Ishmael Himagan vs People of the Philippines & Judge Hilario Mapayo

1
Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence, Political Law Tags: case brief, case digest, Constitutional Law, equal protection, himagan vs people,Jurisprudence, Political Law, scra, Suspension of PNP Members Charged with Grave Felonies

“Equal Protection” – Suspension of PNP Members Charged with Grave Felonies Himagan is a policeman assigned in Camp Catititgan, Davao City. He was charged for the murder of Benjamin Machitar Jr and for the attempted murder of Benjamin’s younger brother, Barnabe. Pursuant to Sec 47 of RA 6975, Himagan was placed into suspension pending the murder case. The law provides that “Upon the filing of a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance against a member of the PNP for grave felonies where the penalty imposed by law is six (6) years and one (1) day or more, the court shall immediately suspend the accused from office until the case is terminated. Such case shall be subject to continuous trial and shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment of the accused. Himagan assailed the suspension averring that Sec 42 of PD 807 of the Civil Service Decree, that his suspension should be limited to ninety (90) days. He claims that an imposition of preventive suspension of over 90 days is contrary to the Civil Service Law and would be a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of laws. ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 47, RA 6975 violates equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution. HELD: The language of the first sentence of Sec 47 of RA 6975 is clear, plain and free from ambiguity. It gives no other meaning than that the suspension from office of the member of the PNP charged with grave offense where the penalty is six years and one day or more shall last until the termination of the case. The suspension cannot be lifted before the termination of the case. The second sentence of the same Section providing that the trial must be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment does not qualify or limit the first sentence. The two can stand independently of each other. The first refers to the period of suspension. The second deals with the time from within which the trial should be finished. The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other classes of persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as the application of the rule on preventive suspension is concerned is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them, as succinctly brought out in the legislative discussions. If a suspended policeman criminally charged with a serious offense is reinstated to his post while his case is pending, his victim and the witnesses against him are obviously exposed to

In 1991. If the trial is unreasonably delayed without fault of the accused such that he is deprived of his right to a speedy trial. he is not without a remedy. Read full text here. In . should the suspension of accused be lifted? The answer is certainly no. On 21 Dec 1991. Any violation thereof constitutes a criminal offense. 14 more informations were filed against Marcos. case digest. associations and corporations from maintaining foreign exchange accounts abroad w/o permission from the CB. prohibition or mandamus. Political Law Tags: case brief. in appropriate cases where the facts so warrant. or secure his liberty by habeas corpus. a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. Political Law. firms. 8 informations were filed against Marcos accusing her of maintaining a foreign account in Switzerland from 1968-1991. et al 1 Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law. Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students. the Judge who fails to decide the case within the period without justifiable reason may be subject to administrative sanctions and. Should the court refuse to dismiss the case. the accused can compel its dismissal by certiorari. to criminal or civil liability. He may ask for the dismissal of the case. Suppose the trial is not terminated within ninety days from arraignment. Benedicto and Rivera for the same offense. Constitutional Law. Manila RTC Judge Guillermo Loja Sr. there is nothing in RA 6975 that suggests that the preventive suspension of the accused will be lifted if the trial is not terminated within that period. marcos vs ca. Jurisprudence. the imposition of preventive suspension for over 90 days under Sec 47 of RA 6975 does not violate the suspended policeman’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. The circular was issued in 1983. While the law uses the mandatory word “shall” before the phrase “be terminated within ninety (90) days”. equal protection. Jurisprudence.constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the accused is in uniform and armed. Imelda Marcos vs Court of Appeals. Nonetheless. scra “Equal Protection” Marcos was charged for violating Central Bank Circ 960 which banned residents..

” Read full text here. probation law. case digest. During the pendency of these cases. The RTC consolidated the cases and Marcos was arraigned in Feb 1992. Jurisprudence. associations and corporations to maintain foreign exchange accounts abroad but the circulars have a saving clause excepting from the circular pending criminal actions involving violations of CB Circ 960. case brief. Criminal Procedure. among others. The RTC denied the Motion so did the CA hence the appeal. and not at their present posture. case digest. Political Law. Should she nonetheless desire to pursue such objection. People of the Philippines & HSBC vs Judge Jose Vera & Mariano Cu Unjieng 1 Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law. Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students. Marcos filed a Motion to Quash based on the new circular. HELD: The SC ruled against Imelda. Remedial Law Tags: case brief. firms. He filed for reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new trial. Hence. Marcos averred that her right to equal protection has been violated. as the new circular was purposedly designed to preserve the criminal cases lodged against her. he appealed for probation alleging that the he is innocent of the crime he was convicted of. The SC said “Her lamentations that the aforementioned provisions are discriminatory because they are aimed at her and her co-accused do not assume the dignity of a legal argument since they are unwarranted conjectures belied by even the text of the circulars alone. equal protection. Judge Tuason of the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the Insular . Constitutional Law. 11 more informations were filed. CB Circ 1318 and CB Circ 1353 (Further Liberalizing Foreign Exchange Regulations) were issued which basically allowed residents. Jurisprudence. the foregoing facts clearly disprove petitioner’s claim that her constitutional right to equal protection of the law was violated. a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. as respondent appellate court correctly concludes. scra Equal Protection – Probation Law Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. Political Law. While awaiting new trial. ISSUE: Whether or not Imelda’s right to equal protection had been violated by CB Circ 1353. Criminal Procedure.January 1992. people vs vera. she may always adduce additional evidence at the trial of these cases since that is the proper stage therefor.Remedial Law.

The IPO denied the application. This only means that only provinces that can provide appropriation for a probation officer may have a system of probation within their locality. The provincial boards are given absolute discretion which is violative of the constitution and the doctrine of the non delegability of power. Said probation officer shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office. a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. Nowhere in the law is stated that the law is applicable to a city like Manila because it is only indicated therein that only provinces are covered. as in pardon. is granting freedom.Probation Office. Further. Pampanga et al 4 . Further. This would mean to say that convicts in provinces where no probation officer is instituted may not avail of their right to probation. The SC declared the old probation law as unconstitutional. The said law provides absolute discretion to provincial boards and this also constitutes undue delegation of power. There is undue delegation of power because there is no set standard provided by Congress on how provincial boards must act in carrying out a system of probation. HELD: The act of granting probation is not the same as pardon. Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students. And even if Manila is covered by the law it is unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of the Constitution provides equal protection of laws. Read full text here. In fact it is limited and is in a way an imposition of penalty. The challenged section of Act No. Roma Drug & Romeo Rodriguez vs RTC of Guagua. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. the said probation law may be an encroachment of the power of the executive to provide pardon because providing probation. 4221 which provides that the act of Legislature granting provincial boards the power to provide a system of probation to convicted person. The City Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to place Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of Sec. However. it is a violation of equity so protected by the constitution. in effect. 11 Act No. Judge Vera upon another request by Cu Unjieng allowed the petition to be set for hearing. ISSUE: Whether or not equal protection is violated when the Probation Law provides that “ony in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a probation officer” may the probation system be applied.

a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. It provides that the right to import drugs and medicines shall be available to any government agency OR ANY PRIVATE 3rd PARTY.as defined by RA 8203 “Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs. roma drug vs rtc. ISSUE: Whether or not SLCD violates equal protection. Political Law. case digest. Political Law Tags: access to medicine. the flawed intention of Congress had been abrogated by the passage of RA 9502 “Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008” and its IRR. This law does not expressly repeal SLCD but it emphasized that any medicine introduced into the Philippines by its patent holder be accessible to anyone. equal protection. RD is apparently one of 6 pharmacies who are directly importing 5 medicines produced by Smithknline from abroad. RD is not purchasing those medicines via local Smithkline – the authorized distributor of Smithkline in the Philippines.” Notwithstanding RD’s motion for reconsideration. Nevertheless. Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students. It discriminates at the expense of Filipinos who cannot travel abroad to purchase such medicines yet need them badly. Rodriguez assails the constitutionality of SLCD averring. case brief. Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform 1 . Smithkline Phil avers that because the medicines were not purchased from a Philippine registered counterpart of Smithkline then the products imported by RD are considered as counterfeit or “unregistered imported drug product” . that it has violated his right to equal protection as it banned him access from such medicines. The SC noted that this law provided and recognized the constitutionally-guaranteed right of the public to health.Jurisprudence. Read full text here. among other things. scra “Equal Protection” – Access to Medicine Roma Drug. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of RD. Constitutional Law. owned by Rodriguez. the provincial prosecutor recommended that Rodriguez be tried. It does not allow private 3rd parties to import such medicines abroad even in cases of life and death nor does it allow the importation by 3rd parties in cases wherein the stocks of such medicine would run out. was raided by the NBI upon request of Smithkline – a pharmaceutical company (now Glaxo Smithkline).Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law. The SC denounced SLCD for it violated equal protection. Jurisprudence.

1987. 1972. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection clause. the executive order also deprives the petitioners of their property rights as protected by due process. The argument of the small farmers that they have been denied equal protection because of the absence of retention limits has also . Constitutional Law. Afterwhich is the enactment of RA 6657. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. in the case of other farmworkers. Jurisprudence. case digest. RA 3844. Political Law. equal protection. nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provisions. On July 17. which was promulgated on Oct 21. Jurisprudence. which Cory signed on June 10. This was followed on July 22. Agricultural Land Reform Code. The State shall. Worse. scra “Equal Protection” These are 3 cases consolidated questioning the constitutionality of the Agrarian Reform Act. This was substantially superseded almost a decade later by PD 27. HELD: The SC ruled affirming the Sol-Gen. In considering the rentals as advance payment on the land. Cory issued EO 228. EO 228 ignored judicial prerogatives and so violated due process. In his comment the Sol-Gen asserted that the alleged violation of the equal protection clause. while considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments. along with martial law. to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. the petition for prohibition would be premature. who are landless. Political Law Tags: association of small landowners vs secretary of agrarian reform. to own directly or collectively the lands they till or. providing the mechanics for its implementation. instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP). the measure would not solve the agrarian problem because even the small farmers are deprived of their lands and the retention rights guaranteed by the Constitution. From this viewpoint. case brief. 1963. The equal protection clause is also violated because the order places the burden of solving the agrarian problems on the owners only of agricultural lands. Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program. the sugar planters have failed to show that they belong to a different class and should be differently treated. had already been enacted by Congress on August 8. to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners. The petitioners maintain that in declaring the beneficiaries under PD 27 to be the owners of the lands occupied by them. The Comment also suggests the possibility of Congress first distributing public agricultural lands and scheduling the expropriation of private agricultural lands later. This law. by law.Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law. and EO 229. No similar obligation is imposed on the owners of other properties. undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers. declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. 1987 by PP 131.

(2) must be germane to the purposes of the law. Read full text here. no evidence has been submitted to the Court that the requisites of a valid classification have been violated. Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students. In any event. they too have not questioned the area of such limits. (1) must rest on substantial distinctions.become academic under Sec 6 of RA 6657. The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the measures here challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory. However. The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. valid classification The requisites to be complied with are. There is no need to elaborate on this matter. requisites of classification. (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law. Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. Legal Questions Tags: Constitutional Law. Legal Questions. an objection also made by the sugar planters on the ground that they belong to a particular class with particular interests of their own. a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. . Its decision is accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except only where its discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights. the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid classification. it must conform to the following requirements: (1) it must be based on substantial distinctions. Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same particulars. There is also the complaint that they should not be made to share the burden of agrarian reform. Significantly. and (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of other properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land reform must be rejected. To be valid. There is a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except to those who will not see. What are the Requisites of a Valid Classification? Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law. (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only.

case brief. then. scra “Equal Protection” – Requisites of a Valid Classification – Bar from Drinking Gin In 1937. distinctions. The requisites to be complied with are. Act No. case digest. The SC emphasized that it is not enough that the members of a group have the characteristics that distinguish them from others.Jurisprudence. and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. Jurisprudence. HELD: The SC ruled that Act 1639 is valid for it met the requisites of a reasonable classification. Political Law Tags: Bar from Drinking Gin. equal protection.” The law. He was then charged and sentenced to pay P5. ** Taken from People of the Philippines vs Cayat. He averred. People of the Philippines vs Cayat 2 Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law. Constitutional Law. Cayat admitted his guilt but he challenged the constitutionality of the said Act. all measures thus far adopted in the promotion of the public policy towards them rest upon a recognition of their inherent right to equality in the . that it violated his right to equal protection afforded by the constitution. The law sought to distinguish and classify native non-Christians from Christians. Requisites of a Valid Classification.” On the contrary. (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law. Cayat. as an indispensable requisite. a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. (1) must rest on substantial distinctions. a native of the Cordillera. not be arbitrary. does not seek to mark the non -Christian tribes as “an inferior or less capable race. among others. Political Law. there exists a law (Act 1639) which bars native non-Christians from drinking gin or any other liquor outside of their customary alcoholic drinks. The classification must. He said this an attempt to treat them with discrimination or “mark them as inferior or less capable race and less entitled” will meet with their instant challenge. The classification rests on real or substantial. and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. not merely imaginary or whimsical. people vs cayat. ISSUE: Whether or not the said Act violates the equal protection clause.00 and to be imprisoned in case of insolvency. It is not based upon “accident of birth or parentage. was caught with an A-1-1 gin in violation of this Act. 1639 satisfies these requirements.(3) must not be limited to existing conditions only. (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only. Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students.

if there is. by appropriate measures. His petition was joined by Atty. Patricio Dumlao et al vs COMELEC 1 Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law. Read full text here. the length of the campaign and the provision barring persons charged for crimes may not run for public office and that the filing of complaints against them and after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them from office. Jurisprudence. These two however have different issues. with the ultimate end in view of placing them with their Christian brothers on the basis of true equality. But as there can be no true equality before the law. Further. and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon .enjoyment of those privileges now enjoyed by their Christian brothers. In general. case digest. in fact. this case does not meet all the requisites so that it’d be eligible for judicial review. There are standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the function of judicial review. (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity. BP 52 was passed (par 1 thereof) providing disqualification for the likes of Dumlao. eligibility to office. dumlao vs comelec. a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. He has retired from his office and he has been receiving retirement benefits therefrom. Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students. On the other hand. Political Law Tags: case brief. They have separate issues. the government has endeavored.equal protection. namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case. Dumlao’s cause is different from Igot’s. scra “Equal Protection” – Eligibility to Office after Being 65 Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Vizcaya. Jurisprudence. He filed for reelection to the same office for the 1980 local elections. Constitutional Law. HELD: The SC pointed out the procedural lapses of this case for this case would never have been merged. (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question. Political Law. ISSUE: Whether or not the there is cause of action. Dumlao invoked equal protection in the eye of the law. The suits of Igot and Salapantan are more of a taxpayer’s suit assailing the other provisions of BP 52 regarding the term of office of the elected officials. to raise their culture and civilization and secure for them the benefits of their progress. no equality in education. Dumlao assailed the BP averring that it is class legislation hence unconstitutional. Igot and Salapantan Jr.

. Retirement from government service may or may not be a reasonable disqualification for elective local officials. equal protection. The assertion that Sec 4 of BP 52 is contrary to the safeguard of equal protection is neither well taken. For one thing. In respect of election to provincial. Legal Questions Tags: Constitutional Law. a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. aged 65. are entitled to the protection only insofar as their property is concerned. in the case of a 65-year old elective local official (Dumalo). In this case. only the 3rd requisite was met. Legal Questions. On the other hand. might or might not be a reasonable classification although. who has retired from a provincial. natural as well as juridical. there can also be retirees from government service at ages. say below 65. or municipal positions. a good policy of the law should be to promote the emergence of younger blood in our political elective echelons. Read full text here. For purposes of public service. city. one class can be treated and regulated differently from another class. for a 65year old retiree could be a good local official just like one. city or municipal office. scope of equal protection. who is not a retiree. Employees attaining that age are subject to compulsory retirement. as the Solicitor General has intimated. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students.who are covered under the equal protection clause WHO ARE PROTECTED Equal protection is available to all persons. employees 65 years of age. have been validly classified differently from younger employees. What is the Scope of the Equal Protection Clause? Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law. aged 65. The SC ruled however that the provision barring persons charged for crimes may not run for public office and that the filing of complaints against them and after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them from office as null and void. to require that candidates should not be more than 65 years of age at the time they assume office. it might be that persons more than 65 years old may also be good elective local officials. while those of younger ages are not so compulsorily retirable. as provided for in the challenged provision. there is reason to disqualify him from running for the same office from which he had retired. It may neither be reasonable to disqualify retirees. however. But. Artificial persons.in order to decide the case. if applicable to everyone. If the groupings are based on reasonable and real differentiations.

and operate public utilities. Legal Questions EQUAL PROTECTION Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. equal protection. Legal Questions Tags: Constitutional Law. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. . **Taken from Arsenio Lumiqued vs Apolonio Exevea et al Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students. the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality. under like circumstances and conditions both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. such as the rights to vote. although aliens are comprehended in the guaranty. equal protection defined. the equal protection clause does not absolutely forbid classifications. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. The right to equal protection. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike. The equal protection clause exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. Thus. even between or among citizens only. basic as it is. so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others. exploit natural resources.By constitutional reservation. Similar subjects. taxation and eminent domain. Substantive equality is NOT enough. in other words. Even if the law be fair and impartial on its face. certain rights are enjoyable only by citizens. **Taken from Arsenio Lumiqued vs Apolonio Exevea et al Howard Chan is the Founder of Case Digests for Law Students. Even ordinary statutes can validly distinguish between citizens and aliens or.’ so as to unjustly benefit some and prejudice others. it is also required that the law be enforced and applied equally. it will still violate equal protection if it is administered “with an evil eye and uneven hand. should not be treated differently. a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. for that matter. sheltered by the Constitution is a restraint on all the three grand departments of the government and on the subordinate instrumentalities and subdivisions thereof. hold public office. like the police power. What is Equal Protection? Posted by Howard | Posted on 06-11-2010 Category : Constitutional Law. a website which provides reliable case digests for law students and researchers who may not have the time to read lengthy Supreme Court decisions. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men. and on many constitutional powers.

Previous .

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.