefit. or administrative in nature. even of his life. for himself or for other person. It was alleged that the failure to arraign him is a violation of his constitutional rights. he must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him. it is correct that the Solicitor General agreed with petitioner that the sentence imposed on him should be set aside for being null.A. is not limited to commercial or business transaction. civil. finding the accused guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries. SY ’06-‘07 .In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing laws. starting with the arraignment of petitioner. It is required in the Rules that an accused. The respondent claimed that.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests R. NO. Mendoza dated November 16. with due respect and observance of the provisions of the Rules of Court. Being arraigned is thus a vital aspect of the constitutional rights guaranteed him.R. Also. G. to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. but includes all kinds of transaction whether commercial. It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was neither a contract nor transaction. the petition for certiorari is granted. However. Judgment modified. is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. affirming the aforesaid decision of Judge Senining. Wherefore. 1976.210 of the RPC and not a violation of R. It is also not just due process that requires an arraignment. The case is remanded to the City Court of Cebu for the prosecution of the offense of slight physical injuries. he was not arraigned.

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

RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE TV OF TRIAL OF JOSEPH ESTRADA [360 SCRA 248. 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. Trial shall commence within 30 days from arraignment as fixed by the court. but in this case. NO. a 60 year old woman. judge or court in which the charge is pending. 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. L-66469. 1992. on the other hand. 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. 8493 “THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT” The arraignment of an accused shall be held within 30 days from filing of the information. 1992 by Orlando Pangan and Richard Pangan who were with her going home coming from the wake of one Leonardo Flores. SY ’06-‘07 . 29 JUN 2001] Facts: The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) sent a letter requesting the Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. more than anyone else. sit in the available seats. along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. both Page 155 Section 1-C.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests bar another prosecution for the same offense. Thereafter. SALAS [143 SCRA 163. within the courthouse. Pampanga. San Nicolas. jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred to win. whichever date last occurs. An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him. REPUBLIC ACT NO. where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. she was last seen alive at about 3:00 o'clock early morning of March 6. 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. 29 JUL 1986] Facts: At about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of March 6. Estrada should be permitted by the court. where a plea of not guilty is entered. The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public information. considering that the rights of the accused to a speedy trial was not violated by the State. Sarino and. it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come.M. the order of dismissal is annulled and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. PEOPLE VS. Nevertheless. G." The request was seconded by Mr. A. where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded. Mexico. by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo. Therefore. It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public. except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or Not live media coverage of the trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. 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. When these rights race against one another.R. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history. conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. still later. identified as Virginia Talens was found lying dead in a canal at Bo. the accused shall have at least 15 days to prepare for trial. this does not apply. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. Cesar N. NO 01-4-03-SC.

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

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

' and did then and there set the house on fire while the aforementioned Rizalina Apatan Silvano was inside said house trying to escape therefrom. An alias warrant for his arrest was issued on 26 June 1989.000. the accused. PEOPLE VS. Bulado. before it could commence. But on 16 May 1987. Province of Negros Oriental. Facts are as follows: "That sometime in the evening of the 28th of January. Its rulings are found in the last two paragraphs which read as follows: "The elements of murder in this case. and Magumnang were all held guilty as principal by direct participation of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Catalina. the penalty now for murder is Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua. In addition. The records were subsequently reconstituted upon petition of the prosecuting fiscal. Since all the requisites of trial in absentia are complete. and with treachery and evident premeditation and being then armed with bolos and 'pinuti'. Magpalao. 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. 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. Bulado. SY ’06-‘07 . Silvano. Municipality of Sta. abdomen hacked with viscerae evacerated. The testimonies of the witnesses were retaken. 4585 for the killing of Rizalina ApatanSilvano having been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. the accused JUANITO RISMUNDO. The decision of the trial court. and allowing her to be burned inside said house which was burned to the ground. then presided over by Judge Pacifico S. this Court believes that simple frustrated homicide only is committed by the accused Engracio Valeriano only. After the completion of the re-taking of the testimonies of the witnesses in Branch 37. contained no specific dispositive portion. NO. unlawfully and feloniously attack. a fire gutted the building where Branch 37 was located and the records of these two cases were burned. to wit: 'right leg amputated below the knee. at Nagbinlod. Magumnang was presumed innocent during his trial in absentia. Page 158 Section 1-C.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests the trial in absentia continued as to him. Ompa. ACABAL [226 SCRA 694 . the court has jurisdiction over Magumnang. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of parties but until the case is terminated.R. including several 'John Does'. Criminal Cases Nos. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. considering the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of nighttime. 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. 103604. thereby causing upon said Rizalina Apatan Silvano her death and burning her beyond recognition. conspiring and confederating with one another. but he remains at large up to the present. dated 31 October 1991 but promulgated on 20 December 1991. Thus. accused Engracio Valeriano jumped bail and the warrant for his arrest issued on 16 November 1987 was returned unserved because he could not be found. 4584 and 4585 were re-raffled to Branch 33 of the trial court. per Judge Pacifico S.00) Pesos since this case occurred [sic] in 1980. and for all the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30. 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. Held: The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. For the wounding of the victim Wilson A. left leg hacked behind the knee. the penalty impossable [sic] here will be in its maximum degree. did then and there willfully. The reason is that the lower court has jurisdiction over Magumnang the moment the latter was in custody. with intent to kill. the abuse of superior strength. Philippines. 1980. MACARIO ACABAL and ABUNDIO NAHID. however. Criminal Case No. the Constitutional mandate was not violated. 23 SEP 1993] Facts: The accusatory portion in the information for murder. G. that is reclusion perpetua taking into account Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful