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 83 by the Constitution in his office. 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.

M ANILA 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 6 intents and purposes, it has become a part of the national patrimony . 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 th a vacation leave, by reason of her pregnancy, which commenced on the 16 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 Police Power is subject to and is controlled by the paramount authority of the constitution of the state. Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 ―incomplete. health. failure to do so is ―deceptive and misleading‖ which renders the initiative void. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. protected by the "due process of law" clause of the constitution. Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives The fram ers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between ―amendment‖ and ―revision. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse o f discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition. terms. SY ’06-‘07 . 174153. The contracting parties may establish any agreements. Held: The Supreme Court declared Section 13 of Act No. nor transcend or violate the express inhibition of the constitution. for the preservation of the public peace. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral. 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. The Initiative Violates Section 2. It has been decided several times.R.presidential form of government to unicameral. But that power cannot grow faster than the fundamental law of the state. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change. 1. and will not be permitted to violate rights secured or guaranteed by the latter. The police power may encompass every law for the restraint and punishment of crimes. provided they are not contrary to law. morals or public policy The police power of the state is a very broad and expanding power. 25 Oct 2006] Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 constitution. therefore a constitutes a revision. 2. Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people‘s initiative. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2. it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution. and morals. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Page 4 Section 1-C. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.parliamentary. COMELEC [G. they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. that the right to contract about one's affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual. inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions‖ to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution. LAMBINO VS. and conditions they may deem advisable. No. Issue: Whether or Not the Lambino Group‘s initiative petition complies with Section 2. 3071 to be unconstitutional for being violative or restrictive of the right of the people to freely enter into contracts for their affairs. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a people‘s initiative. Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group‘s petition.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.

Art. Alexander Padilla. not to revision thereof. Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon.R. G. The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision. the constitutional guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service. considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative. the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right to people‘s initiative. Senator Roco. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. A revision cannot be done by initiative. Modernization and Action (PIRMA). the people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision. is void. SY ’06-‘07 . with preliminary injunction. COMELEC is Not Necessary Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid. it will not change the result because the present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative. (2) The people‘s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 3. 2. the IBP. Sec. Issue: Whether or not Sec.127325. GONZALES VS. No such law has been passed. 9 Nov 1967] Facts: The case is an original action for prohibition. without implementing legislation the same cannot operate. the issue of whether or not the petition is a revision or amendment has become academic. thus. 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. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of the Constitution. G. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid. No. COMELEC [270 SCRA 106. as it would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as the synchronization of elections. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago. through People‘s Initiative. 2 of the 1987 Constitution. must first comply with the constitution before complying with RA 6735 Petition is dismissed. Public Interest Law Center. No. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right. COMELEC [21 SCRA 774.R. L-28196. The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. therefore it is outside the power of people‘s initiative. Jesus Delfin. 19 Mar 1997] Facts: Private respondent Atty. Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. However. SANTIAGO VS. Held: Sec. It has been an established rule that what has been delegated. cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). president of People‘s Initiative for Reforms. filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials. Page 5 Section 1-C. which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. He b ased this petition on Article XVII. A Revisit of Santiago v. 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. Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. At the hearing. Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory. and prohibiting political dynasties. considering the Court‘s decision in the above Issue. 2.

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

Issue: Whether or not Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No.R. said R. This is also the reason why a "columnist. No. The Commission on Elections. 2167. commentators or announcers. all sides of the issue. Section 11(b) R. permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other public utilities. on the day before and on the plebiscite day. 2167 has no statutory basis. 6766 and other pertinent election laws. however. which provides: Section 19. who claims to be a newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER. Pursuant to said law. entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. as well as ventilate. 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. announcer or personality. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. SY ’06-‘07 .A. It is clear from Art. 1990 by virtue of Comelec Resolution No. time and space. media of communication or information to the end that equal opportunity. 2167. The people affected by the Issue Page 7 Section 1-C. petitioner maintains that as a columnist. it would in fact help in the government drive and desire to disseminate information. beliefs and opinions on the issue submitted to a plebiscite. Ifugao. for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. equal rates therefor. 2167 is unconstitutional. 6766. 2167 on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras which consist of the provinces of Benguet. 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. 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. promulgated Resolution No. 1989. and the right to reply. 1989 which was. 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. there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution. all comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region. In a petition dated November 20. In fact. to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region.A. no mass media columnist. including reasonable. Unlike a regular news reporter or news correspondent who merely reports the news. 2nd par. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is unconstitutional. G. Plebiscite Issue are matters of public concern and importance. However. 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. 1989. Petitioner likewise maintains that if media practitioners were to express their views. Therefore. 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. — During the plebiscite campaign period. Republic Act No. including the forum. 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. herein petitioner Pablito V. Mountain Province. Sanidad. a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras. neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11 (b). 2226 dated December 27. 1989.A. 6646). assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite Issue. COMELEC [78 SCRA 333. his column obviously and necessarily contains and reflects his opinions. commentator. 29 Jan 1990] Facts: This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. commentator.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests SANIDAD VS. of R. reset to January 30. Prohibition on columnists. views and beliefs on any issue or subject about which he writes. 90878. the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881). On October 23. Abra and Kalinga-Apayao. shall take part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act originally scheduled last December 27. and hear.

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

petitioners. No.. On August 9. could offset their outstanding obligations. or proclamation. As a result. 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. there must be before the Court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial review. the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. order. the Mirasols filed a suit for accounting. 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. the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity. the question before the Court must be ripe for adjudication. instruction. President Marcos issued PD 579 in November. The purpose of the mandatory notice in Rule 64. 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. presidential decree. We must stress that. and damages against PNB. order. insisting that said proceeds. ordinance. 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.D. Believing that the proceeds were more than enough to pay their obligations. if properly liquidated. PNB proceeded to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgaged properties. contrary to petitioners' stand. Whether PD 579 and subsequent issuances thereof are unconstitutional. Philippine National Bank (PNB) financed the Mirasols' sugar production venture FROM 1973-1975 under a crop loan financing scheme. 1979. specific performance. Second. conveyed to PNB real properties by way of dacion en pago still leaving an unpaid amount. Petitioners contend that P. No. notice to the Solicitor General is mandatory. The rule itself provides that such notice is required in "any action" and not just actions involving declaratory relief. Inc.R. The decree directed that whatever profit PHILEX might realize was to be remitted to the government. Third. the mandatory notice requirement is not limited to actions involving declaratory relief and similar remedies. 1974 authorizing Philippine Exchange Co. 579. presidential decree. the person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge. No.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests MIRASOL VS CA [351 SCRA 44. petitioners asked PNB for an accounting of the proceeds which it ignored. and lastly. all earnings from the export sales of sugar pertained to the National Government. international or executive agreement. 128448. PNB remained adamant in its stance that under P. PNB asked petitioners to settle their due and demandable accounts.D. Petitioners now ask this Court to exercise its power of judicial review. or regulation not only in this Court. and a Real Estate Mortgage in favor of PNB. Fourth. but in all Regional Trial Courts. Whether or not said PD is subject to judicial review. 15 In all actions assailing the validity of a statute. Page 9 Section 1-C. Where there is no ambiguity in the words used in the rule. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law. there was nothing to account since under said law. presidential decree. a Chattel Mortgage on Standing Crops. 1 Feb 2001] Facts: The Mirasols are sugarland owners and planters. Petitioners continued to ask PNB to account for the proceeds. G. PNB still had a deficiency claim. treaty. Jurisprudence has laid down the following requisites for the exercise of this power: First. (PHILEX) to purchase sugar allocated for export and authorized PNB to finance PHILEX's purchases. Held: It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute. SY ’06-‘07 . there is no room for construction. The Mirasols signed Credit Agreements. or executive order. treaty. Petitioners continued to avail of other loans from PNB and to make unfunded withdrawals from their accounts with said bank. To deny the Solicitor General such notice would be tantamount to depriving him of his day in court.

the provision amounts to class legislation. Petitioners assail the declaration of Proc. Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned statutory provisions violate the Constitution and thus. 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. the necessity for resolving the issue of constitutionality is absent. His question is posed merely in the abstract. As to (2). 22 Jan 1980] Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. which are: 1) There must be an actual case or controversy. 2) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the ―rebellion‖ were thereafter effected. rebellion. LACSON VS. Petitioner filed for prohibition. G. 38) on May 1. and 4) The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. including those amounting to subversion. No. As to (4). there is no cause of action in this particular case. One class can be treated differently from another class. PEREZ [357 SCRA 756. In regards to the second paragraph of Sec. No. Igot and Salapantan have institute the case as a taxpayer‘s suit. injunction. In this case. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification.L-52245. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392. 4. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. As to (1).10 May 2001] Facts: President Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of Rebellion (Proclamation No. shall not be qualified for any of the offices covered by the act. Petitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. employees 65 years of age are classified differently from younger employees.R. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. insurrection. 38 and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof. No. Sec. wherein the information against them were filed. 3) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. 2001 as well as General Order No. G. but the institution of a taxpayer‘s suit per se is no assurance of judicial review. it should be declared null and void for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused. and without the benefit of a detailed factual record. 1 ordering the AFP and the PNP to suppress the rebellion in the NCR. 4 provides that any retired elective provincial 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.R. nor disqualified from being candidates for local elective positions. 4 of BP Blg 52 remains constitutional and valid. mandamus and habeas corpus with an application for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The purpose of the provision is to satisfy the ―need for new blood‖ in the workplace. Sec. neither Igot nor Salapantan has been charged with acts of loyalty to the State. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52. which states that any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State. SY ’06-‘07 . also assail the validity of Sec. In regards to the unconstitutionality of the provisions. or other similar crimes. Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of the provision. Page 10 Section 1-C. They have no personal nor substantial interest at stake. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests DUMLAO VS. Petitioners furthermore pray that the appropriate court. Therefore. According to Dumlao. 147780 . would desist arraignment and trial until this instant petition is resolved.

Respondents. command and direction of known and unknown leaders have seized the Oakwood Building in Makati. 2003. (2)SJS Officers/Members v. Article VI of the Constitution. along with the warrantless arrests and hold departure orders allegedly effected by the same. Publicly. Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief.R. providing for preliminary investigation. 2001 siege of Malacañang. 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. providing for the period in which a warrantlessly arrested person must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities. SY ’06-‘07 . If the detention should have no legal ground. Page 11 Section 1-C. demanding the resignation of the President. and all persons acting in their behalf. 2001. On August 1. Negotiations took place and the officers went back to their barracks in the evening of the same day. Executive Secretary. To declare the hold departure orders null and void ab initio must be made in the proper proceedings initiated for that purpose.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests They also contend that they are allegedly faced with impending warrantless arrests and unlawful restraint being that hold departure orders were issued against them. 435. authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion in suppressing the rebellion if the circumstances so warrant. not prejudicial to claim of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. Article VII. and that there is no factual basis for such proclamation. 3 Feb 2004] Facts: During the wee hours of July 27. No. nor were they expressing any intention to leave the country in the near future. together with their agents. acting upon instigation. petitioners contending that the proclamation is a circumvention of the report requirement under the same Section 18. Petitioners‘ prayer for relief regarding their alleged impending warrantless arrests is premature being that no complaints have been filed against them for any crime. 38 on May 6. the Philippines was declared under the State of Rebellion. and by virtue of Proclamation No. declaring the Cessation of the State of Rebellion was issued. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [421 SCRA 656. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. 2006. 427 and General Order No. consistent and congruent with their undertaking earlier adverted to. v. Finally. 159085. furthermore. the arresting officer can be charged with arbitrary detention. the following petitions were filed: (1) SANLAKAS AND PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA VS. thus the warrantless arrests are not based on Proc. Hon. 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. Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. otherwise the officer responsible for such may be penalized for the delay of the same. SANLAKAS VS. commanding the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law. (3) Rep. the writ of habeas corpus is uncalled for since its purpose is to relieve unlawful restraint which Petitioners are not subjected to. Under Section 5. No. some three-hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP. accordingly the instant petition has been rendered moot and academic. Romulo. 4. 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. In the interim. 18 Article VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the AFP. (4) Pimentel v. representatives. No. petitioners contending that there was usurpation of the power of Congress granted by Section 23 (2). Held: President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of Proc. Respondents have declared that the Justice Department and the police authorities intend to obtain regular warrants of arrests from the courts for all acts committed prior to and until May 1. President Macapagal-Arroyo and Executive Secretary Romulo. These acts constitute a violation of Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code. they complained of the corruption in the AFP and declared their withdrawal of support for the government. 38. Petitioners were neither assailing the validity of the subject hold departure orders. 38 is valid. petitioners contending that Sec. et al. however. Suplico et al. G. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. both the Proclamation and General Orders were lifted. and Proclamation No. 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. 2003. et al. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Petition is dismissed.

Aquino. his relatives and cronies. then Chairman of PCGG. On 14 August 1990. The fear on warrantless arrest is unreasonable. PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction Page 12 Section 1-C. 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. 427 and General Order No. While the Court may examine whether the power was exercised within constitutional limits or in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. 24 Aug 1993] Facts: On 9 August 1990. 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. 96541.R. supported their assertion that the President acted without factual basis. Article VI. signed the Consignment Agreement with Christie's of New York. was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. and SJS Officers/Members have no legal standing to sue. These are purely executive powers. and Sen. Suplico et al. SY ’06-‘07 . the contract was highly disadvantageous to the government.T. According to the agreement. 4 are constitutional. Manson and Woods International. 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. 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. PCGG [225 SCRA 568. Mateo A. then President Aquino. 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. as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 (2). Enriquez. the Commission on Audit through then Chairman Eufemio C. 427 and General Order No. representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. 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. vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18. and as long as a valid warrantless arrest is present. Article VII. that the extent the powers of Congress are impaired. wrote then President Corazon C. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. requesting her for authority to sign the proposed Consignment Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines through PCGG and Christie. The President in addition to its Commander-in-Chief Powers is conferred by the Constitution executive powers. Caparas. The issue of usurpation of the legislative power of the Congress is of no moment since the President.. Section 18. It sustained its decision in Philippine Constitution Association v. since any person may be subject to this whether there is rebellion or not as this is a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code. The 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. No. 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. as Members of Congress. have standing to challenge the subject issuances. so is the power of each member thereof. Only petitioners Rep. through former Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig. Article VII does not expressly prohibit declaring state or rebellion. through Chairman Caparas. JOYA VS. petitioners Sanlakas and PM. none of the petitioners here have. On 26 October 1990. in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces. by way of proof. Pimentel. Jr. PCGG. Based on the foregoing. 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. On 15 August 1990. G.

There are certain instances however when this Court has allowed exceptions to the rule on legal standing. Held: This is premised on Sec. On 11 January 1991. Page 13 Section 1-C. hence. Issue: Whether or not petitioners have legal standing. Rule 3. petitioners do not possess any clear legal right whatsoever to question their alleged unauthorized disposition.302. 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. 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. The term "interest" is material interest. Whether or not the petition has become moot and academic. The ownership of these paintings legally belongs to the foundation or corporation or the members thereof. They lack basis in fact and in law.86 were turned over to the Bureau of Treasury. It is worthy to note that petitioners admit that the paintings and antique silverware were acquired from private sources and not with public money.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests in the U. the assets subject of auction were historical relics and had cultural significance. and when a taxpayer questions the validity of a governmental act authorizing the disbursement of public funds. and if so. although the public has been given the opportunity to view and appreciate these paintings when they were placed on exhibit. Petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit.604.S. or a mere incidental interest. 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 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. Whether or not PCGG has complied with the due process clause and other statutory requirements for the exportation and sale of the subject items. Whether or not the Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware are embraced in the phrase "cultural treasure of the nation". "Legal standing" means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. and that all persons having interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. 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. After the oral arguments of the parties on 9 January 1991. 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. their disposal was prohibited by law. petitioners are not challenging any expenditure involving public funds but the disposition of what they allege to be public properties. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. 2. If these properties were already acquired by the government. the sale at public auction proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of $13. Moreover. and. SY ’06-‘07 . Obviously. Having failed to show that they are the legal owners of the artworks or that the valued pieces have become publicly owned. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. 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. whether the above Issue warrant resolution from this Court. Neither can this petition be allowed as a taxpayer's suit.. of the Rules of Court which provides that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.

The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. there must be an actual case of controversy — one which involves a conflict of legal rights.. In the said order. not only was the defendant's claim that the complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question sustained. WHEREFORE. the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children. Page 14 Section 1-C. Factoran. Secretary Factoran. taxpayers. was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of. 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. engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). For a court to exercise its power of adjudication. are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action. 101083. 30 Jul 1993] Facts: Principal petitioners. 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. inter alia. namely: the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and." On 22 June 1990. JR. 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. and entitled to the full benefit. petitioners argue that this case should be resolved by this Court as an exception to the rule on moot and academic cases. 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. Alcala. an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. a "national cultural treasures" is a unique object found locally. Again. the petitioners maintain that. Inc. the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land. the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government. Jr. G. the Honorable Angel C.. OPOSA VS. [224 SCRA 792. FACTORAN. No. use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. 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. His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion. the petition for prohibition and mandamus is DISMISSED.R. for lack of merit. the Issue raised in the petition have become moot and academic. the motion is dilatory and the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion. the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. SY ’06-‘07 .San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Anent the second requisite of actual controversy. but have also joined the latter in this case. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network. On 18 July 1991. such as the case before us. yet the novelty and importance of the Issue raised by the petition deserve this Court's attention. a domestic. A case becomes moot and academic when its purpose has become stale." 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. cultural. that although the sale of the paintings and silver has long been consummated and the possibility of retrieving the treasure trove is nil. artistic and/or scientific value which is highly significant and important to this country and nation. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines. (PENI). filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two grounds." On the other hand. possessing outstanding historical. the original defendant. Jr.

petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. Section 4 of Executive Order (E. is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.) No. to bring all of them before the court. Article II of the 1987 Constitution. Section 16. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause. Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P. Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Whether or not the petition should be dismissed. Section 16. since the parties are so numerous. if not totally impossible. No. Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. The plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. Nature means the created world in its entirety. Whether or not the petiton is in a form of a class suit. As a matter of fact. Held: As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs.O. all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12. a TLA remains effective for a certain period of time — usually for twenty-five (25) years.O. at the same time. During its effectivity. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. 192. SY ’06-‘07 . Whether or not the TLA‘s can be out rightly cancelled. Consequently. the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found. for the first time in our nation's constitutional history.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19. The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which.) No. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter. the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition. after due notice and hearing. 192 creating the DENR. to have violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of due process. it is because of the Page 15 Section 1-C. 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. Hence. it is well settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires. Once issued. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi. The minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes. becomes impracticable. respondents submit that the same cannot be done by the State without due process of law. but to all citizens of the Philippines. it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several. 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. 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations). the latter being but an incident to the former.D. 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. 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. it. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy). Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause.

It must. 1151 and P.D. Moreover. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. 1152 were issued. including those in reservation and watershed areas. Finally. management.D. thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs. 192. No. 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. processing. no contract would have as of yet existed in the other instances. as the trial court did.O. however. This is because by its very nature and purpose. furthermore. and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. on the other hand. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right. accepting. No. hence. 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. 90-777 is hereby set aside. It may. promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. 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. mineral. renewing or approving new timber licenses for. which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion. granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications. be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer. it is difficult to imagine. Hence. however. Page 16 Section 1-C." Section 2 of the same Title. how the non-impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving. be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. and lands of the public domain. resources. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements. development and utilization of the country's natural resources. the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. as well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation. specific statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future generations. development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources. specifically forest and grazing lands. Petition is hereby GRANTED. then President Corazon C. the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts. but also for those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987 E. In the second place. violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology. No. specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR. No other matter should be considered." 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. the question submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health. with respect to renewal. nonetheless. the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right. the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation. 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. Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation. Thus. On 6 June 1977.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 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. the truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher authority. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation.O. save in cases of renewal. Nevertheless. P.

The amendments present new terms and conditions which provide financial benefit to PIATCO which may have the altered the technical and financial parameters of other bidders had they know that such terms were available. VS. 152 dismissing petitioner from the service. explored the possibility of investing in the new NAIA airport terminal. A group of congressmen filed similar petitions. The workers filed the petition for prohibition claiming that they would lose their job. On October 6. Issue: Whether or Not the 1997 concession agreement is void. 155001. and Personal Data Sheet. In Nov. And was directed him to send in his answer. but still the project was awarded to Paircargo. GUINGONA [305 SCRA 533. for investigation. Airport Terminals Co. 5 May 2003] Facts: Some time in 1993. UMALI VS. 1994. November 29.m. filed a motion for intervention. 1993 to March 15. the amendments and supplements thereto are set aside for being null and void.R. March 16. Since MIAA is charged with the maintenance and operations of NAIA terminals I and II. They submitted proposals to the government for the development of NAIA Intl. On August 1. Pres. SY ’06-‘07 . Held: The 1997 concession agreement is void for being contrary to public policy. G. copies of his Statement of Assets. G.. more particularly the following malfeasance. and Liabilities for the past three years (3). then President Ramos issued Administrative Order No. The amendments have the effect of changing it into and entirely different agreement from the contract bidded upon. 1994. and the termination of contract. the PCAGC issued its Resolution of September 23. development of facilities and proceeds. After evaluating the evidence on record. The NEDA approved the NAIA IPT III project. On August 23. Issue: Page 17 Section 1-C. Because of that. fees and charges. No. together with its amendments for being contrary to the constitution. and the service providers joined them. No. Phil. at 2:00 p. He assigned him in Manila. 1994. misfeasance and nonfeasance. six business leaders. Branch's legal office concluded null and void. President Ramos received a confidential memorandum against the petitioner for alleged violations of internal revenue laws.R. 131124. former President authorized the issuance of an Order for the preventive suspension of the petitioner and immediately referred the Complaint against the latter to the Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC). Ramos. at the PCAGC Office. Bidders were invited. 21 Mar 1999] Facts: Osmundo Umali the petitioner was appointed Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue by Pres Fidel V. Intl. Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III). Arroyo declared in her speech that she will not honor PIATCO contracts which the Exec. AEDC protested alleging that preference was given to Paircargo. The petitioners have local standi. rules and regulations during his incumbency as Regional Director.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests AGAN JR. PIATCO [402 SCRA 612. it has a contract with several service providers. it incorporated into. The DOTC and PIATCO entered into a concession agreement in 1997 to franchise and operate the said terminal for 21years. Petitioner was duly informed of the charges against him. 1994. The 1997 concession agreement. 1994. the petitioner filed his required answer. Initial hearing was set on August 25. They are prejudiced by the concession agreement as their livelihood is to be taken away from them. with forfeiture of retirement and all benefits under the law. (PIATCO). 1994 and Makati. 1994 to August 4. acting upon the recommendation of the PCAGC. 1998 it was amended in the matters of pertaining to the definition of the obligations given to the concessionaire. so they formed Asians Emerging Dragon Corp. finding a prima facie evidence to support six (6) of the twelve (12) charges against petitioner. Likewise several employees of the MIAA filed a petition assailing the legality of arrangements. upon receipt of the said confidential memorandum. and among the proposal Peoples Air Cargo (Paircargo) was chosen.

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.‖ In accordance with the said law. 972 is constitutional and valid. while other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. and the position taken by the Solicitor General. invoking the law in question. SY ’06-‘07 . as effective and substantive supervening events that cannot be overlooked.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not AO No. After its approval. After a careful study. As to last issue. it was only posed by petitioner in his motion for reconsideration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. 972. has decided to consider the dismissal of the charges against petitioner before the Ombudsman. many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions. 18 Mar 1954] Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972. irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. petitioner's claim of CESO eligibility is anemic of evidentiary support. the administrative action against the petitioner was taken prior to the institution of the criminal case. According to petitioner. It is worthy to note that in the case under consideration. 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. he is CESO eligible entitled to security of tenure. In sum. It was certainly too late to raise for the first time at such late stage of the proceedings. However. Consequently. Issue: Whether or Not RA No. his dismissal from office on the ground of loss confidence violated his right to security of tenure. we are of the irresistible conclusion that the Court of Appeals ruled correctly on the first three Issue. 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. 152. As regards the issue of constitutionality of the PCAGC. Neither can it be said that there was a violation of what petitioner asserts as his security of tenure. petitioner was not denied the right to due process before the PCAGC. His failure to do so is fatal. and he attended the hearings before the investigatory body. Held: Page 18 Section 1-C. However. in the exercise of its equity powers. There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without. 152 were based on the results of investigation conducted by the PCAGC and not on the criminal charges before the Ombudsman. the Court. Records show that the petitioner filed his answer and other pleadings with respect to his alleged violation of internal revenue laws and regulations. the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration. 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. It was incumbent upon him to prove that he is a CESO eligible but unfortunately. taking into account the antecedent facts and circumstances aforementioned. he can only be removed for cause and under the Administrative Code of 1987. he failed to adduce sufficient evidence on the matter. IN RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534. as a Regional Director of Bureau of Internal Revenue. To be sure. The charges included in Administrative Order No. 152 violated petitioner's Right to Security of Tenure. however. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners. that there is no more basis for Administrative Order No. petitioner theorized. 6 loss of confidence is not one of the legal causes or grounds for removal. Resolution. Whether or Not the ombudsman's resolution dismissing the charges against the petitioner is still basis for the petitioner's dismissal with forfeiture of benefits as ruled in AO No. 152 Held: Petitioner maintains that as a career executive service officer. commonly known as the ―Bar Flunkers‘ Act of 1953. It is thus decisively clear that his protestation of non-observance of due process is devoid of any factual or legal basis.

viz. 497. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. 497. the admission. On this matter. intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character. there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government. that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court. SY ’06-‘07 . Senate Bill No. Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional. In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved. suspension. 21505 into a draft bill. 17. or as other authorities may say. It is obvious. suspension.A. to admit to the Bar. 972 has for its object. (a) House Bill No. dealt with initiative and referendum concerning ordinances or resolutions of local government units. The Act is a consolidation of House Bill No. which dealt with the initiative and referendum mentioned in Sections 1 and 32 of Article VI of the Constitution.A. disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial. This approved bill is now R. 17 solely. therefore. No. and (b) House Bill No. which was subsequently approved on 8 June 1989 by the Senate and by the House of Representatives. merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived. 17 and House Bill No.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests RA No. Page 19 Section 1-C. The former was prepared by the committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms of Representatives on the basis of two House Bills referred to it. according to its author. 6735 was. those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation. 21505 and Senate Bill No. as its history reveals. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ACT R. which dealt with the subject matter of House Bill No. 6735. No. as well as with initiative and referendum under Section 3 of Article XVII of the Constitution. REPUBLIC ACT 6735. The Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill No. the admission. 988.

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

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

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests "Section 10. and these earnings have not been subjected to tax. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislature‘s power. discs. and losses in government revenues due to the drop in theatrical attendance. the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights. and the other fifty percent (50%) shall accrue to the municipality where the tax is collected. and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes. considering "the unfair competition posed by rampant film piracy." WHEREFORE. That in Metropolitan Manila. SY ’06-‘07 . there is no question that public welfare is at bottom of its enactment. 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. Page 22 Section 1-C.” “Fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds of the tax collected shall accrue to the province. PROVIDED. SEC. Videogram(s) establishments collectively earn around P600 Million per annum from rentals. NO. Tax on Sale. as the case may be. Whether or nor the DECREE is constitutional . among others. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. And while it was also an objective of the DECREE to protect the movie industry. Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. videotapes. The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. OF DAR [175 SCRA 343.” The rationale behind the tax provision is to curb the proliferation and unregulated circulation of videograms including. for every sale. ASSO. 27. thereby depriving the Government of approximately P180 Million in taxes each year. It was imposed primarily to answer the need for regulating the video industry. 14 JUL 1989] Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case: a. We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would justify us in pronouncing Presidential Decree No. G. particularly because of the rampant film piracy. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. the tax remains a valid imposition. Lease or Disposition of Videograms. 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. Held: Taxation has been made the implement of the state's police power. contractor's specific. thereby resulting in substantial losses estimated at P450 Million annually in government revenues. While the underlying objective of the DECREE is to protect the moribund movie industry. The unregulated activities of videogram establishments have also affected the viability of the movie industry. the instant Petition is hereby dismissed. sales and disposition of videograms. Issue: Whether or not tax imposed by the DECREE is a valid exercise of police power. have greatly prejudiced the operations of movie houses and theaters. L-78742. 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. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants. No costs. the tax shall be shared equally by the City/Municipality and the Metropolitan Manila Commission.R. lease or disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any motion picture or audiovisual program. 1987 as unconstitutional and void. amusement and other taxes. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. cassettes or any technical improvement or variation thereof. the province shall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%) of the purchase price or rental rate.

No. there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. SY ’06-‘07 . An act may not be considered by society as inherently wrong. 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 law punishes the act not as an offense against property. Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent domain. but an offense against public order. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent Domain. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under Sec. A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of the lawful subject and the method. 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. Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victoria‘s Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. it can be outlawed and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. however what is to be determined is the method employed to achieve it. M ARTINEZ [146 SCRA 323. not malum in se but because of the harm that it inflicts on the community. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. 18 Dec 1986] Facts: A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made. RA 6657 is likewise valid. as the statute is unconstitutional. Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO‘s. 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. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. G. d. and RA were constitutional. commented that it was premature for the accused to elevate to the Supreme Court the orders denying their motions to quash.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests b. Page 23 Section 1-C. The thrust of the law is to prohibit. LOZANO VS. The petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief. The state can do this in the exercise of its police power. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion. contending that no offense was committed. Such motion was denied by the RTC. under pain of penal sanctions. Issue: Whether or not BP 22 is constitutional as it is a proper exercise of police power of the State. 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.R. L-63419. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares. However. the Supreme Court finds it justifiable to intervene for the review of lower court's denial of a motion to quash. c. The Solicitor General. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his 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. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. PD. hence.

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

KWONG SING VS. CITY OF MANILA [41 Phil 103; G.R. No. 15972; 11 Oct 1920] Facts: Kwong Sing, in his own behalf and of other Chinese laundrymen who has general and the same interest, filed a complaint for a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs also questioned the validity of enforcing Ordinance No. 532 by the city of Manila. Ordinance No. 532 requires that the receipt be in duplicate in English and Spanish duly signed showing the kind and number of articles delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments. The permanent injunction was denied by the trial court. The appellants claim is that Ordinance No. 532 savors of class legislation; putting in mind that they are Chinese nationals. It unjustly discriminates between persons in similar circumstances; and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property rights. They also contest that the enforcement of the legislation is an act beyond the scope of their police power. In view of the foregoing, this is an appeal with the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or Not the enforcement of Ordinance no, 532 is an act beyond the scope of police power Whether or Not the enforcement of the same is a class legislation that infringes property rights.

Held: Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible under the police power. The police power of the City of Manila to enact Ordinance No. 532 is based on Section 2444, paragraphs (l) and (ee) of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 2744, authorizes the municipal board of the city of Manila, with the approval of the mayor of the city: (l) To regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for the following: xxxx xxxxxlaundries xxxx. (ee) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity, and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants. The court held that the obvious purpose of Ordinance No. 532 was to avoid disputes between laundrymen and their patrons and to protect customers of laundries who are not able to decipher Chinese characters from being defrauded. (Considering that in the year 1920s, people of Manila are more familiar with Spanish and maybe English.) In whether the ordinance is class legislation, the court held that the ordinance invades no fundamental right, and impairs no personal privilege. Under the guise of police regulation, an attempt is not made to violate personal property rights. The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation. It applies to all public laundries without distinction, whether they belong to Americans, Filipinos, Chinese, or any other nationality. All, without exception, and each every one of them without distinction, must comply with the ordinance. The obvious objection for the implementation of the ordinance is based in sec2444 (ee) of the Administrative Code. Although, 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, but mostly Arabic numbers in order to properly issue a receipt, it seems that the same burdens are cast upon the them. Yet, even if private rights of person or property are subjected to restraint, and even if loss will result to individuals from the enforcement of the ordinance, this is not sufficient ground for failing to uphold the power of the legislative body. The very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for the public welfare. Finding that the ordinance is valid, judgment is affirmed, and the petition for a preliminary injunction is denied, with costs against the appellants.

Page 24 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
TABLARIN VS. GUTIERREZ [152 SCRA 730; G.R. No. 78164; 31 July 1987] Facts: The petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical Education and the Center for Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, series of 1985, dated 23 August 1985 and from requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission, from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. The trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987. The NMAT was conducted and administered as previously scheduled. Republic Act 2382, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 4224 and 5946, known as the "Medical Act of 1959" defines its basic objectives in the following manner: "SECTION 1. Objectives. — This Act provides for and shall govern (a) the standardization and regulation of medical education; (b) the examination for registration of physicians; and (c) the supervision, control and regulation of the practice of medicine in the Philippines." The statute, among other things, created a Board of Medical Education. 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; x x x (f) To accept applications for certification for admission to a medical school and keep a register of those issued said certificate; and to collect from said applicants the amount of twenty-five pesos each which shall accrue to the operating fund of the Board of Medical Education;‖ Section 7 prescribes certain minimum requirements for applicants to medical schools: "Admission requirements. — 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; (b) a certificate of eligibility for entrance to a medical school from the Board of Medical Education; (c) a certificate of good moral character issued by two former professors in the college of liberal arts; and (d) birth certificate. Nothing in this act shall be construed to inhibit any college of medicine from establishing, in addition to the preceding, other entrance requirements that may be deemed admissible.‖ MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, issued by the then Minister of Education, Culture and Sports and dated 23 August 1985, established a uniform admission test called the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) as an additional requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for admission into medical schools of the Philippines, beginning with the school year 1986-1987. This Order goes on to state that: "2. The NMAT, an aptitude test, 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. The cutoff score for the successful applicants, based on the scores on the NMAT, shall be determined every year by the Board of Medical Education after consultation with the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. The NMAT rating of each applicant, together with the other admission requirements as presently called for under existing rules, shall serve as a basis for the issuance of the prescribed certificate of eligibility for admission into the medical colleges. Issue: Whether or not Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985 are constitutional.

Page 25 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
Held: Yes. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring certain minimum scores therein as a condition for admission to medical schools in the Philippines, do not constitute an unconstitutional imposition. The police power, it is commonplace learning, is the pervasive and non-waivable power and authority of the sovereign to secure and promote all the important interests and needs — in a word, the public order — of the general community. An important component of that public order is the health and physical safety and well being of the population, the securing of which no one 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.

Page 26 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

Moreover. Respondent claimed that the MMDA had no authority to do so and the lower court decided in favor of the Respondent. 7924. (3) taxation. respondent herein. police power is defined by Freund as 'the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property'. Rep. The police power of Quezon City is defined in sub-section 00. 6118. 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. even without compensation. petitioner herein. fix the license fee. (1) police power. the Local Autonomy Act. to stop the opening of the said street and demolition of the wall. '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‘. On the same day. 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. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . namely-. It deprives a person of his private property without due process of law. It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of property of the owner. G. trades. Issue: Whether or Not Section 9 of the ordinance in question is a valid exercise of police power. and the Revised Administrative Code. It seems to the court that Section 9 of Ordinance No. MMDA Vs. 12. On the other hand. The power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate. it is not taken for public use but rather to destroy in order to promote the general welfare. If he is deprived of his property outright.‖ The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit. Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA). Ill. Bill of rights states that 'no person shall be deprived of life. Bel-Air Village [328 SCRA 836. Sec. Constitution). filed a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. and for the protection of property therein. nay. because under Section 13 of said ordinance. The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a memorial park cemetery. No. the Quezon City Charter.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Respondent alleged that the same is contrary to the Constitution. is a Government Agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. 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. Section 9 cannot be justified under the power granted to Quezon City to tax.R. …. (2) eminent domain. Held: Section 9 of the City ordinance in question is not a valid exercise of police power. 27 Mar 2000] Facts: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA). Page 27 Section 1-C. This was pursuant to MMDA law or Republic Act No. The respondent. Section 1 subparagraph 1. The confiscatory clause and the penal provision in effect deter one from operating a memorial park cemetery. the respondent was appraised that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision and Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished. and occupation as may be established or practiced in the City. and regulate such other business. Series of 1964 of Quezon City is not a mere police regulation but an outright confiscation. there are three inherent powers of government by which the state interferes with the property rights. received a letter of request from the petitioner to open Neptune Street of BelAir Village for the use of the public. 135962. liberty or property without due process of law' (Art.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner‘s warehouse is a nuisance within the meaning Article 694 of the Civil Code Whether or not Ordinance No. Therefore. 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. 13 is unconstitutional. 11 Mar 1992] Facts: Petitioner Celestino Tatel owns a warehouse in barrio Sta. Republic Act No. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC [207 SCRA 157. A committee was then appointed by the municipal council. Municipality of Virac. According to respondent municipal officials. 5) must be general and consistent with public policy. The lower court did not err in its decision. TATEL VS. It is valid because it meets the criteria for a valid municipal ordinance: 1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute. approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Manila.R. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or not the MMDA has the mandate to open Neptune Street to public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers. 13. On the other hand. 13. 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. It is not a legislative unit of the government. 40243. There is no syllable in the said act that grants MMDA police power. series of 1952 of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void. non-governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. the MMDA cannot exercise police power because it cannot be delegated to them. G. SY ’06-‘07 . Ordinance No. Police power is primarily lodged in the National Legislature. Petitioner herein is a development authority and not a political government unit. Elena. Held: The storage of abaca and copra in petitioner‘s warehouse is a nuisance under the provisions of Article 694 of the Civil Code. 13 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac in the exercise of its police power. It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with various national government agencies. police power may be delegated to government units. and 6) must not be unreasonable. petitioner‘s warehouse was constructed in violation of Ordinance No. 7924 does not empower the MMDA to enact ordinances. Held: The Court held that the MMDA does not have the capacity to exercise police power. 4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade. 2) must not be unfair or oppressive. people‘s organizations. Resolution No. petitioner contends that Ordinance No. At the same time. However. Page 28 Section 1-C. Complaints were received by the municipality concerning the disturbance caused by the operation of the abaca bailing machine inside petitioner‘s warehouse. 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. 3) must not be partial or discriminatory. series of 1952. No.

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

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

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

be reckoned as of June 26.R. 1959 when the complaint for eminent domain was filed. No. through the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). The ―taking‖ of the Castelvi property for the purposes of determining the just compensation to be paid must. on Aug ust 10. Petitioner was adjudged to pay the full market value of land traversed by the transmission lines. water works cannot be taken away except for public use and upon payment of just compensation. GUTIERREZ [193 SCRA 1. Under Sec. 2) the entry must be for more than a momentary period.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The Baguio water works system is not like a public road. did not apply Art. the republic commenced the expropriation proceedings for the land in question. The requisites for taking are: 1) the expropriator must enter a private property. The Supreme Court. as was the lease of Castelvi land in the instant case. SY ’06-‘07 . the park. 1959. Issue: Whether or Not the compensation should be determined as of 1947 or 1959. Petitioner argued that it was only asking for a right of way. Held: The acquisition of the right of way constitutes taking. danger to life and limbs cannot be discounted. She then instituted an ejectment proceeding against the AFP. the AFP refused. without need of a demand (Art. therefore. or takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain. CASTELVI [58 SCRA 336. ceases upon the day fixed. the republic. Because of high tension current conveyed through the transmission lines. When Castelvi gave notice to terminate the lease in 1956. 1250 of the New Civil Code for the adjustment of the peso rate in times of extraordinary inflation or Page 32 Section 1-C. however. ―just compensation‖ is to be determ ined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. The owner of the property is entitled to just compensation. L-20620. street other public property held in trust by a municipal corporation for the benefit of the public. It perpetually deprives Respondents of their proprietary rights. by authority of court. No. 60077. 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. In 1959. 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. the just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. 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. VS. NATIONAL POWER CORP. entered into a lease agreement with Castelvi on a year-to-year basis. G. however.R. No plant higher than three meters is allowed below the transmission lines. Judgment affirmed. In the instant case. 3) it must be under warrant or color of authorities. 4) the property must be devoted for public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected. it is undisputed that the Republic was placed in possession of the Castelvi property. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the ―taking‖ should not be reckoned as of 1947. Issue: Whether or Not the acquisition of the right of way constitutes "taking" and such the case will be entitled just compensation. 1669. 15 Aug 1974] Facts: In 1947. But it is a property of a municipal corporation. REPUBLIC VS. New Civil Code). The Supreme Court has ruled that when the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. and that just compensation should not be determined on the basis of the value of the property as of that year. 4 Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.

According to them. and that plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants. appellant may properly sue the government. It was later found out that the payment of the government to San Antonio would be P15 per square meter. No.R. 29 Feb. the action was premature because it was not filed first at the Office of the Auditor General. Amigable‘s counsel wrote the President of the Philippines. 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. Issue: Whether or Not. DULAY [148 SCRA 305. L-26400.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests deflation because in eminent domain cases the obligation to pay arises from law independent of contract. CUENCA [43 SCRA 360. in which these lands are registered under. Respondent Judge Dulay then issued an order for the appointment of the commissioners to determine the just compensation. 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. It tends to render the courts inutile in a matter in which under the Constitution is reserved to it for financial determination. Private respondent San Antonio Development Corporation (San Antonio.R. or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court‘s findings. decree. EPZA VS. The valuation in the decree may only serve as guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation. Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale. that the Government had not given its consent to be sued. Petitioner then filed in the court a quo a complaint against the Republic of the Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca. requesting payment of the portion of the said lot. Such objection and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration were denied and hearing was set for the reception of the commissioner‘s report. the government used a portion of the lot for the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. under the facts of the case. Issue: Whether or Not the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just compensation in PD 1533 is unconstitutional. No. AMIGABLE VS. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the justness of the decreed compensation. claimed that the lands were expropriated to the government without them reaching the agreement as to the compensation. EPZA then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus enjoining the respondent from further hearing the case. or by the assessor. The method of ascertaining just compensation constitutes impermissible encroachment to judicial prerogatives. On 1958. whichever is lower. 1972] Facts: Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of a particular lot. According to the defendants. 29 Apr 1987] 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. L-59603. but it may not substitute the court‘s own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount. in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery of ownership and possession of the lot. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of just compensation in PD 1533 is unconstitutional. It was disallowed th by the Auditor General in his 9 Endorsement. G. At the back of her Transfer Certificate of Title (1924). the right of action for the recovery of any amount had already prescribed. for brevity). G. SY ’06-‘07 . no statute. The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. which was objected to by the latter contending that under PD 1533. Page 33 Section 1-C. there was no annotation in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property.

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY [395 SCRA 494. 119694. 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. but not without payment of just compensation. then she remains the owner of the lot. 147511. 2772 is unconstitutional. In the case at bar. asks the Supreme Court to declare Comelec Resolution No. impartial and credible election. GR NO. No. Also Resolution No. because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. She could then bring an action to recover possession of the land anytime. their stand on public Issue and their platforms of government. Moreover. the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. COMELEC [244 SCRA 272. PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE VS. 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 taking of private property for public use is authorized by the constitution. However. 22 May 1995] Facts: Respondent Comelec promulgated Resolution No. The Comelec space shall also be used by the Commission for dissemination of vital election information. G. Held: The Supreme Court declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. Court of First Instance of Cebu. (PPI). 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. free of charge. since such action is not feasible at this time since the lot has been used for other purposes. 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. Inc. among all candidates to enable them to make known their qualifications. since no annotation in favor of the government appears at the back of the certificate of title and plaintiff has not executed any deed of conveyance of any portion of the lot to the government. Issue: Whether or not Comelec Resolution No. REYES VS. 2772 directing newspapers to provide free Comelec space of not less than one-half page for the common use of political parties and candidates. considering that the newspapers were not unwilling to sell advertising space. there is no showing of existence of a national emergency to take private property of newspaper or magazine publishers.R. a non-profit organization of newspaper and magazine publishers. Petitioner Philippine Press Institute. It held that to compel print media companies to donate ―Comelec space‖ amounts to ―taking‖ of private personal property with out payment of the just compensation required in expropriation cases. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of the police power of the state. The Comelec space shall be allocated by the Commission. the only relief left is for the government to make due compensation —price or value of the lot at the time of the taking. SY ’06-‘07 . In the case at bench. The trial court rendered judgment ordering the Page 34 Section 1-C. On behalf of the respondent Comelec.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Held: In the case of Ministerio v. the element of necessity for the taking has not been established by respondent Comelec.

the former is only an opinion of a law-making body. 20 JUL 1998] Facts: Petitioner sought to exercise its power of eminent domain based on a resolution by the municipal council. which is allegedly different from the stated public purpose in the expropriation proceedings. 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 is obviously no longer in effect. A resolution is not an ordinance." "public benefit. Issue: Whether or Not an LGU can exercise its power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution by its law-making body. for the common good and in cooperation with the private sector. RA 7160 prevails over the Implementing Rules." and "public convenience. MUNICIPALITY OF PARAÑAQUE VS." "public welfare." Thus. the former being the law itself and the latter only an administrative rule which cannot amend the former. Page 35 Section 1-C. entertainment and service companies. Held: The Supreme Court held in favor of the respondent NHA. VM REALTY CORPORATION [292 SCRA 676. which provides that a resolution authorizes a Local Government Unit to exercise eminent domain. the latter is a law. Held: Under Section 19. The case cited by Petitioner involves BP 337. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. A few years later. 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. 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. The expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing for the marginalized sector is in furtherance of social justice. NO. G. which was the previous Local Government Code. R. 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." In addition. It is now settled doctrine that the concept of public use is no longer limited to traditional purposes. Petitioner cites a previous case wherein a resolution gave authority to exercise eminent domain. Petitioner also relies on the Implementing Rules. whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. 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. 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. Hence. of the present Local Government Code (RA 7160).San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests expropriation of these lots and the payment of just compensation. The term "public use" has now been held to be synonymous with "public interest. and other private concerns. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. Moreover. Accordingly. commercials firms. 127820. the Constitution itself allows the State to undertake. as borne out by the ocular inspection conducted by the trial court which showed that most of the expropriated properties remain unoccupied. it is claimed that respondent NHA has forfeited its rights and interests by virtue of the expropriation judgment and the expropriated properties should now be returned to herein petitioners.

and RA were constitutional. Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO‘s.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests ASLP VS. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victoria‘s Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. SY ’06-‘07 . 14 JUL 1989] Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case: e. is the project manager of NIA.660 sq meters that have been used for the construction of the canal. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislature‘s power. South Cotabato. however what is to be determined is the method employed to achieve it. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision of the RTC. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of the lawful subject and the method. The parties agreed to the construction of the canal provided that the government will pay for the area that has been taken. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares.60 as just compensation for the 24. f. Page 36 Section 1-C. 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. De Onorio is the owner of the land in Barangay M. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. G. EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. 141. there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. NO. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. SEC. NO. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. RA 6657 is likewise valid. Such land is the subject for the construction of an irrigation canal of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA). ONORIO [360 SCRA 230.R.55 for taking her property but the petitioner refused. Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid. 299. G. 78742. OF AGRARIAN REFORM [175 SCRA 343. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion. Sto. ESLABAN VS. 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. respondent demands that petitioner pay P111. After which. 180. 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. Subsequently. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. Santiago Eslaban Jr. 517. 146062. The RTC held that the NIA should pay respondent the amount of P107. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under Sec. 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. h.00 as right of way damages. Nino. g. PD. Mr. 27.R. 28 JUN 2001] Facts: Clarita Vda. Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent domain. Roxas.

The determination of such value should be from the time of its taking by the NIA in 1981. the Knechts claimed ownership of the land and building.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or Not the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC. Blg. SY ’06-‘07 . In this case. an administrator of the agency. The highest bidders were respondent Spouses Anastacio and Felisa Babiera (the Babieras) and respondent Spouses Alejandro and Flor Sangalang (the Sangalangs). Since the Knechts refused to vacate their one remaining house. the irrigation canal was constructed on Oct 1981 after the property had been registered in May of 1976. Second. the Batasang Pambansa passed B.P. the City Treasurer sold the property at public auction for the same amount of their deficiency taxes. COURT OF APPEALS [290 SCRA 223. 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. Lastly. while the verification or certification were signed by Mr. The Knechts continuously claimed ownership of the property and allege that they must be given just compensation. G. Salem filed a case against them for unlawful detainer. leased out the seven and occupied one of them as their residence. Held: The CA is correct in affirming the decision of the RTC but modifications shall be made regarding the value of the just compensation. Third. In this case. The following are the points to be considered in arriving in this decision. 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.61 per hectare. 1529 provides that the owner is required to recognize in favor of the government the easement of a ―public highway. NO. way. The petition for review was filed by Mr. The Municipal Trial Court however ordered the Knechts' ejectment thus their residence was demolished. The property of the Knechts was part of those expropriated under B. The land was owned by petitioners Cristina de Knecht and her son. PD NO. Blg. 108015. 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. Cesar Gonzales.R. the government filed for the expropriation of Knechts‘ property. private way established by law. decision of CA affirmed with modification regarding the just compensation in the amount of P16. Page 37 Section 1-C. the Knechts constructed eight houses. the City Treasurer of Pasay discovered that the Knechts failed to pay real estate taxes on the property from 1980 to 1982. 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. Such case is a sufficient ground for dismissing this petition. prior expropriation proceedings must be filed and just compensation shall be paid to the owner before the land could be taken for public use. Rene Knecht. As a consequence of this deficiency. 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. As defense. KNECHT VS. First. Sangalang and Babiera sold the land to respondent Salem Investment Corporation. 1983. On the land. In the case at bar. Wherefore. just compensation is defined as not only the correct amount to be paid but the reasonable time for the Government to pay the owner. 047. or any government canal where the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries thereof have been pre-determined.P. 340. 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. Eslaban jr. Subsequently. In 1979. 340 authorizing the national government to expropriate certain properties in Pasay City for the EDSA Extension. Salem was included and received partial payment. 340. Neither of the two has the authority to sign such certificate for they are not the plaintiff or principal. In 1982. Blg. The government gave out just compensation for the lands expropriated under B.P. 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. On February 17.B. Harrison in Pasay City.

However. 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. 4 Section 4. that there should be a limit to litigation. represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways alleging that just compensation for site must be reduced. Since the petitions questioning the order of dismissal were likewise dismissed by the Court of Appeals and this Court. Held: The Supreme Court held that the Knechts were not the owners anymore of the said land. 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. Issue: Whether or not respondent Ker Company was given a decision for fair just compensation. (4) there is between the first and second actions. Res judicata has already set it. or an opportunity for such trial has been given. identity of parties. it was challenged by Petitioner Republic of the Philippines.P. SY ’06-‘07 . the individual should not be vexed twice for the same cause. this question has been previously raised in the cases which have been already set aside. The court is not a trier of facts. the judgment of the court. KER [383 SCRA 584. The Knechts' right to the land had been foreclosed after they failed to redeem it one year after the sale at public auction. REPUBLIC VS. and another. the fair market value of the property is taken into account and such value refers to the highest price in terms of money which a property will bring if exposed for sale in the public market. 136171. NO. When a right of fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Laurel-Buhangin Interchange in Davao City. so long as it remains unreversed. 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 Page 38 Section 1-C. The Regional trial court rendered decision of a fair just compensation for defendant Ker Corporation. the order of dismissal became final and res judicata on the issue of ownership of the land. It is a rule that precludes parties from relitigating Issue actually litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment. Held: The Supreme Court held that the valuation for the lot Sites are excessive and unreasonable.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or not Knechts are the lawful owners of the land at subject. Petitioner alleged that when the petition for expropriation was filed. Just compensation cannot be measured by the assessed value of the property as stated in the tax declaration and schedule of market values. However. Petitioner needed the parcels of land for the widening of the road component of J. 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. Neither did they receive notice of the auction sale. The Knechts therefore are not the lawful owners of the land and are not any longer accountable for just compensation given by the government. Res judicata applies when: (1) the former judgment or order is final. Note: Res judicata is a ground for dismissal of an action.R. (3) it was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. It pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence. Petitioners contended that they did not receive notice of their tax delinquency. public policy and necessity. and is based upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law — one. G. should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate. In computing just compensation for expropriation proceedings. For the purpose of appraisal. of subject matter and of cause of action. the tax declaration of the property indicated its assessed value at a lower price. (2) the judgment or order is one on the merits.

The taking is for a public use because of the contribution of Felix Manalo to the culture and history of the Philippines. M ANOSCA VS. Issue: Whether or Not the taking or exercise of eminent domain may be granted. Held: Public use should not be restricted to the traditional uses.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests the filing of the complaint whichever came first. Page 39 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 . 1996] Facts: The National Historical Institute declared the parcel of land owned by Petitioners as a national historical landmark. the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo. G. 106440. NO.R. the appellate court is correct in disregarding petitioner's claim. 29 JAN. COURT OF APPEALS [252 SCRA 412. Petitioners argued that the expropriation was not for a public purpose. because it was the site of the birth of Felix Manalo. The Republic of the Philippines filed an action to appropriate the land. On this matter.

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

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

In addition to the general policy of the law to protect the local consumer by stabilizing and subsidizing domestic pump rates." Indeed.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 1956. b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations." the fund nonetheless remains subject to the scrutiny and review of the COA. 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. No. Moreover. The interplay and constant fluctuation of the various factors involved in the determination of the price of oil and petroleum products. they are exacted in the exercise of the police power of the State. manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products. as amended. or "a specific limit on how much to tax." Under P. this is not the case. 1956. Although the provision authorizing the ERB to impose additional amounts could be construed to refer to the power of taxation. for "being an undue and invalid delegation of legislative power to the Energy Regulatory Board. What is here involved is not so much the power of taxation as police power. SY ’06-‘07 .O. 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. 137. and the frequently shifting need to either augment or exhaust the Fund. as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy. the practice is not without precedent. 137 dated 27 February 1987. as amended by Executive Order No. Article VI of the Constitution. do not conveniently permit the setting of fixed or rigid parameters in the law as proposed by the petitioner. The Court is satisfied that these measures comply with the constitutional description of a "special fund. 1956. 1956 expressly authorizes the ERB to impose additional amounts to augment the resources of the Fund. that the OPSF is a special fund is plain from the special treatment given it by E. What petitioner would wish is the fixing of some definite. § 8(c) of P. as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy. Held: The OPSF is a "Trust Account" which was established "for the purpose of minimizing the frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustment and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum products. As such. 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. To do so would render the ERB unable to respond effectively so as to mitigate or avoid the undesirable consequences of such fluidity. but as already discussed. Page 42 Section 1-C. quantitative restriction. paragraph 1 (c) of P. as amended by Executive Order No. Whether or Not the unconstitutionality of 8. 137. It is segregated from the general fund.D. Hence. taking account of the circumstances under which it is to be exercised. it seems clear that while the funds collected may be referred to as taxes. the standard as it is expressed suffices to guide the delegate in the exercise of the delegated power. No. With regard to the alleged undue delegation of legislative power. and while it is placed in what the law refers to as a "trust liability account. 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 is cited to this requirement by the petitioner on the premise that what is involved here is the power of taxation. 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.D.D. "said creation of a trust fund being contrary to Section 29 (3).

so the plaintiff appealed. donated 10. The plaintiff is now the owner of those mines. 134 of the Internal Revenue Law infringing sec. and predecessor of Fr. imposition of the gift tax was valid. 3473. 600 paid by him as taxes.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests LLADOC VS. 1958. HORD [8 Phil 125.00 pesos in cash to Fr. SY ’06-‘07 . Catholic Parish priest of Victorias did not have juridical personality as the constitutional exemption for religious purpose is valid. the donor M. 1189 known as Internal Revenue Act. Negros Occidental.000. The obligation of which contract was impaired by the enactment of sec. CASSANOVAS VS. Estate filed the donor's gift tax return. Held: Yes. 9. by virtue of a royal decree granted the plaintiff certain mines. Page 43 Section 1-C. On March 3. Sec. Lladoc. for the construction of a new Catholic church in the locality. 1960. contending that they were valid perfected mine concessions and it falls within the provisions of sec. The plaintiff paid under protest. The donated amount was spent for such purpose. Judgment reversed. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE [14 SCRA 292.B. Under date of April 29. the parish priest of Victorias. 5 of the Act of Congress which provides that ―no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted‖. He brought an action against the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue to recover the sum of Php. 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. 22 Mar 1907] Facts: The Spanish Govt. Lladoc was not the Parish priest at the time of donation. Held: The deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and the plaintiff. The Collector of Internal Revenue imposed tax on the properties. 134 of the Internal Revenue Law of 1904 is void because it impairs the obligation of contracts contained in the concessions of mine made by the Spanish Government. Estate Inc. NO.. Issue: Whether or Not Sec. 164 is void or valid. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. 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. 16 JUN 1965] Facts: Sometime in 1957. A gift tax is not a property by way of gift inter vivos. Issue: Whether or not the imposition of gift tax despite the fact the Fr.134 of Act No.L-19201. Crispin Ruiz. 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. No.B. M. of Bacolod City.

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

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

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

Mediator-Arbiter Rodolfo S. It was also then provided that police power can not be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract. 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. Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings before the COMELEC requires due notice and hearing. Furthermore. PHILPHOS moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. This was protested by the petitioner in this case. etc. 17 MAR 1994] Facts: Philphos Movement for Progress. PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORP. and confidential employees. If ever the law infringes upon the said treaty. Held: According to the Court. COMELEC. Reyes vs. nurses. analysts. accountants. The petitioners cannot be removed from office without due process of law. filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner. 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. Held: There was no denial of due process.). the COMELEC is without power to partially or totally annul a proclamation or suspend the effects of a proclamation without notice and hearing. NO. the proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be annulled if he has not been notified of any motion to set aside his proclamation. technical. However. Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an order granting the petition and directing the holding of a certification election among the "supervisory. the said law violates the international and treaty of the Philippines therefore it is unconstitutional. 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. Issue: Whether or Not there was denial of due process. Specifically. TORRES [231 SCRA 335. mechanics.98050. professional (engineers. VS. G. as ruled in Fariñas vs. L-7995. Milado issued an order directing the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner. the instant petition alleging denial of due process on the part of the DOLE to which the mediator-arbiter was under. ICHONG VS. The said law provides for a prohibition against foreigners as well as corporations owned by foreigners from engaging from retail trade in our country.R. PHIL. 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 Page 47 Section 1-C. (PMPI for brevity). HERNANDEZ [101 PHIL 1155. 31 MAY 1957] Facts: Republic Act 1180 or commonly known as ―An Act to Regulate the Retail Business‖ was passed. the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China was violated according to him. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or. SY ’06-‘07 . as applied to administrative proceedings. RA 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. Inc. hence. Issue: Whether or Not Republic Act 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. PHILPHOS appealed the order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment who rendered a decision through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma dismissing the appeal. 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. According to him.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests the presumption of regularity and validity since no contest or protest was even filed assailing the same. Hence. COMELEC and Gallardo vs. excluding therefrom the superintendents and the professional and technical employees. COMELEC. 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. midwives.

RUBI VS. In that case. as petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to present its side. The Court is further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. Naujan Lake. 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. It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code. somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States.R. it will be read. Moreover. instead it opted to submit its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter. Held: The Court held that section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws. and 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. pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code. But it did not. were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao. and to introduce civilized customs among them. Besides. 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. and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. all the Mangyans in the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan. Further. petitioner had all the opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its appeal to the Secretary of Labor. assigned as reasons fort the action. and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent Page 48 Section 1-C. Mindoro. 14078. Also. 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. insisted on a hearing to confront and examine the witnesses of the other party. the provincial governor of Mindoro issued executive order No. SY ’06-‘07 . The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. if it so desired. that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days. G. 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. Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. The preamble of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro which set apart the Tigbao reservation. Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests decision on the basis of the position papers filed by the parties. 25 which states that ―provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) are found is authorized. petitioner could have. there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process. 2. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. Thereafter. against their will. Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao. when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. 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‖. the following: (1) The failure of former attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province. in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. NO. 7 MAR 1919] Facts: This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO [39 PHIL 660.

and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property rights. 11 OCT 1920] Facts: Kwong Sing. an unusual exercise of that power. paragraphs (l) and (ee) of the Administrative Code. Held: Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible under the police power. as amended by Act No. the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. putting in mind that they are Chinese nationals. The police power of the City of Manila to enact Ordinance No. The Solicitor-General adds the following. for their own good and the good of the country. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed. KWONG SING VS. Therefore. in order to fulfill this governmental policy. (Considering that in the year 1920s. and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants. not issue. Issue: Whether or Not the enforcement of Ordinance no. 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. It is. The Manguianes. in his own behalf and of other Chinese laundrymen who has general and the same interest. and the promotion of the morality. 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. None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. good order. comfort." as has been often held. people of Manila are more familiar with Spanish and maybe English. Habeas corpus can. To constitute "due process of law. It unjustly discriminates between persons in similar circumstances. peace. The Plaintiffs also questioned the validity of enforcing Ordinance No. But a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy. 2744. They also contest that the enforcement of the legislation is an act beyond the scope of their police power. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. The appellants claim is that Ordinance No. must be confined for a time. filed a complaint for a preliminary injunction. the furtherance of the prosperity. 532 is based on Section 2444. The court held that the obvious purpose of Ordinance No. indeed. this is an appeal with the Supreme Court. 15972. therefore. The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to benefit the Filipino people as a whole. as we have said. The permanent injunction was denied by the trial court.R. (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam. In some instances. (ee) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety. SY ’06-‘07 . (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. 532 savors of class legislation.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests settlement. One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. Ordinance No. 532 by the city of Manila. (3) The protection of the Manguianes. 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 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. petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. 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. CITY OF MANILA [41 PHIL 103. convenience.) Page 49 Section 1-C. NO. authorizes the municipal board of the city of Manila. a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. In view of the foregoing. 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. G. Considered purely as an exercise of the police power.

COMELEC [237 SCRA 194. 7 OCT 1994] Facts: In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections. Arellano was apprehended and Page 50 Section 1-C. or prosecuting attorney of Manila. Mr. whether they belong to Americans. All. and the trial was about to proceed. industry or any other activity for the purpose of profit in the Philippine Islands. and the collector of internal revenue engaged in the prosecution. The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation. Co Liam. in accordance with existing law. ANIAG VS. Chinese. using and transporting of firearms. Serrapio Taccad. NO. promulgating rules and regulations on bearing. and against the judge presiding. which provides that (Section 1) it shall be unlawful for any person. or any other nationality. Filipinos. judgment is affirmed. wrote petitioner for the return of the two firearms issued to him by the House of Representatives. 104961. and even if loss will result to individuals from the enforcement of the ordinance. the COMELEC issued Resolution No. filed the petition against the fiscal. because it would be oppressive and arbitrary. carrying and transporting of firearm or other deadly weapons on security personnel or bodyguards. the court held that the ordinance invades no fundamental right. to keep its account books in any language other than English. even if private rights of person or property are subjected to restraint. to prohibit all Chinese merchants from maintaining a set of books in the Chinese language. Spanish or any local dialect. when he and the other petitioner. Held: Yes. He was arrested. SY ’06-‘07 . The very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for the public welfare. Under the guise of police regulation. with a violation of Act 2972.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests In whether the ordinance is class legislation.R. with costs against the appellants. 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. G. and impairs no personal privilege. and each every one of them without distinction. TRINIDAD [47 PHIL 385. COMELEC also issued Resolution No. Petitioner then instructed his driver. to pick up the firearms from petitioner‘s house and return them to Congress. or partnership or corporation engaged in commerce. without exception. Issue: Whether or Not Act 2972 is unconstitutional. Finding that the ordinance is valid. Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives. The obvious objection for the implementation of the ordinance is based in sec2444 (ee) of the Administrative Code. Yu Cong Eng. was charged by information in the court of first instance of Manila. 2327 providing for the summary disqualification of candidates engaged in gunrunning. Pursuant to the ―Gun Ban‖. but mostly Arabic numbers in order to properly issue a receipt. on bearing arms by members of security agencies or police organizations. 6 FEB 1925] Facts: The petitioner. and in the Chinese characters. and the petition for a preliminary injunction is denied. But we are clearly of opinion that it is not within the police power of the Philippine Legislature. G. and on behalf of all the other Chinese merchants in the Philippines. the PNP searched the car and found the firearms. The PNP set up a checkpoint. organizing special strike forces. company.R. ―Gun Ban‖. and organization or maintenance of reaction forces during the election period. 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. it seems that the same burdens are cast upon the them. this is not sufficient ground for failing to uphold the power of the legislative body. 2323. Arellano. Yet. must comply with the ordinance. on their own behalf. an attempt is not made to violate personal property rights. Although. and thus prevent them from keeping advised of the status of their business and directing its conduct. YU CONG ENG VS. It applies to all public laundries without distinction. When the car driven by Arellano approached the checkpoint. his books were seized. and establishing spot checkpoints. NO. 20479.

On May 13. 92-0829 is unconstitutional. the private respondent took his oath as a member of the Batasang Pambansa. as they were neatly packed in gun cases and placed inside a bag at the back of the car. Later. His complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Second Division of the said body. 1984. Hence. Resolution No. 1984. the petitioner went to the Commission on Elections to question the canvass of the election returns. Absent any justifying circumstance specifically pointing to the culpability of petitioner and Arellano. 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. and therefore. according to petitioner. are now facing trial for these murders. Consequently. the guns were not tucked in Arellano‘s waist nor placed within his reach. 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. using or transporting firearms or similar weapons‖ and other acts mentioned in the resolution are not within the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner then questions the constitutionality of Resolution No. 2327 is unconstitutional. the PNP could not have thoroughly searched the car lawfully as well as the package without violating the constitutional injunction. Owing to what he claimed were attempts to railroad the private respondent's proclamation. SY ’06-‘07 . Issue: 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. Such constituted a violation of his right to due process. Thus. the bitter contest between the two came to a head when several followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed. the search could not have been valid.92-0829 directing the filing of information against petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus Election Code. 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. L-68379-81. COMELEC issued Resolution No. proclaiming the private respondent the winner in the election. 22 SEPT 1986] Facts: The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 elections. set aside. Page 51 Section 1-C. and that he was not a security officer or a bodyguard. Petitioner was also not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. It was also shown in the facts that the PNP had not informed the public of the purpose of setting up the checkpoint. Meanwhile. Petitioner also explained that Arellano was only complying with the firearms ban. In the case at bar. Thus. 2327. Given these circumstances. and for petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified from running for an elective position. 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. G. allegedly by the latter's men. He argues that ―gunrunning. Seven suspects. JAVIER VS. 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. NOS. He was not informed by the City Prosecutor that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation. including respondent Pacificador. Resolution No.R.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests detained. He then explained the order of petitioner. the eve of the elections. COMELEC [144 SCRA 194. on the strength of his proclamation. However. 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. and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. Issue: Whether or Not the Second Division of the Commission on Elections authorized to promulgate its decision of July 23. the firearms obtained from the warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. The petitioner thereupon came to this Court.

otherwise they will not go to him at all. It is difficult to see how prohibiting the transfer of carabaos from one province to another can prevent their indiscriminate killing. Prohibiting the transfer of carabeef. There is no writer to foreordain the ending. because it is not reasonably necessary for the purpose of the law and is unduly oppressive. otherwise they will not seek his judgment. YNOT VS.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Held: This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" as the indispensable imperative of due process. They must trust the judge. IAC [148 SCRA 659. 74457. after the slaughter of the carabaos. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 20 MAR 1987] Facts: Executive Order No. Held: Yes. ALCUAZ [180 SCRA 218. will not prevent the slaughter either. G. Issue: Whether or Not E. There cannot be equal 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. The judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed. PHILCOMSAT VS. They should be sure that when their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. Without such confidence. The government argued that Executive Order No. Issue: Whether or Not EO No. 18 DEC 1989] Facts: Herein petitioner is engaged in providing for services involving telecommunications. 626-A was issued in the exercise of police power to conserve the carabaos that were still fit for farm work or breeding. Charging rates for certain specified lines that were reduced by order of herein respondent Jose Alcuaz Commissioner of the National Telecommunications Commission. They must believe in his sense of fairness. Held: The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of police power. SY ’06-‘07 . NO. But respondent‘s contention Page 52 Section 1-C. Fair play cans for equal justice. The rates were ordered to be reduced by fifteen percent (15%) due to Executive Order No. on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent law. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. 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. Retaining the carabaos in one province will not prevent their slaughter there. 626-A.O.84818. there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect.R. 626-A is a violation of Substantive Due Process. Said order was issued without prior notice and hearing. The carabaos of petitioner were confiscated for violation of Executive Order No 626-A while he was transporting them from Masbate to Iloilo. 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. NO. 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. 626-A prohibited the transportation of carabaos and carabeef from one province to another.R. 546 which granted the NTC the power to fix rates. To bolster that requirement. G. 546 is unconstitutional.

WHEREFORE. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented The decision must have something to support itself. 19 JUL 1985] Facts: A petition was filed to reopen the Radio Station DYRE. The court stresses that all forms of media. and it is immaterial whether the same is made upon a complaint. Issue: Whether or not due process was exercised in the case of DYRE. upon proper notice and hearing. respondent has no authority to make such order without first giving petitioner a hearing.635). (because there are no longer interested parties. includes the right to present one‘s case and submit evidence presented. Held: The court finds that the closure of the Radio Station in 1980 as null and void. DYRE contends that they were denied due process. The Ang Tibay Doctrine provides the following requirements: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The right to hearing. L-59329. DYRE was ―summarily closed‖ on grounds of national security. or upon the commission's own motion as in the present case. SY ’06-‘07 . liberty and property is valid. Although the government still has the right to be protected against broadcasts which incite the listeners to violently overthrow it. The primary requirements in administrative proceedings are laid down in the case of Ang Tibay v. and. upon notice and hearing. It is thus clear that with regard to rate-fixing. Before the court could even promulgate a decision upon the Issue raised. providing for the proceedings of the Commission. Petitioner. The absence of a hearing is a violation of Constitutional Rights. There was no hearing to establish factual evidence for the closure. Despite the case becoming moot and academic. 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. it gives an unavoidable standard that government actions must conform in order that deprivation of life. filed a motion to withdraw the petition. whether the order be temporary or permanent. The rights of the station were sold to a new owner. Whether or not the closure of DYRE is a violation of the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Expression. Petitioner. the closure of the radio station violates freedom of expression. The closure of the radio station is like wise a violation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression. dictates that a Commission has power to fix rates. Rene Espina. through its president Mr. Furthermore. Section 16(c) of the Public Service Act. a summary investigation. DANS JR. The radio station was allegedly used to incite people to sedition. [137 SCRA 628. EASTERN BROADCASTING CORP (DYRE) V. The court stresses that while there is no controlling and precise definition of Due Process. if not subject to the exceptions. Manuel Pastrana. whether print or broadcast are entitled to this constitutional right. 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. the writ prayed for is GRANTED and the order of respondents is hereby SET ASIDE. The Ang Tibay Doctrine should be followed before any broadcast station may be closed.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests that notice and hearing are not required since the assailed order is merely incidental to the entire proceedings and temporary in nature is erroneous. limitations or saving provisions. The test for the limitation of Page 53 Section 1-C. Court of Industrial Relation (69 Phil. who is no longer interested in pursuing the case.

the function of the CIR. decided the case and elevated it to the Supreme Court. NO. which includes the right to present one's cause and submit evidence in support thereof. decide. 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. But the Ang Tibay filed a motion for opposing the said motion. to consider. and equity and substantial merits of the case. CIR. then the law has the right to prevent it. 103). Therefore. SY ’06-‘07 . the provisions of CA 103. The fact. The CIR. the motion for new trial is meritorious to be granted. 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. Page 54 Section 1-C. (4) The evidence must be substantial. entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. and regulates the relations between them. (3) The decision must have something to support itself. However. 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. There cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: (1) the right to a hearing.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 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. as will appear from perusal of its organic law is more active. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines.R. ANG TIBAY VS. affirmative and dynamic. (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. The freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. 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. and settle any question. Radio and television may not be used to organize a rebellion or signal a start of widespread uprising. Inc (NLU). and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers. but a motion for new trial was raised by the NLU. 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. As laid down in the case of Goseco v. Issue: Whether or Not. however. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially passive. The NLU alleged that the supposed lack of leather material claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme adopted to systematically discharge all the members of the NLU. and in accordance with. or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. matter controversy or disputes arising between. 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. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CIR) [69 PHIL 635. from work. investigate. Held: To begin with the issue before us is to realize the functions of the CIR. (5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the government. The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation which is the Commonwealth Act No. 27 FEB 1940] Facts: There was agreement between Ang Tibay and the National Labor Union. That National Worker's Brotherhood Union of Ang Tibay is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro. the SC had the occasion to point out that the CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure. 46496. which was alleged by the NLU as an illegal one. acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant. It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. G. subject to. and/ or affecting employers and employees or laborers.

HON. (7) The Board or body should. The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to the parties adversely affected by the result. Bernas imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students. died of serious physical injuries at Chinese General Hospital after the initiation rites of Aquila Legis. Present is the twin elements of notice and hearing. and the same is hereby granted. 99327. render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue involved. the Board left the imposition of the penalty to the University Administration. thus: Page 55 Section 1-C. where the issue is whether or not respondent students have been afforded procedural due process prior to their dismissal from Petitioner University. Respondent students filed with RTC Makati a TRO since they are currently enrolled. 27 MAY 1993] Facts: Leonardo H. with instruction that it reopen the case receive all such evidence as may be relevant. in view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal. Fr. and the reason for the decision rendered. Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions. Issue: Was there denial of due process against the respondent students. and the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the CIR. copies of the charges.R. and not simply accept the views of a subordinate. JUDGE IGNACIO CAPULONG [222 SCRA 644. It is accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is when the case involves a question of law. The nature and cause of the accusation were adequately spelled out in petitioners' notices. 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. G. Although respondent students received a copy of the written notice. Instead of filing a reply. more particularly procedural due process. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing activities. respondent students requested through their counsel. 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. Petitioner Dean created a Disciplinary Board to hear the charges against respondent students. Bienvenido Marquez was also hospitalized at the Capitol Medical Center for acute renal failure occasioned by the serious physical injuries inflicted upon him on the same occasion. notified and required respondent students to submit their written statement on the incident. SY ’06-‘07 . In the meantime. This was granted. Accordingly. The Board found respondent students guilty of violating Rule No. 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. Dean of the Ateneo Law School. and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth. The Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee. such as petitioner university herein. after receiving the written statements and hearing the testimonies of several witness. they failed to file a reply. A day after the expiration of the temporary restraining order. Held: There was no denial of due process. ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY VS. Accordingly. So ordered. a first year law student of Petitioner University. the motion for a new trial should be. Villa. found a prima facie case against respondent students for violation of Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline." Respondent students were then required to file their written answers to the formal charge. as in this case. A TRO was also issued enjoining petitioners from dismissing the respondents. thereby by passing the latter and the Court of Appeals. Dean del Castillo created a Special Board to investigate the charges of hazing against respondent students Abas and Mendoza.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests (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. This was granted and reinstatement of the students was ordered. Said notice also required respondent students to submit their written statements within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt. However. in all controversial questions. they were placed on preventive suspension.

JUDGE PURUNGAN [389 SCRA 623. 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. Since the applicants have a history of absconding. During which. Issue: Whether or not Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued. After being taken into custody. In such event. Consequently. 2001 Order. requested the extradition of Mark B. humanitarian or compelling circumstances. which was granted. the RTC held that Jimenez shell be deprived of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. NO. 148571. and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody. 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. the lower court issued its questioned July 3. extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which guilt or innocence is determined. the reasonable prima facie presumption is that the person would escape again if given the opportunity." praying that his application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. and (b) there exist special. 24 SEPT 2002] Facts: The United States of America. Hence. through DOJ. Jimenez filed an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion. to avoid flight. pursuant to the existing RP-US extradition treaty. bail is not a matter of right. it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. In extradition cases. Whether or not he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending. US GOVERNMENT VS. (2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel. filed Petition for Extradition and Jimenez‘s immediate arrest. Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order. G. Before t he RTC could render its decision. an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. 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. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to fundamental fairness. directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. 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. Jimenez. Having once escaped the jurisdiction of the requesting state. potential extraditees may apply for bail. Thus. they have the burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community. Upon receipt of the request. Held: By nature. SY ’06-‘07 . Page 56 Section 1-C. Indeed. he was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4.R. the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action. After Jimenez had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond. 2001. Thereafter the US government. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them. the cancellation of the bond. if the judge is convinced that a prima facie case exists.

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

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

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

A. Not being a penal law. The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in ―any court.‖ Contrary to petitioner and intervenors‘ argument.A.‖ There is nothing ex post facto in R. Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R. 8249. asserting that under the amended informations. 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. charged as principal. Ex post facto law. generally. R. and herein petitioner-intervenors. all of which are present in this case. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when the following concur: (1) it must rest on substantial distinction. to ―all cases pending in any court. Every classification made by the law is presumed reasonable and the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. However. or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher.A. as regards the Sandiganbayan‘s jurisdiction. However. the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. has been declared by the Court as not a penal law. Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and petitioner-intervenors. that what actually transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG. provides retroactive effect of penal laws. After a reinvestigation. 8249. its mode of appeal and other procedural matters. Page 60 Section 1-C. were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). but clearly a procedural statute. 7975. (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only. 8249 is not a penal law. charged as accessories.A. Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes.A.A. 7975. 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. Issue: Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. Thus. an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies. the Ombudsman filed amended informations before the Sandiganbayan. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators to investigate the said incident. where petitioner was charged only as an accessory. SY ’06-‘07 . R. Held: Petitioner and intervenors‘ posture that Sections 4 and 7 of R. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. R. the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 of R. Whether or not the multiple murder of the alleged members of the Kuratong Baleleng was committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers which is essential to the determination whether the case falls within the Sandiganbayan‘s or Regional Trial Court‘s jurisdiction. 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. 7975. one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 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.A. (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant such a declaration.A. and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. the retroactive application of 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. a member of the Criminal Investigation Command.A. Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police operation.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. 8249 violate their righ t to equal protection of the law is too shallow to deserve merit. a review board modified the panel‘s finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six respondents including herein petitioner. they did not qualify under said requisites. Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto statute. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and provide for their punishment.A. pending resolution of their motions.

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

1964 for P7. 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. The orders of the secretary of labor and employment dated June 10. 1[1]. III. These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts. (4) the classification applies only to those who belong to the same class. Constitution. 22[1]. The petition is hereby granted in part. (2) these are germane to the purpose of the law. a complaint against the City of Ormoc as well as its Treasurer. or a total of P12. Constitution. SY ’06-‘07 . TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY [22 SCRA 603. 1997. Constitution) and the rule of uniformity of taxation (Sec. After pre-trial and submission of the case on memoranda. salaries should not be used as an enticement to the prejudice of local-hires. on March 20. The local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires and they ought to be paid the same salaries as the latter.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests While we recognize the need of the School to attract foreign-hires. Answering. 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. Art. Inc. 000. under protest. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. must yield to the common good. 4. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. licenses or fees not excluded in its charter.. 1996 and march 19. In this case. Whether or not it was violative of the rule of uniformity of taxation under the Bill of Rights. therefore. are hereby reversed and set aside insofar as they uphold the practice of respondent school of according foreign-hires higher salaries than local-hires. courts will not hesitate to strike down these stipulations. the petition is given due course. 087.50 and on April 20." The State.50. 1 [1]. Municipal Board and Mayor. For the same reason. Art. the "dislocation factor" and the foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. Constitution). by Ormoc Sugar Company. ." (Sec. Art. . VI. Inc. (3) the classification applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the present. Inc. 1964. Art. 1964. 1964 for P5. Should such contracts contain stipulations that are contrary to public policy. 087. has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital. the Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed Ordinance No. On June 1. Ormoc Sugar Company." Payments for said tax were made. Series of 1964. Wherefore. Issue: Whether or Not the ordinance is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause under Sec. imposing "on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company. with service of a copy upon the Solicitor General. III) In Felwa vs. collective bargaining agreements included. L-23794. and a classification is reasonable where (1) it is based on substantial distinctions which make real differences. on August 6. III. Page 62 Section 1-C. 1[1]. Held: The Constitution in the bill of rights provides: ". 22[1]). alleging that the afore-stated ordinance is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause (Sec. 1964. we find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. Salas. the Court of First Instance. filed before the Court of First Instance of Leyte. ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY VS. 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. Art." "to afford labor full protection. VI. 17 FEB 1968] Facts: On January 29. Sec. 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.

National Census & Statistics Office and the general public. Appellant. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. the ordinance provided a sufficient basis to preclude arbitrariness. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests A perusal of the requisites instantly shows that the questioned ordinance does not meet them. MTCs and Land Registration Commission and with certain other government offices. COMELEC. G. as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. SY ’06-‘07 . Inc. was the only sugar central in the city of Ormoc. as the entity to be levied upon. RTCs. Section 35 of RA 7354 is declared unconstitutional. the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. 92-28 to implement Section 35 of RA 7354 withdrawing the franking privilege from the SC. No costs. the same being then presumed constitutional until declared otherwise. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. the classification. Still. Binalbagan). CA. it cannot be subject to the tax because the ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc City Sugar Company. for the coverage of the tax.50 plaintiff-appellant paid under protest. NO. Held: The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process. Wherefore. PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSO. The respondents counter that there is no discrimination because the law is based on a valid classification in accordance with the equal protection clause. Inc. and none other. 92-28 is set aside insofar Page 63 Section 1-C. however. The taxing ordinance should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar central. for it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company. Ormoc Sugar Company. to be reasonable. At the time of collection. of the same class as plaintiff. As it is now. Inc. even if later a similar company is set up. Issue: Whether or Not Section 35 of RA 7354 is constitutional. PRADO [227 SCRA 703.. So ordered. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice. VS. 11 NOV 1993] Facts: The Philippine Postal Corporation issued circular No. It is alleged that RA 7354 is discriminatory becasue while withdrawing the franking privilege from judiciary. it retains the same for the President & Vice-President of the Philippines. it is true.087. the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause. MeTCs. should be in terms applicable to future conditions as well. Senator & members of the House of Representatives. Circular No. Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. At the time of the taxing ordinance's enactment. is not entitled to interest.R. 105371. What the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. on the refund because the taxes were not arbitrarily 6 collected (Collector of Internal Revenue v.

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

Catolico filed before the Office of the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor practice. explained that the check she received from YSP was a Christmas gift and not a "refund of overprice." Catolico then asked the company to look into the fraudulent activities of Soliven. 5(m). Rule 131).‖ No.R." 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. she was informed that effective 6 February 1990 to 7 March 1990. Catolico requested access to the file containing Sales Invoice No. 266 for her to be able to make a satisfactory explanation. within twenty-four hours.NO. illegal dismissal. and illegal suspension. Catolico did not deny her responsibility but explained that her act was "due to negligence. Co warning her not to dispense medicine to employees chargeable to the latter's accounts because the same was a prohibited practice. It is presumed that they have regularly performed their duties (See. Catolico received a memorandum from WATEROUS Vice President-General Manager Emma R. As regards the first memorandum. 113271. SY ’06-‘07 . In a letter dated 2 February 1990. WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda E. In a letter to Co dated 10 February 1990. ―Appellant signed the contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving more weight to the presumption that things which a person possesses. which her co-employee saw when the latter opened the envelope. appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise. WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals. Catolico asked for additional time to give her explanation. in her memorandum dated 37 January 1990. On 5 March 1990. 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. But. and she was granted a 48-hour extension from 1 to 3 February 1990. Bautro warned Catolico against the "rush delivery of medicines without the proper documents. G. the dismissal was without just cause and due process. Forthwith. It found that petitioner's evidence consisted only of the check of P640. she would be placed on preventive suspension to protect the interests of the company. he decided in favor of Catolico because petitioners failed to "prove what alleged as complainant's dishonesty. However. At this point. issued a memorandum notifying Catolico of her termination." She also averred that the preventive suspension was ill-motivated. In its decision of 30 September 1993.00 drawn by YSP in favor of complainant." On 29 January 1990.‖ WATEROUS DRUG VS. Co asked Catolico to explain. Inc. Rule 131) and their testimonies should be given full faith and credenc e. or exercises acts of ownership over. In a memorandum dated 21 November 1989. WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda Bautro. as it sprang from an earlier incident between her and Co's secretary. besides she was not authorized to deal directly with the suppliers. In his decision of 10 May 1993. On the same date. Labor Arbiter Alex Arcadio Lopez found no proof of unfair labor practice against petitioners.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests No. On 5 May 1990. He thus declared the dismissal and suspension illegal but disallowed reinstatement. Co issued another memorandum to Catolico warning her not to negotiate with suppliers of medicine without consulting the Purchasing Department. by virtue of the constitutional right invoked by complainants. it declared that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution. 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. 5 [j]. It concluded: With the smoking gun evidence of respondents being rendered inadmissible. Irene Soliven. Nevertheless. 16 OCT 1997] Facts: Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner Waterous Drug Corporation on 15 August 1988. ―The law enforcers testified that accused/appellant was informed of his constitutional rights. NLRC [280 SCRA 735 . Hence. as this would impair the company's control of purchases and. On 31 July 1989. through her counsel. are owned by him (Sec. Catolico." and to show that any investigation was conducted. In said letter she protested Saldaña's invasion of her privacy when Saldaña opened an envelope addressed to Catolico. on 2 February 1990. there being no evidence to the contrary. respondents' case falls Page 65 Section 1-C. her side of the reported irregularity.

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

and (5) the documents." or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense. in any event. for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities." Petitioners contentions are: (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents. papers and things seized in the residences of petitioners herein. 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. credit journals. if any. (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them. (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner. separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners. 19 JUN 1967] Facts: Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin — hereinafter referred 2 to as Respondents-Prosecutors — several judges — hereinafter referred to as Respondents3 4 Judges — issued. to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices. correspondence. STONEHILL VS. and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question may be split into two (2) major groups. stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense. as "the subject of the offense. the effects seized are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners. (2) cash money. on different dates. the aforementioned resolution of June 29. were actually seized." which is described in the applications adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws. ledgers. journals. (2) that the defects of said warrants.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests privacy of communication and against unreasonable searches and seizures which is hereby set aside. L-19550. regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said corporations. DIOKNO [20 SCRA 383. SY ’06-‘07 . 1962. and (3) that. namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations. portfolios. and whatever the offices they hold therein may be. papers. regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures. The documents. not mentioned in the 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. With respect to the documents. lifted the writ of preliminary injunction previously 1 Page 67 Section 1-C. Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code. balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers). and to seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit: Books of accounts. directed to the any peace officer. were cured by petitioners' consent. papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants. 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. receipts. vouchers. warehouses and/or residences. and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts. books and things to be seized. financial records. Issue: Whether or not those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations are obtained legally. a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein 5 and/or the corporations of which they were officers. Tariff and Customs Laws. typewriters. Indeed.

BURGOS. None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. Quezon City Branch. Project 6. Holiday Hills. were searched. Respondents also assail the petition on ground of laches (Failure or negligence for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which.R. G. Diokno. violating a given provision of our criminal laws. As a matter of fact. Amado Roan. NO. Quezon Avenue. As a consequence. or committed specific omissions. publication and distribution of the said newspapers. 64261. John J. Atlas Development Corporation. could or should have been done earlier. the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws. to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws. Quezon City. 26 DEC 1984] Facts: Petitioners assail the validity of 2 search warrants issued on December 7. Plana and Manuel Villareal. 2 Hon. he is stopped from challenging the validity of the search warrants. as well as numerous papers. Jose W. Hermogenes Caluag. and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. SY ’06-‘07 . Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. respectively. namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate. Inc. Special Prosecutors Pedro D. Damian Jimenez. Indeed. in effect. in his capacity as Acting Director. SR. Industrial and Business Management Corporation. Investment Inc. 4 Harry S. these premises were padlocked and sealed. it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause. 3 Covering the period from March 3 to March 9. Judge of the Municipal (now City) Court of Manila. CHIEF OF STAFF. warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it). Jose Lukban." — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without reference to any determinate provision of said laws or __________________________ 1 Hon.. the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. Republic Real Estate Corporation and Merconsel Corporation. no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. Hon. 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. Eulogio Mencias. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. Stonehill. RMS Building. thereby. It would be the legal heresy. 5 U. Robert P. Industrial Business Management Corporation. National Bureau of Investigation. Cenzon. Petitioners submit the following reasons to nullify the questioned warrants: Page 68 Section 1-C.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests issued by this Court. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. Tariff and Customs Laws. under which the premises known as No. Brooks and Karl Beck. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. and Hon. restraining herein Respondents-Prosecutors from using them in evidence against petitioners herein. Republic Glass Corporation.. Investment Management Corporation. United Housing Corporation. AFP [133 SCRA 800. 1982 by respondent Judge Cruz-Pano of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal. Hon. City of Manila. and 784 Units C & D. Jr. Roman Cansino. American Asiatic Oil Corporation. and office and printing machines. 1962." In other words. Far East Publishing Corporation (Evening News). publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper. Judge of the Municipal (now City) Court of Manila. As a consequence of the search and seizure. and Assistant Fiscal Maneses G. V. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Quezon City. documents. Pasig Branch. motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing. books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos. Atlas Cement Corporation. Tariff and Customs Laws. Respondents further state that since petitioner had already used as evidence some of the documents seized in a prior criminal case. The Philippine Tobacco-FlueCuring and Redrying Corporation. Road 3. by exercising due diligence. to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision.S. 19. equipment. of the highest order. Efren I. Brooks. Judge of the Municipal (now City) Court of Quezon City. for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. Hon. paraphernalia. in his capacity as Secretary of Justice. were seized. Tobacco Corporation. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time. General Agricultural Corporation. business addresses of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers. with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers were discontinued. Reyes. Jr.

there is an absence of any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the Minister of National Defense. of the existence of probable cause. 885. Issue: Whether or Not the 2 search warrants were validly issued and executed. 4. It would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place. does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. two search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct premises. 3. the machineries in question. The search warrants pinpointed only one address which would be the former abovementioned address. This being the case. upon which the warrants were issued." Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. Jr. the petitioners gave an explanation evidencing that they have exhausted other extra-judicial efforts to remedy the situation. that an examination had indeed been conducted by respondent judge of Col. Court of First Instance. as amended. SY ’06-‘07 . The description of the articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in question are too general. while in fact bolted to the ground. 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. as mandated by the above-quoted constitutional provision as well as Sec. 5. Held: In regard to the quashal of warrants that petitioners should have initially filed to the lower court. 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. Articles belonging to his co-petitioners were also seized although the warrants were only directed against Jose Burgos. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. this Court takes cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional Issue raised. Real properties were seized. 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. The closure of the premises subjected to search and seizure is contrary to the freedom of the press as guaranteed in our fundamental law. It may or may not be owned by him. Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. The existence of this special circumstance justifies this Court to exercise its inherent power to suspend its rules. This objection may properly be considered moot and academic. remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. 4. Section 2. negating the presumption that they have abandoned their right to the possession of the seized property.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 1. The application along with a joint affidavit. of the Rules of Court. Abadilla and his witnesses. On the enumerated reasons: 1. as petitioners themselves conceded during the hearing on August 9. 3. 2. With the contention pertaining to laches. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. 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. Deficient of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause. 1983. Precisely. The broad statements in the application and joint affidavit are mere conclusions of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. With regard to the respondents invoking PD 885. President Marcos himself denies the request of military authorities to sequester the property seized from petitioners. 4. 2. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. The search warrants are declared null and void. Rule 126. 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. Furthermore. Respondents justify the continued sealing of the printing machines on the ground that they have been sequestered under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 5. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. In Alvarez v. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. Page 69 Section 1-C. Respondent Judge failed to conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses.

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. RTC granted the petition.45 Cal. NO. Upon receipt of said informations. compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. issue a warrant of arrest. dynamite sticks and subversive documents‖. a police team. L-60349-62. The application was granted. in its order. petitioner moved that the search and seizure be declared illegal and that the seized articles be returned to him. it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of issuing magistrate. After the hearing. In October. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the articles which were not mentioned in the search warrant was legal. for the purpose of issuing warrants of arrest. Torres to return the money seized to petitioner ruling that any seizure should be limited to the specified items covered thereby. academy notebook and assorted papers and handset battery pack‖. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant Page 70 Section 1-C. Issue: Whether or Not respondent city judge may. P/Sgt. which were ―used or intended to be used‖ for illegal purposes. PEOPLE [246 SCRA 184. G. 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. In September. JUDGE VILLANUEVA [126 SCRA 463. . pistols. But. 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. MTCC. to leave the officers of the law with no discretion. they should remain in custogia legis. Under Section 6 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. respondent judge set the hearing of the criminal cases to determine propriety of issuance of warrants of arrest. Petition granted. Petitioners petitioned for certiorari and mandamus to compel respondent to issue warrants of arrest. PLACER VS.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests TAMBASEN VS. handset with antennae.R. Col. People of the Philippines is ordered to return the money seized.R. Held: Section 2 Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires that a search warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized. regulator supply. Held: Judge may rely upon the fiscal‘s certification for the existe nce of probable cause and on the basis thereof. The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized. 14 JUL 1995] Facts: In August 1988. directed Lt. G. The police acts beyond the parameters of their authority if they seize articles not described in the search warrants. transceiver with antennae. hand grenades. In December. searched the house of petitioner and seized ―2 envelopes containing P14000. such certification does not bind the judge to come out with the warrant. 89103. that unreasonable search and seizure may not be made and that abuses may not be committed. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function. NOS.

subsequently. 1988. 1988. 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. 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. 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.R.affidavits. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. 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. the allegation of denial of due process of law in the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests of arrest. the Secretary of Justice denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration and upheld the resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice sustaining the City Fiscal's finding of a prima facie case against petitioners. the President. G. calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. houses. the judge finds no probable cause. NO. 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. raised by petitioner Beltran. A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice on April 7. On March 30. by the President. SY ’06-‘07 . petitioners' contention that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law has lost factual support. The second issue. The pertinent provision reads: Art." in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits. This is not an accurate interpretation. With these developments. to determine probable cause. subsequently. Sec. 1988. If on the face of the information. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. 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. On appeal. III. and (2) 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. Petition dismissed. All that is required is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded. through the Executive Secretary. M AKASIAR [167 SCRA 393. 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. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. to determine probable cause Held: With respect to petitioner Beltran. 1988. he filed a "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed. Subsequent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic. Page 71 Section 1-C. affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on May 2." 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. 14 NOV 1988] Facts: In these consolidated cases. by the President. if any. SOLIVEN VS. 82585. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the Executive Secretary on May 16. 2. if any.

Sound policy dictates this procedure. The Closure and Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. through their separate acts. of the Labor Code. public respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to petitioner. (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. Hence. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties. They served the order to a certain Mrs. The Order to maintain the status quo contained in the Resolution of the Court en banc dated April 7. ―We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor. 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. To that extent. no search warrant or wa rrant 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. 82827 and 83979. . paragraph (c). 1988 and reiterated in the Resolution dated April 26. 1988 is LIFTED. after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized‖. NO. who let them in. Nos. and the properties were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation. The group. WHEREFORE. not being a judge. Thus. A team was then tasked to implement the said Order. 81510. because she was not given prior notice and hearing. we declare Article 38. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest. the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions in G. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of Rights. 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. may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. For a Salazar. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. with regard to the issuance of the warrants of arrest. otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts. Following established doctrine and procedure. SALAZAR VS. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. The petitions fail to establish that public respondents. G. charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. 14 MAR 1990] Facts: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA. It has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court held. Hence. R. . unconstitutional and of no force and effect… The power of the Pre sident to order the arrest Page 72 Section 1-C.R. a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained. gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. The said Order violated due process. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint against him. the authorities must go through the judicial process. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue. 82585. SY ’06-‘07 . ACHACOSO [183 SCRA 145. on the basis thereof. finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. The team confiscated assorted costumes. ―. went to petitioner‘s residence. On the same day. issue a warrant of arrest. 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. Public respondent Atty.

Chan Sau wah arrived in the Philippines with Fu Yan Fun. Samuel Lee Malaps. We cannot insulate her from the State's power of deportation. since her entry. she must procure from the appropriate consul the proper visa. to leave the country on or before September 10. China. paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. China. This Court in a number of cases has ruled. a woman of undesirable character may enter this country. Under the Constitution. in the care of neighbors in Fukien. MORANO VS. No breadth of discretion is allowed. Issue: Whether or Not the issuance of the warrant of arrest is unconstitutional. Article 38. The court held that the warrant is null and void. 30 JUN 1967] Facts: Chan Sau Wah. the Commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her son. the petition is GRANTED. both minors. like the one at bar. SY ’06-‘07 . it is the sole domain of the courts. Jr.R.‖ Furthermore. and thereby skirt the provisions of our immigration law. VIVO [20 SCRA 562. Born to this union on September 1962 was Esteban Morano. and third. Held: Chan Sau Wah entered the Philippines on a tourist-temporary visitor's visa. exceptional. It (the power to order arrests) cannot be made to extend to other cases. she must depart voluntarily to some foreign country. seemingly is not one who has a high regard for such solidarity. To prolong their stay in the Philippines. 1205. 1962. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO Page 73 Section 1-C. Chan Sau Wah and Fu Yan Fun obtained several extensions.Then. a Chinese citizen born in Fukien. L-22196. On January 1962. in the care of neighbors in Fukien. is impermissible. This is a field closed to judicial action. go through a mock marriage. Fu Yan Fun. but actually live with another man as husband and wife. her minor son also by the first marriage. She is a nonimmigrant. 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. Esteban Morano. Proof: She left two of her children by the first marriage. Such a flanking movement. China arrived in the Philippines on November 1961 to visit her cousin. and consistently too. G. Reason: Discourage entry under false pretenses. second. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. ply a pernicious trade. married in Manila a native-born Filipino. The last extension expired on September 10. 1962 with a warning that upon failure so to do. obviously. 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. In a letter dated August 31. the search and seizure order was in the nature of a general warrant. It will not particularly help analysis for petitioners to appeal to family solidarity in an effort to thwart her deportation. we are confident. 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. first. and again throw overboard Sections 9 and 13 of the Act.000 pesos.Recently we confirmed the rule that an alien wife of a Filipino may not stay permanently without first departing from the Philippines. he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond. Also. Therefore. WHEREFORE. Under Section 13 just quoted. HARVEY V. marry a Filipino. The gravamen of petitioners' argument is that Chan Sau Wah has. a native-born Filipino citizen. Chan Sau Wah.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests of aliens for deportation is. because it must identify specifically the things to be seized. 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. She left China and her children by a first marriage: Fu Tse Haw and Fu Yan Kai both minors. Chan Sau Wah married Esteban Morano. 1962. it would be an easy matter for an alien woman to enter the Philippines as a temporary visitor. 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.

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. another charged not for pedophile but working with NO VISA. it violates the declared policy of the state to promote and protect the physical. Issue: Whether or Not the Commissioner has the power to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of existence of probable cause. Section12 of Rules on Criminal Procedure). the search done was incidental to the arrest. Deportation Page 74 Section 1-C. Whether or Not the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to petitioners. Held: While pedophilia is not a crime under the Revised Penal Code. The arrest of petitioners was based on the probable cause determined after close surveillance of 3 months. 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. therefore the articles are admissible evidences (Rule 126. There are at least three exceptions to this rule. 1. Petition for bail was filed 11March 1988 but was not granted by the Commissioner of Immigration. 82544. the deportation charges and the hearing presently conducted by the Board of Special Inquiry made their detention legal. 2. On 4 March1988. In view of the foregoing. 28 JUN 1988] Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. G. The ―Operation Report‖ read that Andrew Harvey was found together with two young boys. moral.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests [162 SCRA 840.) Seizure of evidence in plain view. 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. NO.) Search in a moving vehicle. The articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest. The court heard the case on oral argument on 20 April 1988. Seized during the petitioner‘s apprehension were rolls of phot o negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in scandalous poses as well as boys and girls engaged in sex. 58. Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles. 3. although such confinement was illegal at the beginning. 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.R. deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under Sec. 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. 4 April1988 Petitioners filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Warrants of Arrest were issued 7March1988 against petitioners for violation of Sec37. 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. Dutch Citizen Adriaan Van Den Elshout.) Search is incidental to the arrest. Laguna.69 of Revised Administrative Code. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation. the 3 petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. One released for lack of evidence. Petitioners are the following: American nationals Andrew Harvey. It is a fundamental rule that habeas corpus will not be granted when confinement is or has become legal. Furthermore. 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. They were apprehended 17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID in Pagsanjan. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also found. Richard Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room. Trial by the Board of Special Inquiry III commenced the same date. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and seizure of articles linked to the offense. spiritual and social well being of the youth. Whether or Not there was unreasonable searches and seizures by CID agents.

i. were illegal and irregular as the judge doesn‘t have jurisdiction on the case. affidavit of witnesses and other supporting documents. he conducted has 2 stages. cases of passing the buck. The proceeding now consists only of one stage. it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. shot the former mayor and his political rival Atty. This fact alone renders preliminary investigation conducted in this case incomplete. Petitioner received a subpoena directing him to file his counter affidavit.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. Moreover he did not complete it. 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. a person under preliminary investigation by the OMB is entitled to a motion for reconsideration. While proceedings are ongoing. the p. He did a worse job than the judge. 16 NOV 2001] Facts: The petitioner. Benemerito. After the shooting. What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be arrested and deported. the power to deport aliens is an act of the State and done under the authority of the sovereign power. 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.R. the preliminary investigation was conducted by 3 different investigators. and the p. he issued a resolution forwarding the case to the prosecutor for appropriate action.i. Also after conducting the preliminary investigation (p. of his own forwarded the records to the Ombudsman (OMB for brevity) for the latter to conduct the same. He only examined the witness of the complainant. This is now a petition for review on the decision of the Sandiganbayan. 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. Issue: Whether or Not the OMB followed the procedure in conducting preliminary investigation.i.A. The filing of the motion for reconsideration is an integral part of the preliminary investigation proper. he surrendered himself and hence the police inspector and wife of the victim filed a criminal complaint for murder against him. A fair hearing must also be conducted with assistance of a counsel if desired. the last one being the OMB throwing the buck to the Sandiganbayan. Whether or Not petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to submit controverting evidence. SALES VS. by actually adopting the resolution of the graft investigator without doing anything and threw everything to the Sandiganbayan for evaluation. 143802. And lastly. Therefore. SY ’06-‘07 . Secondly. He did it the following day. Held: The proper procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation was not followed because of the following reasons. He conducted the requisite investigation prior to the issuance of warrant of arrest. Lastly. But the prosecution instead of conducting p. none of whom completed the preliminary investigation There was not one continuous proceeding but rather.e. The gravity of the offense alone should have merited a deeper and more thorough preliminary investigation. the charge of murder is a non bailable offense. and the p.e.e. he filed a petition for habeas corpus with the C. The OMB directed the petitioner to submit his counter affidavit. but he did not comply with it finding the same superfluous. proper. SANDIGANBAYAN [369 SCRA 293 G. Thirdly. Firstly. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion. The graft investigator recommended the filing of information for murder which the OMB approved. for brevity). The judge after conducting the preliminary examination (p. The OMB did nothing of the sort but wallowed the resolution of the graft investigator. for brevity) found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests proceedings are administrative in character and never construed as a punishment but a preventive measure. The denial thereof is tantamount to the denial of the right itself to a preliminary investigation. granted the petition rd holding that the judge was a relative by affinity by 3 degree to the private respondent and the p. The C.i. as maintained by the Rules of Procedure by the OMB. NO. the incumbent mayor of Pagudpud Ilocos Norte.i. Page 75 Section 1-C.

*** Sec 4 Rule 126 Rules of Court Examination of the complainant.etc. The officers who implemented the search warrant clearly abused their authority when they seized the money of Antonieta Silva. Hence. Petitioner filed a motion to quash Search Warrant No. VEROY VS. WON the officers abused their authority in seizing the money of Antonieta Silva. 81756.1 is invalid. 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.. Quezon City. The warrant authorizes Sgt. lockers. Villamor to make an immediate search at any time of the room of Mr. where the circuit breakers were located. In the course of the search. the officers seized money belonging to Antonieta Silva in the amount of P1. The questions were already mimeographed and all the witness had to do was fill in their answers on the blanks provided. was entrusted to Edna Soguilon to give her access in case of an emergency. G. The questions asked were leading as they are answerable by mere yes or no. 13 Isidro St. While the Veroys had the keys to the interior of the house. considering the OMB‘s defective report and findings.231. When petitioner Leopoldo Veroy was promoted to the position of Assistant Administrator of the Social Security System sometime in June.. who had their assigned quarters at a portion of the premises. SILVA VS. Judge Nickarter Ontal. PRESIDING JUDGE [203 SCRA 140.R. cigarettes. No.. 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. Such questions are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause. Such warrant states that there is a probable cause to believe that Mr. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. Judgment is rendered setting aside the resolution of the Sandiganbayan. record -the judge before issuing the warrant. Villamor.1 pursuant to the said applications for violation of RA 6425 Dangerous Drugs ACT of 1972. since 1988. No.R. 1 is invalid due to the failure of the judge to examine the witness in the form of searching questions and answers. Held: Search Warrant No. Davao City. LAYAGUE [210 SCRA 97. Issue: Whether or Not Search Warrant No. The warrant did not indicate the seizure of money but only for marijuana leaves. which merely rekied on the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and disregarded the evidence for the defense. Tama Silva has the possession and control of marijuana dried leaves. where they are presently residing. the key to the Page 76 Section 1-C. G. 1988. SY ’06-‘07 . Skyline Village. cigarette and joint. cartons and containers to look for said illegal drugs. only the key to the kitchen. 95630. he and his family transferred to 130 K-8th St. 18 Jun 1992] Facts: Petitioners are husband and wife who owned and formerly resided at No.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. ordering the Sandiganbayan to quash the warrant of arrest and remanding the OMB for completion of the preliminary investigation. Jimmy Favia and Eric Burgos.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The court cannot accept the Sandiganbayan‘s assertion of having found probable cause on its own. 21 Oct 1991] Facts: Sgt. Tama Silva at the residence of his father Comedes Silva and to open aparadors. cabinets.40. Search Warrant No. Judge Ontal is guilty of grave abuse of discretion when he rejected the motion of Antonieta Silva seeking the return of her money. 1 is declared null and void. The care and upkeep of their residence in Davao City was left to two (2) houseboys. East Kamias. then the presiding judge of RTC of Dumaguete issued Search Warrant No. Catalunan Grande. 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.

handgun with a magazine containing seven (7) live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an unlocked drawer. 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. containing a book entitled "Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nation". Yet they were being charged under Presidential Decree No. Leo Justalero was instructed by Capt. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of Rebellion). Capt. Obrero and Major Macasaet then entered the children's room and conducted the search. G.A. Petitioner Ma. a plastic bag containing assorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the master's bedroom. sweat shirt. men's brief. Three (3) half-full jute sacks containing printed materials of RAM-SFP were also found in the children's room. its meaning and the intention of the legislature must be determined from the language employed. 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. 1866 is couched in general or vague terms. Capt.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 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. 1866. Capt. Obrero recovered a . 1990 (181 SCRA 648). two (2) pieces polo barong and short sleeve striped gray polo.. They were in Quezon City while the prohibited articles were found in Davao City. The case was referred for preliminary investigation to Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor Rodolfo Ponferrada who was designated Acting Provincial Prosecutor for Davao City. Luisa Veroy. a small black bag. Sgt. 1990. or at least the third paragraph of Section 1 thereof. there is no room for construction. Gandhi brand.45 cal. SY ’06-‘07 . where this Court held that the declaration of unconstitutionality of the third paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. "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. No bail was recommended. Petitioners' contention that Republic Act 6968 has repealed Presidential Decree No. Obrero to make an inventory and receipt of the articles seized. in the house. 83341. 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. they were able to gain entrance into the kitchen. Held: The issue of constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. Petitioners aver that while they Page 77 Section 1-C. Petitioners question the admissibility in evidence of the articles seized in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. Luisa was contacted by telephone in her Quezon City residence by Capt. Police Officers had an information that the petitioner‘s residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. The caretakers facilitated their entry into the yard. Fiscal Ponferrada recommended the filing of an information against herein petitioners for Violation of Presidential Decree No. January 30. The terms "deal in". one blanket. an officer of the PC/INP. Petitioner Ma. 1866 has been laid to rest in the case of Misolas v. However. In a resolution dated August 6. Issue: Whether or Not Presidential Decree No. Davao City and a long time family friend of the Veroys. Petitioners contend that Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. a towel made in U.S. a telescope. two (2) pairs men's socks. "acquire". A search of the children's recreation and study area revealed a big travelling bag containing assorted polo shirts. a road map of the Philippines. 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. 1866 is wanting in legal basis since it is neither a bill of attainder nor does it provide a possibility of a double jeopardy. Panga. The following day. 1866 is bereft of merit. and where there is no ambiguity in the words. 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.R. Petitioners were not found in actual possession of the firearm and ammunitions. No. and using the key entrusted to Edna Soguilon. 1866 upon the sole circumstance that the house wherein the items were found belongs to them. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous. is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

They cannot be used as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms. Gonzales. January 21. assuming that there was indeed a search warrant. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the firearms was proper. The items taken were. its paraphernalia‘s and of a . Undeniably. he did not persist in entering the house but rather contacted the Veroys to seek permission to enter the same. Wherefore the decision is reversed and the accused is acquitted. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. the only objects to be seized that the warrant determined was the methamphetamine and the paraphernalia‘s therein. Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. This shows that he himself recognized the need for a search warrant.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests concede that Capt. the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum but it does not follow that the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Sec 2 art. the rule having been violated and no exception being applicable.R. (2) a search of a moving vehicle. violative of their constitutional rights As such. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III. Obrero had permission from Ma. However. PREMISES CONSIDERED. Lo Ho Wing.R. still in mala prohibita. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution). the petition as granted and the criminal case against the petitioners for illegal possession of firearms is DISMISSED. while there is no need of criminal intent. he did not enter the house because he did not have a search warrant and the owners were not present. Permission was indeed granted by Ma. 109633. Luisa Veroy to break open the door of their residence. SY ’06-‘07 . particularly methamphetamine or shabu. Among the recognized exceptions thereto are: (1) a search incidental to an arrest. Besides. the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one. Hence. 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. DEL ROSARIO [234 SCRA 246. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. No. (Roan v. 1991 [193 SCRA 122]). 145 SCRA 689-690 [1986]). Under the circumstances it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not. Obrero was able to enter the compound. it was merely for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged "rebel" soldiers. G. products of an illegal search. Page 78 Section 1-C. None of these exceptions pertains to the case at bar. hence. G. The permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. they are inadmissible in evidence against them. there must be knowledge that the same existed. which authorized the search and seizure of an undetermined quantity of methamphetamine and its paraphernalia‘s. the articles seized were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. The seizure of the firearms was unconstitutional.22 caliber pistol with 3 live ammunition. an entrapment was planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario and to the seizure of the shabu. Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime. In herein case. PEOPLE VS. and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view (People v. 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. A search warrant is still necessary. Held: No. therefore. 88017. III of the constitution specifically provides that a search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. houses. NO. While Capt. After the issuance of the search warrant.

The police was allowed to enter the house upon the strength of the warrant shown to the accused. Violation of said rule is in fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised Penal Code. There must sufficient evidence that the marijuana was actually surrendered by the accused. 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. 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. 89373. There were inconsistencies insofar the prosecution is concerned. According to the accused. PO Jose Luciano gave money and instructed his civilian informer to buy marijuana from the accused at the Cocoland Hotel. when the police arrived at her house. the trial court concluded that these inconsistencies are trivial. The accused begged the police not to search and to leave the house. these duties are mandatory and are required to preclude substitution of the items seized by interested parties. in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. Again. The claim that the marijuana was planted was strengthen as the police violated sec 7. 1986. She invited Sgt. Judgment is reversed. NO. together with a true and accurate inventory thereof duly verified under oath. SY ’06-‘07 . Yte and PFC Jose Luciano. 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. G.R. About 2pm that day. They confronted the accused and insisted that the bags belonged to her. As held in PP vs. Accused denied the accusation and told them that she doesn‘t know anything about it.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests PEOPLE VS. she saw Sgt. The court renders judgment finding the accused guilty. This requirement is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant. GESMUNDO [219 SCRA 743. rule 126 rules of the court provides no search of a house. He is likewise required to deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant. 17. when someone coming from the kitchen uttered ―eto na‖ They pr oceeded to the kitchen and saw Luciano holding a plastic bag with four other companions. Yte to enter her house while Luciano was left in the jeep that was parked near the house. It was not proved that the marijuana belonged to her. Irreconcilable and unexplained contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the guilt of appellant and his culpability to the crime charged. The 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. as to what was recovered and where. Not only does the law require the presence of witnesses when the search is conducted. While inside the house Yte showed the accused something he claimed as a search warrant. Issue: Whether or Not the evidence was properly obtained by the police. He actually saw the accused selling marijuana to his civilian informer and that same day Luciano applied for a search warrant. The police also recovered from a native ―uway‖ cabinet dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in 3 pieces of komiks paper. Remorosa. The guilt of the accused was has not been established. Page 79 Section 1-C. there was no mention of any marijuana obtained from a flower pot in any of their testimonies. 19 MAR 1993] Facts: According to the prosecution. However. She was ma de to sign a prepared document. but it also imposes upon the person making the search the duty to issue a detailed receipt for the property seized. 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. 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. in the morning of Nov. The police still searched the house and was led to the kitchen. She was brought to the police station and was detained.

Agnes Hospital. Bagong Barrio. 81567. to verify a confidential information which was received by their office. G. subversion. Sucro was monitored to have talked and exchanged things three times. 18 Mar 1991] Facts: Pat.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests UMIL VS. which may be used as proff of the commission of an offense. Quimpo and Veterans.Seraspi proceeded to the area. Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested.. 93239. RAMOS [187 SCRA 311." twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10. Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything. he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols. Macabante admitted buying the marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. Page 80 Section 1-C. The crimes rebellion. P/Lt. Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. Caloocan City. Seraspi. or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon. Biñan. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from Regalado‘s house. PEOPLE VS. Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt.R. Roosevelt Avenue. G. SUCRO [195 SCRA 388. Fulgencio told Lt. Quimpo to monitor activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). NO. The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Quezon City. the arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested. No. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon. Laguna however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. Lot 4. Macabante saw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground. Held: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA. Seraspi to intercept. Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible. 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. 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. In view of this verification. Subversion being a continuing offense. Held: Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado‘s house at C. an outlawed subversive organization. military agents were dispatched to the St. about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. before a road hump along Macanining St.R. Issue: Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful. 3 OCT 1991] Facts: On 1 February 1988. for security reasons. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie Macabante. SY ’06-‘07 . South City Homes. While confined thereat. Rule 126. From that moment.

Exh. 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. and no plausible explanation has been advanced therefor. Exh. The participating agents were given money treated with ultraviolet powder. The lower court. since the operation was conducted after the actual exchange. G. However. i. The accused was found positive of ultraviolet powder. 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. have first secured a search warrant during that time. herein accused. Page 81 Section 1-C. There was no authorization by any search warrant.e. the NARCOM agents were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe among others. "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. 95902. Surprisingly. "A"—Thirty (30) grams of suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops contained inside a transparent plastic bag.R. based on which. 4 Feb 1992] Facts: NARCOM agents staged a buy-bust operation. considering the evidences obtained and testimonies from the prosecution. SY ’06-‘07 . it is presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties. the Don. "B"— Fifty (50) grams of suspected dried marijuana leaves and seeds contained inside a white colored plastic labelled "Robertson".(People v. The agent went back t o headquarters and made a report. asked for a certain Don. a team was subsequently organized and a raid was conducted in the house of the father of the accused. RODRIGUEZA [205 SCRA 791. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests without a search warrant. then they should. One of the agents went to said location. 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. PEOPLE V. as the situat ion did not fall in the circumstances wherein a search may be validly made even without a search warrant. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid. Exh. 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 person posing as a buyer. warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. because they easily could. when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest. 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. who acted as the poseur buyer. Said raid also violated accused‘ right against unreasonable search and seizure. found him guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. No. Thereafter. after gaining information that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas. Exh. met with him and ―a certain object wrapped in a plastic‖ later identified as marijuana was given in exchange for P200. when it involves prohibited articles in plain view. "E"— One plastic syringe. testified that appellant sold him 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic bag. The police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from the surveillance of the activities of the accused. During the raid. Issue: Whether or Not the lower court was correct in its judgment. Albay. "D"— Five (5) small transparent plastic bags each containing suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of seventeen grams.

When he called the attention of the onlooker. As such.22 caliber firearm bullets from his left back pocket. Hence.A. and for Illegal Possession of Ammunitions and Illegal Possession of Drugs in two separate Informations. as amended by R. who ordered his men to call the media. the Zest-O juice box. a small transparent plastic bag with a crystalline substance protruded from his right back pocket. At this time. SPO2 Nulud instantly confiscated the small transparent plastic bag. 7659. He felt sleepy. the existence thereof must be proved with certainty and conclusiveness. yet convicted him for Illegal Possession of 1. In the presence of reporters. SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag hurriedly accosted him and introduced themselves as police officers. Accused-appellant alleged that he was driving the car of his wife to follow her and his son to Manila.815 grams of shabu. Guttierez arrived. The lower court acquitted Sy Chua for the Illegal Possession of Ammunitions. fronting the hotel. Issue: Whether or Not the arrest of accused-appellant was lawful. Rubio.955. Thereafter.A. The unanswered question then arises as to the identity of the marijuana leaves that became the basis of appellant's conviction. these prohibited articles were among those confiscated during the so-called follow-up raid in the house of Rodrigueza‘s father. 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. 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. Conviction is reversed and set aside and accused is acquitted. During the course of the arrest. 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. Afterwards. SPO2 Nulud subjected him to a body search which yielded twenty (20) pieces of live . The man later on identified himself as a policeman. Angeles City. As accused-appellant pulled out his wallet. their informer pointed to a car driven by accused-appellant which just arrived and parked near the entrance of the hotel. 6425. Forthwith. so he decided to take the old route along McArthur Highway.22 caliber firearm bullets and the car used by accused-appellant. While at the store. PEOPLE VS. G. so the policeman took his car keys and proceeded to search his car. He refused. So. The group positioned themselves across McArthur Highway near Bali Hai Restaurant.45 caliber gun and made him face his car with raised hands. SY ’06-‘07 . No. he noticed a man approaches and examines the inside of his car. the PNP Chief formed a team of operatives. Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusation against him and narrated a different version of the incident. the man immediately pulled out a . the policeman took out his wallet and instructed him to open his car. the poli ce officer‘s companions arrived at the scene in two cars. Guttierez opened the box and accused-appellant was made to hold the box while pictures were being taken. he was brought to a police station and was held inside a bathroom for about fifteen minutes until Col. In People vs.R. who just arrived at the scene. After accused-appellant alighted from the car carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box. Angeles City. PO2 Nulud. the twenty (20) pieces of . while the others searched his car. 4 Feb 2003] Facts: Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua was charged with violation of Section 16. he saw that it contained a crystalline substance. Failure to do so would be fatal to the cause of the prosecution. Article III of R. this appeal to the Court. When SPO2 Nunag peeked into the contents of the Zest-O box.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Evidently. SY CHUA [396 SCRA 657. He stopped in front of a small store near Thunder Inn Hotel to buy cigarettes and candies. Guttierez at the PNP Headquarters in Camp Pepito. The other group acted as their back up. Page 82 Section 1-C. SPO2 Nulud and the other police operatives who arrived at the scene brought the confiscated items to the office of Col. Col.136066-67. pulled him away from his car in a nearby bank.

accompanied by 2 lawyers. The police officer had to act quickly and there was no more time to secure a search warrant. is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Held: The lower court believed that since the police received information that the accused will distribute illegal drugs that evening at the Thunder Inn Hotel and its vicinities. the legality of the arrest is questioned. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him. absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers. while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street. Accused-appellant did not act in a suspicious manner. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest. and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. petitioner presented himself in the police station. ―Reliable information‖ alone. in light of the police officer‘s experience and surrounding conditions. Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right to preliminary investigation as bail has been posted and that such situation.. NO. accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua is hereby Acquitted. interrogate him. the law requires that there first be arrest before a search can be made—the process cannot be reversed. We find the two aforementioned elements lacking in the case at bar. Wherefore. two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down petitioner‘s plate number and reported the same to the police. as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. accused-appellant was first arrested before the search and seizure of the alleged illegal items found in his possession. who subsequently ordered a manhunt for petitioner. 11 FEB 1992] Facts: Petitioner. e. neither the in flagrante delicto nor the ―stop and frisk‖ principles is applicable to justify the warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure made by the police operatives on accused-appellant. Petitioner posted bail. The 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. for this exception to apply. almost had a collision with another vehicle. For all intents and purposes. The trial court confused the concepts of a ―stop -and-frisk‖ and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. A stop-and-frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street. Rule 112 of Page 83 Section 1-C. shot the driver of the other vehicle. the prosecutor filed the case to the lower court. G. is actually committing. The apprehending police officers only introduced themselves when they already had custody of accused-appellant. In the case at bar. It should also be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply. the police detained him. whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. 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. In this instance. that petitioner has been arrested without a warrant lawfully. The search is valid being akin to a ―stop and frisk‖. 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. to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. or is attempting to commit a crime. 6 days after the shooting. Rule 113 and Section 7. 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. A genuine reason must exist. is actually committing. To reiterate. falls under Section 5. SY ’06-‘07 . Finally. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car. there was no overt manifestation that accused-appellant has just committed. COURT OF APPEALS [206 SCRA 138.g. and drove off. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. With regard to the concept of ―stop-and frisk‖: mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a ―stop and-frisk‖.R. 101837. setting and commencing trial without preliminary investigation. or is attempting to commit a crime. The foregoing circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. GO VS. Accordingly.

Thus. because she posted the bail bond. where the same is required appear thereat. necessarily in a criminal charge. ―where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper. Petitioner also erred in arguing that only the City Fiscal can conduct a preliminary investigation. wherein the Court upheld the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of the offenses. denied the motions to quash the complaints. Petition for certiorari is denied. G. etc. and may release. Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. it is futile for the petitioner to question the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. According to petitioner‘s counsel. in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest‖. which however constituted ―continuing crimes. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner‘s contentions are to be given merit. CALLANTA VS. does not apply. petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation. Felipe Villanueva. Further. 24646 & L-24674. subversion. This is because the arresting officers were not actually there during the incident. The City Judge of Dagupan City. if any. Rule 113. Held: Based on many precedent cases of the Supreme Court. According to the Charter of the City of Dagupan. Issue: Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. thus obtaining her provisional liberty.‖ i. After the issuance of the warrants of arrest and the bail fixed at P600. petitioner posted the bail bond. 20 JUN 1977] Facts: Two complaints for grave oral defamation were filed against Faustina Callanta. ―the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense. he has waived whatever defect. thus they had no personal knowledge and their information regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. SY ’06-‘07 .San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests. VILLANUEVA [77 SCRA 377. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor. Petitioner in his petition for certiorari assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary investigation. There was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5. Rule 112. there was jurisdictional infirmity. preliminary investigation should have been scheduled to determine probable cause. In the case at bar. or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court‖. without regard to the limits of punishment. Petition granted.R. and agreed with the complaints filed. arguing that the City Fiscal should have conducted the preliminary investigation. Prosecutor made a substantive error. Page 84 Section 1-C. petitioner Callanta brought the suits for certiorari in the Supreme Court. Petitioner questions the validity of the issuance of warrant of arrest by respondent. membership in an outlawed organization. as when he walked in the police station. he neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime. Ramos. NOS. trial for the criminal case is suspended pending result from preliminary investigation. prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary investigation. The City Fiscal in this case did not disagree with the judge‘s investigation. petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond. Section 7. Petitioner was not arrested at all. Restraining order issued by the Court is lifted and set aside. Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v.e.

there is no question that. The patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber . The weapons were taken from them and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation. and two (2) live ammunitions for a . NO. While in the vicinity of Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously. They brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. In the course of the same. 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. G. SY ’06-‘07 . indeed. argues that under Section 12. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. They approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen. 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. Such an exercise may prove to be useless. two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a . 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. An information was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. G. and hence. 87059.22 caliber gun. 89139.R. a smoke (tear gas) grenade. it is reasonable considering that it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. 2 AUG 1990] Facts: Members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force. MENGOTE [210 SCRA 174. Clearly. Held: In justifying the warrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the petitioner. They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP.38 caliber with live ammunitions in it. PEOPLE V. COURT OF APPEALS [188 SCRA 288. Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead. For his part. The suspects were then searched.38 caliber gun. Pat. Issue: Whether or Not the warantless search is valid. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests POSADAS VS. Davao City. while his companion had a fan knife. He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. one of whom holding his abdomen. Page 85 Section 1-C. Didoy the officer then on duty. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was unsuccessful. he claimed that the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest. in the case at bar. NO. futile and much too late. 22 JUN 1992] Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo. A witness testified that the weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop.R.38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. Manila. One of them the accused-appellant was found with a . 770196. the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures has not been violated. Umbra Umpar conducted surveillance along Magallanes Street. which he reported to the police including the revolver. the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions heretofore discussed. It is further alleged that the arrest without a warrant of the petitioner was lawful under the circumstances.

In the present case. inspected his bag. Rule 113 sec. as amended. otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.appellant Mikael Malmstead was charged before the RTC of La Trinidad.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Medel Tangliben. TANGLIBEN [184 SCRA 220. 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. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. III sec 32 of the Constitution. 6 Apr 1990] Facts: Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conducting surveillance at the San Fernando Victory Liner Terminal. Moreover a person may not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion. the accused was found to have been committing possession of marijuana and can be therefore searched lawfully even without a search warrant. 19 Jun 1991] Facts: In an information filed against the accused.R. No. Accused-appellant is acquitted. (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed. Judgment is reversed and set aside. Rule 113 sec.4 art. for violation of Section 4. No. II of Republic Act 6425.5 of the Rules of Court. Page 86 Section 1-C. The TC found Tangliben guilty of violating sec. At around 9:30pm they noticed a person. The police officers had to act quickly and there was not enough time to secure a search warrant. or is attempting to commit an offense. according to the arresting officers themselves. is actually committing. The accused was then taken to the Police Headquarters for further investigations. Benguet. as amended.R. MALMSTEDT [198 SCRA 401. Art. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. PEOPLE VS. No. carrying a traveling bag who acted suspiciously.D. provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has committed. G.L-63630. Another reason is that this case poses urgency on the part of the arresting police officers. or is attempting to commit an offense.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests He was convicted for violation of P. and there they found marijuana leaves. Issue: Whether or Not there was an unlawful search due to lack of search warrant. PEOPLE VS. Held. These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. 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. They confronted him. 2 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. It was found out that an informer pointed to the accused telling the policemen that the accused was carrying marijuana. Held: An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. G. At the time of the arrest in question. the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen. 91107. is committing. 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.

and that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station. that same morning that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. and therefore the RTC ruling be reversed." For his defense. in coordination with Tublay Police Station. But before he alighted from the bus. the officer noticed that there were bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam stuffing. Upon stepping out of the bus. but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. The trial court found the guilt of the accused Mikael Malmstedt established beyond reasonable doubt. ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14. accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. Moreover. Mountain Province. Feeling the teddy bears. accused left for Baguio City. ACCUSED‘S DEFENSE During the arraignment. prompting the officer to open one of the wrapped objects. the officer asked for accused's passport and other identification papers. a prohibited drug which is a derivative of marijuana. Page 87 Section 1-C. the Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa. Thus. accused argues that the search of his personal effects was illegal because it was made without a search warrant and. 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. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and when accused opened the same bag. Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to be a gun. accused stopped to get two (2) travelling bags from the luggage carrier. Benguet for further investigation. 1989. Thereafter. In the chemistry report. entered the Philippines for the third time in December 1988 as a tourist. Then in the 7 in the morning of May 11. accused entered a plea of "not guilty. they decided to take the next ride and asked accused to take charge of the bags. Acop. SY ’06-‘07 . When accused failed to comply. During the inspection. a derivative of marijuana. 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. it was established that the objects examined were hashish. the accused went to Nangonogan bus stop in Sagada. CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's waist. the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. a Swedish national. The group composed of seven (7) NARCOM officers. A teddy bear was found in each bag. the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him. Tublay. Issue: Whether or Not the contention of the accused is valid. At the investigation room. he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for two (2) days. therefore. It was only after the officers had opened the bags that accused finally presented his passport. 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. La Trinidad. for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. Accused who was the sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof. In the evening of 7 May 1989. He had visited the country sometime in 1982 and 1985. Seeking the reversal of the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of the crime charged. At about 8: 00 o'clock in the morning of that same day (11 May 1989). The wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish. The two (2) NARCOM officers started their inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus. the officer noticed four (4) suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. he raised the issue of illegal search of his personal effects. Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa. the officers got the bags and opened them. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Accused Mikael Malmstedt. Captain Alen Vasco. the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist. an information was filed against accused for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 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. information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM. as ordered.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
Held: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances. Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful. –– A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; 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, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search warrant when the search was made over the personal effects of accused, however, under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by this Court as valid, because of existence of probable cause, where the smell of marijuana emanated from a 10 11 plastic bag owned by the accused, or where the accused was acting suspiciously, and attempted to flee. The appealed judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby affirmed. Costs against the accused-appellant.

PEOPLE VS. AMMINUDIN [163 SCRA 402; G.R. L-74869; 6 Jul 1988] Facts: Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. An information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, 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 motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against the accusedappellant, who was eventually convicted . In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana, 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. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. However the RTC rejected his allegations. Saying that he only has two watches during that time and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained.

Page 88 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
Issue: Whether or not search of defendant‘s bag is legal. Held: The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto, which could allow warrantless arrest or search. At the moment of his arrest, he was not committing a crime. Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against the defendant, and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged.

PEOPLE VS. SAYCON [236 SCRA 325; G.R. NO. 110995; 5 SEPT 1994] Facts: On or about 8 July 1992, at about 6:00 in the morning, 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, which was arriving at that moment in Dumaguete City. Upon receipt of the information, the Coastguard chief officer CPO Tolin, instructed them to intercept the suspect. A combined team of NARCOM agents and Philippine Coastguard personnel consisting of CPO Tolin, a certain Miagme, and Senior Police Officers Ruben Laddaran and Winifredo Noble of NARCOM posted themselves at the gate of Pier 1. The MV Doña Virginia docked at 6:00 a.m. that same morning at Pier 1 in Dumaguete City. 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. Saycon was then invited to the Coastguard Headquarters at the Pier area. He willingly went with them. At the headquarters, the coastguard asked Saycon to open his bag, and the latter willingly obliged. In it were personal belongings and a maong wallet. Inside that maong wallet, there was a Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu". When police officer Winifredo Noble asked Saycon whether the Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu" was his, Saycon merely bowed his head. Then Saycon, his bag and the suspected "shabu" were brought to the NARCOM office for booking. When Alvaro Saycon was arrested, the NARCOM agents did not have a warrant of arrest. The PNP's Forensic Analyst declared in court that she had conducted an examination of the specimens and found out that the specimens weighed 4.2 grams in total, consisted of methamphetamine hydrochloride, more widely known as "shabu." Issue: Whether or Not the warrantless search was valid. Held: The warrantless search was valid, as the accused was a passenger of a motor vehicle. There was probable cause to believe that the accused was carrying prohibited drugs. Three weeks earlier, agents of the Narcotics Command bought methamine hydrochloride from him. An agent of the Narcotics Command reported that the accused would be arriving on board the vessel and carrying methamphetamine hydrochloride with him. Drug couriers do not go about their trade with some external sign indicating that they are transporting prohibited drugs. This must be taken into account in determining probable cause.

PEOPLE VS. MUSA [217 SCRA 597; G.,R. NO. 96177; 27 JAN 1993] Facts:

Page 89 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

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

A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in Suterville, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Ani was ordered by NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a surveillance and test buy on Musa. The civilian informer guided Ani to Musa‘s house and gave the description of Musa. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00. The next day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to raise his right hand if he successfully buys marijuana from Musa. As Ani proceeded to the house, the NARCOM team positioned themselves about 90 to 100 meters away. From his position, Belarga could see what was going on. Musa came out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. Musa went into the house and came back, giving Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana. Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his right hand as a signal to the other NARCOM agents, and the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the house. Belarga frisked Musa in the living room but did not find the marked money (gave it to his wife who slipped away). T/Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and found a ‗cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen.‘ They asked Musa about its contents but failed to get a response. So they opened it and found dried marijuana leaves inside. Musa was then placed under arrest. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana inside it is unreasonable, hence, inadmissible as evidence. Held: Yes. It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not be admitted as evidence. The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect‘s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. 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. The ‗plain view‘ doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. It will not justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the ob ject is not apparent from the ‗plain view‘ of the object. In the case at bar, the plastic bag was not in the ‗plain view‘ of the police. They arrested the accused in the living room and moved into the kitchen in search for other evidences where they found the plastic bag. Furthermore, the marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the ‗plain view‘ of said object. Therefore, the ‗plain view‘ does not apply. The plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to Article III Section 3 (2) of the Constitution. PITA VS. COURT OF APPEALS [178 SCRA 362; G.R. NO. 80806; 5 OCT 1989] Facts: On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxilliary Services Bureau, Western Police District, INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila, seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks, magazines, publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public at the University belt along C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila, in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and members of various student organizations. Among the publications seized, and later burned, was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. Plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera, as superintendent of Western Police District of the City of Manila, 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, artistic and educational magazine which is not per se obscene, and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. Plaintiff also

Page 90 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

it shall issue the search warrant prayed for. The aerial target zoning were intended to flush out subversives and criminal elements coddled by the communities were the said drives were conducted.Based on the facts stated by the parties. RTC ruled that the seizure was valid. Issue: Whether or Not the saturation drive committed consisted of violation of human rights. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure was illegal. The court provides the following guidelines to be observed: 1. The residents complained that they're homes were ransacked. probable cause exists. 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. They alleged that there is no specific target house to be search and that there is no search warrant or warrant of arrest served. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed obscene. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for the police to examine their tattoo marks. First of all. and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure. The residents were rudely rouse from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of their houses. This was affirmed by the CA. DE VILLA [181 SCRA 623. 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. 3. The residents were at the point of high-powered guns and herded like cows. 2. 6. There is no showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the "aerial zoning" could not be achieved even as th Page 91 Section 1-C. The respondents said that such accusations were all lies. Held: It is not the police action per se which should be prohibited rather it is the procedure used or the methods which "offend even hardened sensibilities" . The authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge. Some of their money and valuables had disappeared after the operation. The residents also reported incidents of maulings. if in their opinion an obscenity seizure is in order. Those who were detained also suffered mental and physical torture to extract confessions and tactical informations. 4. spot-beatings and maltreatment. The Court granted the temporary restraining order.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against indiscriminate seizure. They said that they have intelligently and carefully planned months ahead for the actual operation and that local and foreign media joined the operation to witness and record such event. 5. by way of a search warrant. 80508.R. SY ’06-‘07 . confiscation and burning of plaintiff's "Pinoy Playboy" Magazines. pending hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction. 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. GUANZON VS. 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. 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 appellate court may assess whether or not the properties seized are indeed obscene. The proper suit is then brought in the court under Article 201 of the RPC (Obscene publications). Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and without nameplates or identification cards. The case was set for trial upon the lapse of the TRO. Any conviction is subject to appeal. tossing their belongings and destroying their valuables. they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography. If in the opinion of the court. G. The question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge‘s sound discretion.

Instead of presenting its evidence. She has no knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found. NO. 6. Search of a moving vehicle. The seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence. there was no probable cause and the accused was not lawfully arrested. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. Stop and Frisk." 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. Page 92 Section 1-C.R. the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. Consented warrantless search. While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder bag. and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. the accused claimed that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a movie ―Balweg‖. Also. There was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused‘s bag. In the meantime where there is showing that some abuses were committed. when the informer pointed out who ―Aling Rosa‖ was. 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. 3. The next day. the latter handed it out to the police. In the absence of clear facts no permanent relief can be given. 1988. P/Lt. Rule 8 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence 2. she was merely crossing the street and was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude that she was committing a crime. G. When Abello asked ―aling Rosa‖ about the contents of her bag. 5. 13. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626. Highly regulated by the government. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are. The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972 Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from the accused. the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. Petition is remanded to the RTC of Manila. The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime. Seizure of evidence in "plain view. However. 4. SY ’06-‘07 . the court temporary restraint the alleged violations which are shocking to the senses. 120515. when she was later on arrested by the police. The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and they did not do so. 13 APR 1998] Facts: On Dec. In the circumstances of this taxpayers' suit. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. there is no erring soldier or policeman whom the court can order prosecuted. Held: The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law: 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. the remedy should not be brought by a tazpaer suit where not one victim complaints and not one violator is properly charged. no search warrant was presented. The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. 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. at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus coming from Baguio.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests rights of the squatters and low income families are fully protected. They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked ―cash katutak‖. Customs search. In her testimony. PEOPLE VS. 7.

the result. SY ’06-‘07 . the person to be arrested has committed. Right to break door or window to effect search. 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. (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant. 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. RULE 126. Section 12. Section 7. and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. if the criminal action has already been filed. — The officer. (b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. and if none. the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. — 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. arrest a person: (a) When. is actually committing. RULES OF COURT Section 2. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. 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. or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. (b) When an offense has just been committed. (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. Arrest without warrant. However. without a warrant. the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above. 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. and other actions of the judge. shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. Page 93 Section 1-C. if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. return and proceedings thereon. If the return has been made.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests RULE 113. when lawful. or is attempting to commit an offense. in his presence. — A peace officer or a private person may. RULES OF COURT Section 5. A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed .

to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment. Sec. both trial judges denied the same. denying his leave to travel abroad. NO. owned by Julia Salazar. freedom to transfer from one place to another. 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. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. for her to work as a maid. “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. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security. Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion. Page 94 Section 1-C. 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. "relative to his business transactions and opportunities. which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave.” CAUNCA VS. 6. to founded or groundless fear. NO.L-2690. or public health. public safety. of Judges Camilon and Pronove." The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing. 1982. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851. has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. However. "motion for permission to leave the country. Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence. which was disallowed by the employment agency. freedom to choose one‘s residence. COURT OF APPEALS [142 SCRA 149. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency. regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid. as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He posted bail." stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF TRAVEL Art 3. M ANOTOC VS. 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. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another.R. 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. respectively. 30 MAY 1986] Facts: Petitioner was charged with estafa. as may be provided by law. respondent herein. G. 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. Petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled. SY ’06-‘07 . L-62100. 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.

Essentially. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. There is no indication that the business transactions cannot be undertaken by any other person in his behalf. Held: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. specifically Sections 1 and 6. They contended that Pres. and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. 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. Petitioner has not shown the necessity for his travel abroad. M ARCOS VS. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. Indeed. What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state". President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by Page 95 Section 1-C. However. 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. Issue: Whether or not. a distinct right under international law.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right. including his own. the right to leave the country. 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. as a generally accepted principle of International Law and under our Constitution as part of the law of the land. They further assert that under international law. 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. right to enter one's country cannot be arbitrarily deprived. if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason. the President (Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. 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. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel. The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of the Former Pres. but it is a well considered view that the right to return may be considered. SY ’06-‘07 . independent from although related to the right to travel. Such rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the national security. public order. Thus. etc. 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. Nor the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. 15 SEPT 1989] Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs. To issue a travel documents to former Pres. 88211. in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution. G. NO. 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. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. public health or morals or the separate rights of others. M ANGLAPUS [177 SCRA 668. he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.R. which has been ratified by the Philippines. the right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to one's country. Issue: Whether or Not his constitutional right to travel has been violated. On the other hand. 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.

R.15. 263). 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. G. The order of arrest was issued with bail for release fixed at Php. 000. Hermoso & Travel Processing Center. 15. 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.000 so she filed a motion for acceptance of cash bail bond. A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the Court from leaving the country or. Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law.. the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. SY ’06-‘07 . Joaquin G. 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. Sec. I. 25 April 1980.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security. compelled to return (Constitutional Law. 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. 97 SCRA 121). Issue: Whether or Not the right to travel may be impaired by order of the court. Isagani A. The RTC ordered the DFA to cancel petitioner‘s passport. with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS. 27 JAN 1993] Facts: An information was filed against petitioner with the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. There is a valid restriction on the right to travel. 1987. 1987 Edition. it is imposed that the accused must make himself available whenever the court requires his presence.. Respondent filed to cancel the passport of the petitioner and to issue a hold departure order. p.R. The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the Philippines. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality without undue delay. COURT OF APPEALS [195 SCRA 760 . G. which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party (See Salonga vs. the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. p.. 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. Vol. NOS. Apparently. 20 [2nd par. The Page 96 Section 1-C. if abroad.. or public health" and "as may be provided by law.S. First Edition. 53622. public safety. 99289-90. 94284. SILVERIO VS. Cruz. ]). Bernas. 8 APR 1991] Facts: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 2 (4) of the revised securities act. but petitioner asked for the cancellation of her bail bond and that she be allowed provisional release on recognizance. 138). The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the Philippines. Her arraignment was set.J." a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution. Article III. No. Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order. VASQUEZ [217 SCRA 633.

that she he every intension of leaving the country to pursue higher studies abroad. C. (Manotoc v. decisions or orders or any judicial action of respondent court. Also. NO. 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. She holds herself amenable at all times to the orders and process of eth court. 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. Again another Motion to leave was filed by Mrs.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Sandiganbayan deferred it." Attached was a recent medical report and letters of Vice President Joseph E.C. The Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure order against petitioner. to accept a fellowship a Harvard. The court still found no merit to allow the petitioners motion to leave and denied all of the motions.R. The presiding justice. Patacsil. the petitioner assumed obligations. G. Gregorio B. 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. she argues that her right to travel is impaired. After conviction she filed a "Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad" to seek diagnostic tests and treatment by practitioners of oriental medicine in China allegedly because of "a serious and life threatening medical condition" requiring facilities not available in the Philippines that was denied. when she posted bail bond. SANDIGANBAYAN [247 SCRA 127.) M ARCOS VS. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . This was supported by several medical reports that were prepared by her doctor Roberto Anastacio. by reason of the announcement she made that she would be leaving for the U. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a "Motion to Admit Clinical Summary and to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration. 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. Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Heart Center. Held: The petitioner does not deny and as a matter of fact even made a public statement. and later wrote him a letter. Garchitorena.A. 115132-34. She may legally be prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case. contacted Dr. Issue: Whether or Not the petitioner‘s right to travel is impaired. Marcos to US and Europe for treatment of several Heart diseases alleging that the tests were not available here. In the instant motion she submitted before the S. Then she again filed an "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Permission to Travel Abroad" to undergo diagnosis and treatment in China. asking for "expert opinion on coronary medicine".S. Held: Page 97 Section 1-C. 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.

Also. Said resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code. NO. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao. 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. Wherefore. In that case. and to introduce civilized customs among them.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests No. Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty pf abode. The court could not be expected to just accept the opinion of petitioner's physician in resolving her request for permission to travel. RUBI VS. Naujan Lake. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO [39 PHIL 660. pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code. In disregarding the medical reports. Further. 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. It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days. Thus. On the third issue. The heart ailments of the petitioner were not as severe as that was reported by Dr. It should be emphasized that considering the fact that she is facing charges before the courts in several cases. the petitioner failed to prove the necessity for a trip abroad. the petitioner is Dismissed without prejudice to the filling of another motion for leave to travel abroad. against their will. in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. based on her heart condition. 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. and that confinement Page 98 Section 1-C. 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. 7 MAR 1919] Facts: The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 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. should petitioner still desire. 25 wherein non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) will be directed to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao. WON Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. 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. Anastacio. 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. 14078. 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. 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. Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. Mindoro. in two of which she was convicted although the decision is still pending reconsideration. Respondent court had to seek expert opinion because petitioner's motion was based on the advice of her physician.

The Court is further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. therefore. The Solicitor-General adds the following. One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. (3) The protection of the Manguianes. not issue. Therefore. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam. Assigned as reasons for the action: (1) attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province. Page 99 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 . Habeas corpus can. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. No man can do exactly as he pleases. and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. ―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. petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty.

Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church. Page 100 Section 1-C.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests FREEDOM OF RELIGION Art 3.R. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship.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. shall forever be allowed.R. The postage stamps. This was to ―to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists. 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. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. system of religion. Funds for the said projects will be obtained through the selling of tickets and cash donations. with the words ―Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress. without discrimination or preference. 5.Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration every fifth of April. These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters. and said projects were implemented. its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. It is however not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs.” AGLIPAY VS.‖ the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance. 4052. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Resolution No. for the purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church. NO. The phrase in Act No. “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. SY ’06-‘07 . contains a map of the Philippines and the location of Manila. Sec. any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the Government. 45459. The image was temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of the barangay. or vice versa. L-53487. Resolution No.‖ The focus of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of Manila. Father Sergio Marilao Osmeña refused to return the image to the barangay council. etc. instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally planned. G. This provided for the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed. as a weapon to further their ends and aims. Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion. 6. GARCES VS. 5. 4052 ―advantageous to the government‖ does not authorize violation of the Constitution. 13 MAR 1937] Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent Director of Posts from rd issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33 International Eucharistic Congress. They were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. Respondent contends that such issuance is in accordance to Act No. providing for the appropriation funds to respondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the government. The issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. The image would be made available to the Catholic Church during the celebration of the saint‘s feast day. G. ESTENZO [104 SCRA 510. Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not mere religious toleration. being the seat of that congress. 25 MAY 1981] Facts: Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia. This provision is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state. b. after a mass. However. as it was the church‘s property since church funds were used in its acq uisition. Ormoc City were passed: a. RUIZ [64 PHIL 201. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality.

Right of the determination of custody is their right. SY ’06-‘07 . Held: No.R.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Resolution No. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. The Board of Education contended that said statute was invalid and violative of the State and Federal Constitutions. 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. and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. 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. ruled that the appellants have standing but the law is not unconstitutional. G. The provision aforequoted is a constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. The Court believe that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. a member of the Aglipayan Church. Practically. and even if they decided to give it to the Church. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over the custody of the image. in his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. 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. 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. the image was placed in a layman‘s cu stody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in connection with prayers and novena. For this reason. freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property. The New York Court of Appeals. as amended. CITY OF MANILA [101PHIL 386. provides that: (7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. 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. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the replevin case against the priest for the recovery of the image. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 1 2 contends that Sec. AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS. subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution. The trial court held the statute unconstitutional. The priest with Andres Garces. there is no violation of the Constitution. Page 101 Section 1-C. 8 Article IV and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) of the constitution was violated. including those in private schools. 9637. Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated. therefore it is their property. 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). Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint(such as the acquisition) is not illegal. The priest. It was the council‘s funds that were used to buy the image. Captain Veloso as a representative to the case. 12 appointed Brgy. cannot be applied to appellant. shall forever be allowed. 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. since private funds were used. Resolution No. 2529. The Appellate Division reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint since the appellant have no standing. Held: Section 1. which carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. without discrimination or preference.

the Court do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution. 2529 of the City of Manila. Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the constitutional freedom. the exercise must be done in good faith. The restriction was also intended to secure the executive offices within the Malacanang grounds from possible external attacks and disturbances. government officials and diplomatic and foreign guests transacting business with Malacanang. however inapplicable to said business. 95770. 1 MAR 1993] Facts: Two special civil actions for certiorari. Besides. They are Jehovah‘s Witnesses believing that by doing these is religious worship/devotion akin to idolatry against their teachings. WHEREFORE. Secretary of Education. raised their clenched fists and shouted anti. G. While every citizen has the right to religious freedom. Pinamungajan.R. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF CEBU [219 SCRA 256 . GERMAN VS. 3000. Petitioners allege that the public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. EBRALINAG VS. Respondents ordered expulsion of 68 HS and GS students of Bantayan. 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.P. G. therefore. This exemption disrupts school discipline and demoralizes the teachings of civic consciousness and duties of citizenship. 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. which adjoined Malacañang. public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State has a right to prevent. NO. NO. 68828. that Ordinance No. There was no clear and present danger of any serious evil to public safety or the security of Malacanang. 27 MAR 1985] Facts: Petitioners converged at J. SY ’06-‘07 . as amended. Taburan and Asturias in Cebu.891. is also not applicable. The burden to show the existence of grave and imminent danger lies on the officials who would restrain petitioners.R. Respondent barred them for security reasons. of a serious evil to public safety. as amended. They contend that to compel transcends constitutional limits and invades protection against official control and religious freedom. As to Ordinance No. Laurel Street to hear Mass at the St. so defendant is powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff Society. Public school authorities expelled these students for refusing to salute the flag. Issue: Whether or Not religious freedom has been violated. Respondents were in full control and had the capability to stop any untoward move. trade or occupation of the plaintiff. (Minority opinion) The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of the freedom of religion is the existence of a grave and imminent. the restriction was reasonable as it was designed to protect the lives of the President and his family.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests With respect to Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional. Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus.45 unduly collected from it. 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. It seems clear. Caracar. The respondents relied on the precedence of Gerona et al v. Jude Chapel. nor tax the exercise of religious practices.government slogans. sing the national anthem and recite the ―Panatang Makabayan‖ required by RA1265. Mandamus and Prohibition were filed and consolidated for raising same issue. defendant shall return to plaintiff the sum of P5. Page 102 Section 1-C. public morals. BARANGAN [135 SCRA 514.

represented by its supreme bishop Gerardo Bayaca. 28 JAN 1955] Facts: Case was filed by Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI). the Students expelled were only standing quietly during ceremonies. had been elected as the Supreme Bishop. 2. health and interests where State has right to prevent. The non-observance of the flag ceremony does not totally constitute ignorance of patriotism and civic consciousness. If the congregation adopts the majority rule then the majority should prevail. Jehovah‘s Witnesses may be exempted from observing the flag ce remony but this right does not give them the right to disrupt such ceremonies. the Court.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Held: Religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority. TELECOM [86 SCRA 413. PAMIL VS. Love for country and admiration for national heroes. Jr. The only limitation to religious freedom is the existence of grave and present danger to public safety. CFI rendered judgment declaring Isabelo De Los Reyes. expulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED. Expulsion is ANNULLED. Petitioner claims that he was not properly removed as Supreme Bishop and his legal successor was Juan Jamias.R. 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. that Isabelo De los Reyes and Bayaca have abandoned their faith and formally joined the Prostestant Episcopal Church of America. then that should be followed. 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. civic consciousness and form of government are part of the school curricula. G. In the case at bar. By observing the ceremonies quietly. FONACIER VS.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. SY ’06-‘07 . What the petitioner‘s request is exemption from flag ceremonies and not exclusion from public schools. 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. citing Watson v. L-5917. Held: Supreme Court affirmed CA‘s decision. 20 NOV 1978] Facts: Page 103 Section 1-C. it doesn‘t present any danger so evil and imminent to justify their expulsion. The 2 fold aspect of right to religious worship is: 1. 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. G. He claims that the there was an accounting of his administration and was turned over to bishop Jamias. Therefore. The expulsion of the petitioners from the school is not justified. Isabelo De los Reyes Jr. 34854. The legitimate Supreme Bishop of IFI is Isabelo De los Reyes. if it adopts adherence to duly constituted authorities within the congregation.) Freedom to act on one‘s belief regulated and translated to external acts. Jr. The expulsion of the students by reason of their religious beliefs is also a violation of a citizen‘s right to free education. Jones. Also. COURT OF APPEALS [96 PHIL 417.) Freedom to believe which is an absolute act within the realm of thought. morals.R.

As Jefferson put it.‖ Second. then filed a suit for quo warranto for Gonzaga‘s di squalification based on the Administrative Code provision: ―In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics. The provision of the Administrative Code remained operative. The view of the dissenting seven failed to obtain a vote of eight members. She has been living with Quilapio. Five voted that the prohibition was not unconstitutional. According to complainant. Petitioner. In the case at bar. ―No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Margarito Gonzaga was elected as Municipal Mayor in Alburquerque. 22 JUN 2006] Facts: Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of Las Pinas City. respondent should not be allowed to remain employed therein for it will appear as if the court allows such act. Third. according to law. 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. it is the most inalienable and sacred of human rights. First. Gonzaga‘s right to the office. said section 2175 is superseded by the Constitution. Seven others voted that the provision was impliedly repealed. Respondent claims that their conjugal arrangement is permitted by her religion —the Jehovah‘s Witnesses and the Watch Tower and the Bible Trace Society. Bohol. also an aspirant for said office. Issue: Whether or Not Fr. They allegedly have a ‗Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness‘ under the approval of their congregation. section 2175 has been repealed by Sec. the controlling five argued: Section 2175 of the Administrative Code deals with a matter different from that of section 23 of the Election Code. 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‖. for more than twenty five years and had a son with him as well. The free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental rights in our Constitution. Held: No. there are three reasons for the said provision to be inoperative. Also. 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. Such a declaration is effective when legal impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their union. ESTRADA VS. in sustaiing Fr. a man who is not her husband. However. The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of religion. soldiers in active service. According to the dissenting seven. AM NO P-02-1651. the State has not Page 104 Section 1-C. persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds. ruled that the provision had already been impliedly repealed by the Election Code of 1971. the minority vote overruled the seven. On the other hand. Whether or Not the prohibition regarding elected or appointed ecclesiastics is constitutional. SY ’06-‘07 . Issue: Whether or Not the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal arrangement. Gonzaga is eligible for the position of municipal mayor. Ecclesiastics were no longer included in the enumeration of persons ineligible under the said Election Code. the 1935 Constitution stated. Respondent‘s husband died a year before she entered into the judiciary while Quilapio is still legally married to another woman. Held: The court was divided. or contractors for public works of the municipality.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Fr. Petitioner on the other hand argues that there was no implied repeal. ESCRITOR [492 SCRA 1 . Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent." The respondent Judge. so it was not controlling.

GR 153888. the actual need to certify food products as halal and also due to halal food producers' request. inspection thereof and issuance of halal certifications. Under the EO. ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. of their religious right to classify a product as halal. provided it does not offend compelling state interests. A government agency like herein respondent OMA cannot therefore perform a religious function like certifying qualified food products as halal. 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. by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications. (IDCP) is a corporation that operates under Department of Social Welfare and Development. the State has in effect forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah on halal food. 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. 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. The RISEAP accredited petitioner to issue halal certifications in the Philippines. 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. The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. By giving OMA the exclusive power to classify food products as halal.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests evinced any concrete interest in enforcing the concubinage or bigamy charges against respondent or her partner. we find no compelling justification for the government to deprive Muslim organizations. especially to Muslim communities. Thus. Issue: Whether or Not EO violates the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State. for a fee. This benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion. Assuming arguendo that the OSG has proved a compelling state interest. Furthermore. petitioner formulated in 1995 internal rules and procedures based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah for the analysis of food. Petitioner even adopted for use on its halal certificates a distinct sign or logo registered in the Philippine Patent Office. a non-governmental organization that extends voluntary services to the Filipino people. classifying a food product as halal is a religious function because the standards used are drawn from the Qur'an and Islamic beliefs. SY ’06-‘07 . According to petitioner. On 2001. Inc. Thus the State‘s interest only amounts to the symbolic preservation of an unenforced prohibition. petitioner began to issue. Thus the conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized for it constitutes an exemption to the law based on her right to freedom of religion. respondent Office of the Executive Secretary issued EO 465 creating the Philippine Halal Certification Scheme and designating respondent OMA to oversee its implementation. 9 JUL 2003] Facts: Petitioner Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines. a distinction between public and secular morality and religious morality should be kept in mind. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [405 SCRA 497. a food product becomes halal only after the performance of Islamic religious ritual and prayer. Petitioner alleges that. Also. In that same year. 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. orient manufacturers on halal food and issue halal certifications to qualified products and manufacturers. In the case at bar. certifications to qualified products and food manufacturers. even on the premise that the health of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively protected by assigning to OMA Page 105 Section 1-C. like herein petitioner. entity or scholars can lawfully and validly perform for the Muslims. Thus. respondent OMA has the exclusive authority to issue halal certificates and perform other related regulatory activities. Without doubt. only practicing Muslims are qualified to slaughter animals for food. among the functions petitioner carries out is to conduct seminars.

The protection and promotion of the muslim Filipinos' right to health are already provided for in existing laws and ministered to by government agencies charged with ensuring that food products released in the market are fit for human consumption. Page 106 Section 1-C.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests the exclusive power to issue halal certifications. these laws do not encroach on the religious freedom of Muslims. Unlike EO 46. properly labeled and safe. SY ’06-‘07 .

Now defendants challenged the Minnesota statute which provides for the abatement. who. mischievous or illegal. and that they were chiefly devoted to charges against public officers and in relation to the prevalence and protection of crime. magazine or other periodical. bootlegging. these officers are not left to their ordinary remedy in a suit for libel. The District Court ruled against defendants. as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development. was shot by gangsters after the first issue of the periodical had been published. he was charged with gross neglect of duty. A special grand jury and a special prosecutor were demanded to deal with the situation in general. it appears from the articles. of expression. Sec. “(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. 18. and on eight subsequent dates in October and November.” Art 3. published and circulated editions of ―The Saturday Press‖(published in Minneapolis) which were 'largely devoted to malicious. subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Sec. Access to official records. or of the press. in particular. provides that a Jewish gangster was in control of gambling. 7. The reason for the enactment. to form unions.” NEAR VS. in substance. one of the original defendants. Most of the charges were directed against the chief of police. is that prosecutions to enforce penal statutes for libel do not result in 'efficient repression or suppression of the evils of scandal. 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. to forbid this. the proof was that nine editions of the newspaper or periodical in question were published on successive dates. The statute not only operates to suppress the offending newspaper or periodical.' In the present instance.” Art 3. including those employed in the public and private sectors. The county attorney was charged with knowing the existing conditions and with failure to take adequate measures to remedy them. illicit relations with gangsters. Sec. “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. The mayor was accused of inefficiency and dereliction. Sec. as the state court has said. SY ’06-‘07 . as a public nuisance. and that law enforcing officers and agencies were not energetically performing their duties. to investigate an attempt to assassinate one Guilford. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public. but to put the publisher under an effective censorship. scandalous and defamatory news paper. Page 107 Section 1-C. “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech. and with participation in graft. transactions. of a malicious. on September 24.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Art 3. or the authorities to a prosecution for criminal libel. but if he publishes what is improper. Issue: Whether or Not the proceeding authorized by the statute herein constitutes an infringement of the freedom of the press. 1927. 1927. he must take the consequence of his own temerity. and papers pertaining to official acts. In such a case. 4. and. One member of the grand jury was stated to be in sympathy with the gangsters. or decisions. is to destroy the freedom of the press. 8. MINNESOTA [283 US 697] Facts: A complaint alleged that the defendants. associations. scand alous and defamatory articles'(based on Session Laws of Minnesota). or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” Art 3. and racketeering in Minneapolis. The articles charged. Held: Yes. “The right of the people. Hence the appeal. shall be afforded the citizen. and to documents.

23 of the Louisiana Legislature. does not permit an invasion of the constitutional immunity against restraint. and the business as a nuisance.' Public officers. A free press stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. The form in which the tax is imposed is in itself suspicious. 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 Page 108 Section 1-C. its direct tendency is to restrict circulation. The word 'liberty' contained in that amendment embraces not only the right of a person to be free from physical restraint.S. as this court has said. NEW YORK TIMES VS. UNITED STATES [403 US 713] Facts: The court granted certiorari in the cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U. Issue: Whether or Not Act 23 unconstitutional. Nor can it be said that the constitutional freedom from previous restraint is lost because charges are made of derelictions which constitute crimes. It is not measured or limited by the volume of advertisements." Said articles reveal the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war. as their freedom of the press was abridged in contravention to the due process clause. by virtue of the very reason for its existence. It is bad because. Judge Cooley has laid down the test to be applied: The evils to be prevented were not the censorship of the press merely. as it could be if valid it well might result in destroying both advertising and circulation. second. if it were increased to a high degree. [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 1 more than 20. First. SY ’06-‘07 . Held: Yes.000 copies per week. Characterizing the publication as a business. it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties. The Act operates as a restraint in a double sense. The preliminary freedom. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy. find their remedies for false accusations in actions under libel laws providing for redress and punishment.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained. AMERICAN PRESS CO. and not in proceedings to restrain the publication of newspapers and periodicals. GROSJEAN VS. Freedom of speech and of the press are rights of the same fundamental character. does not depend. whose character and conduct remain open to debate and free discussion in the press. but the right to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties as well. safeguarded by the due process of law clause. with the plain purpose of penalizing the publishers and curtailing the circulation of a selected group of newspapers. The tax here involved is bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appellees. but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens. and. The suit assailed Act No. on proof of truth. its effect is to curtail the amount of revenue realized from advertising. This is plain enough when we consider that. but he who used it was to be responsible in case of its abuse. It is measured alone by the extent of the circulation of the publication in which the advertisements are carried.

whether for national or local officials. at the time of the filing the petition. the Civil Liberties Union. 1967. GONZALES VS. in the absence of clear and present danger to the state. The danger to be guarded against is the 'substantive evil' sought to be prevented. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.P.R. Senator Lorenzo M. Issue: Whether or Not RA 4880 unconstitutional. Issue: Whether or not the freedom of the press was abridged. He did justify its enactment however under the clear and present danger doctrine. being debased and degraded by unrestricted campaigning. would render the constitutional rights of petitioners meaningless and without effect. The first. or prior restraints. and elucidated that Act No. 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. Law Center and the U. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. Respondents contend that the act was based on the police power of the state." No branch of government could abridge the people's rights granted by the Constitution including the freedom of the press. whatever the source. The language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news. there being the substantive evil of elections. 1967. 18 APR 1969] Facts: RA 4880 which took effect on June 17. excess of partisanship and undue concentration in politics with the loss not only of efficiency in government but of lives as well. Women Lawyers' Circle were requested to give their opinions. the basic liberties of free speech and free press. 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. The court ruled in favor of the newspaper companies hence the appeal.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests power of the President over the conduct of foreign affairs and his authority as Commander-inChief. 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. Petitioner Cabigao was. Tañada was asked to appear as amicus curiae. In such case the Executive Branch seeks judicial aid in preventing publication. COMELEC [27 SCRA 835. G. Held: Yes. without censorship. It has the advantage of establishing according to the above decision a definite rule in constitutional law. L-27833. prohibiting the too early nomination of candidates and limiting the period of election campaign or partisan political activity was challenged on constitutional grounds. The Philippine Bar Association. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. As held in Cabansag v. Fernandez there are two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction on freedom of speech. More precisely. These are the ―clear and present danger‖ rule and the 'dangerous tendency' rule. It provides the criterion as to what words may be publicly Page 109 Section 1-C. on the other hand. injunctions. freedom of assembly and freedom of association are invoked to nullify the act. is a private individual. a registered voter in the City of Manila and a political leader of his co-petitioner. 4880 could indeed be looked upon as a limitation on the preferred rights of speech and press. Held: Yes. the U.P. 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. petitioner Gonzales. of assembly and of association.

The program presents and propagates petitioner's religious beliefs. 115. 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.." On November 28. COURT OF APPEALS [259 SCRA 529. its act of censorship will be struck down. 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. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force. 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. Mendez reversing the decision of the respondent Board. against the solicitation of votes whether directly or indirectly. this right is not to be limited. In their Answer. 119. So-called "attacks" are mere criticisms Page 110 Section 1-C. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests established. 1986 in relation to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. 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. Amante. except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. it appealed to the Office of the President the classification of its TV Series No. The very idea of a government. G. dishonesty and corruption as well as violence that of late has invariably marred election campaigns and partisan political activities in this country. 119. 121 and 128. 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. Sr. The Iglesia ni Cristo insists on the literal translation of the bible and says that our (Catholic) veneration of the Virgin Mary is not to be condoned because nowhere it is found in the bible. It is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption. 116. As the author Tañada clearly explained. respondent Board invoked its power under 1 PD No. or the undertaking of any campaign literature or propaganda for or against any candidate or party is repugnant to a constitutional command. doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with other religions. violence. 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. 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. NO. It cited its TV Program Series Nos. Issue: Whether or Not the "ang iglesia ni cristo" program is not constitutionally protected as a form of religious exercise and expression. The prohibition of any speeches. 128 which allowed it through a letter of former Executive Secretary Edelmiro A. 1992. Held: Yes. republican in form. 121 and 128. 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 in the case of freedom of expression.‖ It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force. The board contended that it outrages Catholic and Protestant's beliefs. Any act that restrains speech is accompanied with presumption of invalidity. violence. then such words are punishable. or unlawfulness be advocated. SY ’06-‘07 . CA however reversed it hence this petition. This is true in this case. announcements or commentaries. 119673. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent. Petitioner submitted to the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television the VTR tapes of its TV program Series Nos. addressed for Henrietta S. much less denied. Petitioner also filed Civil Case.R. or unlawfulness. The "dangerous tendency rule" is such that ―If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent. If it fails to discharge this burden.

the petitioner believes that with the ban on radio. if it restricts one's expression of belief in a candidate or one's opinion of his or her qualifications. he. being a neophyte in the field of politics stands to suffer grave and irreparable injury with this prohibition. and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger. place or manner of 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. and orderly elections. prohibiting posting in "mobile" places. a senatorial candidate in the May 11. Under our constitutional scheme. 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. and the causal connection between the speech and the evil apprehended cannot be established. including religious speech. however. It is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified. and if the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the constitutionally sanctioned objective. honest. ADIONG VS. Held: The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's fundamental right of free speech.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. by displaying it on his car. cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil. especially the fanatics. ―attack‖ is different from ―offend‖ any race or religion. 2347 which provides that decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas. The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms. NO. 1992 elections now assails the Resolution. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint on speech. if it cuts off the flow of media reporting. The determination of the question as to whether or not such vilification. Religious dogmas and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers. 31 MAR 1992] Facts: COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like cars and other moving vehicles does not endanger any substantial government interest. Allegedly. The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and. the police. unless the speech is first allowed. television and print political advertisements. public or private. 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. it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. exaggeration or fabrication falls within or lies outside the boundaries of protected speech or expression is a judicial function which cannot be arrogated by an administrative body such as a Board of Censors. The basis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas. 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. 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. RTC‘s ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the State from leaning towards any religion. Issue: Whether or Not the COMELEC‘s prohibition unconstitutional. its impact cannot be measured. local officials and COMELEC. should lean in favor of freedom. to convince others to Page 111 Section 1-C. unclean they may be. Respondent board cannot censor the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other religions. COMELEC [207 SCRA 712. 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. SY ’06-‘07 .R. In addition. 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." A system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies. 103956. even if said religion happens to be the most numerous church in our country. G. Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong.

and taxpayers and voters who claim that their right to be informed of election Issue and of credentials of the candidates is being curtailed. equality of opportunity to proffer oneself for public office. It is principally argued by petitioners that 1 Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. and that the suppression of media-based campaign or political propaganda except those appearing in the Comelec space of the newspapers and on Comelec time of radio and television broadcasts. The Court considers that Section 11 (b) has not gone outside the permissible bounds of supervision or regulation of media operations during election periods. Moreover. primarily his own and not of anybody else.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests agree with him. so long at least as such comments. is clearly an important value. COMELEC [201 SCRA 1. NATIONAL PRESS CLUB VS. 1026653. without regard to the level of financial resources that one may have at one's disposal. "during the election period. namely. 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.. 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. By virtue of the operation of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it placed on his private vehicle. Section 11 (b) is limited in its applicability in time to election periods. The restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizen's private property. G. their qualifications. is not paid for Page 112 Section 1-C. Section 1. in responsible media. 6646 invades and violates the constitutional guarantees comprising freedom of expression. political parties and programs of government. petitioners contend that Section 11 (b) abridges the freedom of speech of candidates. In sum. NO. 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. 6646 constitutional. 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. Held: Yes. opinions and beliefs are not in fact advertisements for particular candidates covertly paid for.R. another cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution would be violated. 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. only publications of a particular content. Article III of the Bill of Rights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. SY ’06-‘07 . Issue: Whether or Not Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. It is asserted that the prohibition is in derogation of media's role. Further. Section 11 (b) is not to be read as reaching any report or commentary other coverage that. function and duty to provide adequate channels of public information and public opinion relevant to election Issue. 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. and programs and so forth. the expression becomes a statement by the owner. which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle." In our own society." 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. In consequence of this prohibition. It seems a modest proposition that the provision of the Bill of Rights which enshrines freedom of speech. or whether such act has gone beyond permissible supervision or regulation of media operations so as to constitute unconstitutional repression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. 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. their qualifications. Section 11 (b) is limited in the duration of its applicability and enforceability. because it selects and singles out for suppression and repression with criminal sanctions. One of the basic state policies given constitutional rank by Article II. Petitioners maintain that the prohibition imposed by Section 11 (b) amounts to censorship.e.

Assembly means a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs. Now. Section 11 (b) as designed to cover only paid political advertisements of particular candidates. Although the charges are probably not true as to the justice of the peace. charging Roman Punsalan. with malfeasance in office and asking for his removal. of course. 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. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is. US VS.R. It is a duty which every one owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of any alleged misconduct. The specific charges against the justice of the peace include the solicitation of money from persons who have pending cases before the judge. The administration of the law is a matter of vital public concern. In the usual case malice can be presumed from defamatory words. G. the welfare of society. therefore. 8 MAR 1918] Facts: In the latter part of 1915. justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol. without fear of penalty. Privilege destroys that presumption. The inevitable and incontestable result has been the development and adoption of the doctrine of privilege. to the appropriate branch or office of the government for a redress of grievances. and the orderly administration of government have demanded protection for public opinion. All persons have an interest in the pure and efficient administration of justice and of public affairs. numerous citizens of the Province of Pampanga assembled. Issue: Whether or Not accused is entitled to constitutional protection by virtue of his right to free speech and free press. assume responsibility for the charges made. The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. Pampanga. a fit subject for proper comment. 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. and five individuals signed affidavits. The ends and the motives of these citizens — to secure the removal from office of a person thought to be venal — were justifiable. Probable cause for them to think that malfeasance or misfeasance in office existed is apparent. SY ’06-‘07 . The right to assemble and petition is the necessary consequence of republican institutions and the complement of the part of free speech. NO. Held: Yes. In no way did they abuse the privilege. A privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice or falsity. Public policy. Good faith surrounded their action. public opinion will be effectively suppressed. and libelous against him. BUSTOS [37 PHIL.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests by candidates for political office. Petition means that any person or group of persons can apply. All persons have an interest in the pure and efficient administration of justice and of public affairs. scandalous. G. 5 OCT 1989] Facts: Page 113 Section 1-C. they were believed to be true by the petitioners. COURT OF APPEALS [178 SCRA 362. The persons assembling and petitioning must. L-12592. 731.R. PITA VS. Punsalan alleged that accused published a writing which was false. The limiting impact of Section 11 (b) upon the right to free speech of the candidates themselves is not unduly repressive or unreasonable. If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer. defamatory. and prepared and signed a petition to the Executive Secretary(privileged communication) through the law office of Crossfield and O'Brien. malicious.80806.

Plaintiff also filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against indiscriminate seizure. publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene. 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. This was affirmed by the CA. newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks. Using the Kottinger rule: the test of obscenity is "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene. envisioned. 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. pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila. artistic and educational magazine which is not per se obscene. NO. Plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera. that if the pictures here in question were used not exactly for art's sake but rather for commercial purposes. the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests On December 1 and 3." 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. Page 114 Section 1-C. and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. Among the publications seized.R. elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group. as indeed we have laws punishing the author. seized and confiscated from dealers. if in their opinion an obscenity seizure is in order and that. 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. However. 1. in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and members of various student organizations. as superintendent of Western Police District of the City of Manila. Recto Avenue. The proposed motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was endorsed by the MTRCB as and other government agencies consulted. 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. 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. Ramon D. they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography. 29 APR 1988] Facts: Petitioner McElroy an Australian film maker. AYER PRODUCTIONS VS. SY ’06-‘07 . Auxilliary Services Bureau. The question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge‘s sound discretion. Western Police District. L-82380.M. distributors. pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public at the University belt along C. for commercial viewing and for Philippine and international release. 2. and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure. The court provides that the authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge. Bagatsing. was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. RTC ruled that the seizure was valid. Manila. INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila. sometime in 1987. pending hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction. confiscation and burning of plaintiff's "Pinoy Playboy" Magazines. Ayer Productions. The Court granted the temporary restraining order. by way of a search warrant. publishers and sellers of obscene publications. and later burned. the pictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection. G." Another is whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. and his movie production company. CAPULONG [160 SCRA 861. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed obscene. It is easier said than done to say. Ramos also signified his approval of the intended film production. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure violative of the freedom of expression of the petitioner. magazines. 1983. The case was set for trial upon the lapse of the TRO.

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 nevertheless is based on. 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. to some extent at least. instead of the alleged killers. Held: Yes. and petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion picture. petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was deleted from the movie script. sending a distress signal to a passing United States Airforce plane which in turn relayed the message to Manila. creating four fictional characters interwoven with real events. film or other medium for advertising or commercial exploitation. then edited by Gatbonton. L-26549. The line of equilibrium in the specific context of the instant case between the constitutional freedom of speech and of expression and the right of privacy. is not a disqualification for availing of freedom of speech and of expression. SANDIGANBAYAN [34 SCRA 116. a man named Fidel Cruz who merely wanted transportation home to Manila. Mention was made that while Fidel Cruz‘ story turned Page 115 Section 1-C. reproduction and/or exhibition of his name. Major Encarnacion branded as a "hoax. He utilized it to inform authorities in Manila that the people in the place were living in terror. as well as on other dailies. Issue: Whether or Not freedom of expression was violated. The subject thus relates to a highly critical stage in the history of the country. Hence the appeal. Losing no time. Upon arriving Major Encarnacion and his men found. appropriation. no "clear and present danger" of any violation of any right to privacy. At all relevant times. In view of this finding. devoted a pictorial article to it in its issue of January 15. clearly of public concern. during which the momentous events. Enrile was a "public figure:" Such public figures were held to have lost. David Williamson is Australia's leading playwright and Professor McCoy (University of New South Wales) is an American historian have developed a script. SY ’06-‘07 . that petitioners propose to film were taking place. 1956. or bears substantial or marked resemblance to Enrile. An American Army plane dropping on the beach of an island an emergency-sustenance kit containing. or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television production. Fidel Cruz. the Philippines defense establishment rushed to the island a platoon of scout rangers. and utilizing actual documentary footage as background. in other words. 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. The projected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and hence not exhibited to any audience. However. a two-way radio set. 31 JUL 1970] Facts: In the early part of January. of which petitioner Lopez was the publisher." the report of respondent. there appeared on the front page of The Manila Chronicle. 1956. Enrile declared that he will not approve the use. There was. LOPEZ VS. Furthermore the circumstance that the production of motion picture films is a commercial activity expected to yield monetary profit. presented in a "docu-drama" style. a complaint was filed by Enrile invoking his right to privacy.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour mini-series television play. Neither private respondent nor the respondent trial Judge knew what the completed film would precisely look like. among other things. their right to privacy. or picture. This Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle. due to a series of killings committed since Christmas of 1955. a news story of a sanitary inspector assigned to the Babuyan Islands. Subject matter is one of public interest and concern.

' and that on the other hand there was 'an honest and high sense of duty to serve the best interests of the public. The SC. 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." Included 1 herein is Sec. L-1800. and penalizes as a misdemeanor. remains bitter and high. The magazine carried photographs of the person purporting to be Fidel Cruz. 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. Stating as well Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an offense against public peace. under the circumstances of this case." Giving emphasis as well to the delegated police power to local government. quoting Quisumbing v. were on file in the library of the Manila Chronicle but when the news quiz format was prepared. Free use of Public Place. only two individuals able to read and write. without self-seeking motive and with malice towards none. or disturb or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly. or that there was intention to do harm. The newspapers should be given such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy. This is merely to underscore the primacy that freedom of the press enjoys. tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot. since the error in this case could have been checked considering that this was a weekly magazine and not a daily. Held: No. However a correction was published immediately. and consistently with good faith and reasonable care. 1119. ―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. In the preparation of stories. Issue: Whether or Not petitioners abused the freedom of the press. specially on the part of the losing groups. in any public place. and in the duly constituted authorities. food and clothing being scarce. but with reduced damages. Lopez. found for plaintiff. or procession. Issue: Whether or Not the freedom of speech was violated.' Every citizen of course has the right to enjoy a good name and reputation. press reporters and editors usually have to race with their deadlines. SY ’06-‘07 . The reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is. for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words. Unfortunately. FUGOSO [80 PHIL 71. which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order. had violated said right or abused the freedom of the press.‖ PRIMICIAS VS. but we do not consider that the respondents. they should not be held to account. Cruz. It turned out that the photographs of respondent Cruz and that of Fidel Cruz. Bulacan. the pictures that were published were that of private respondent Fidel G. that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government. Defense interposed that they are beating the deadline. The court ruled in his favor. sanitary inspector. or collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose. to a point of suppression. "that there is a reasonable ground to believe. Held: Page 116 Section 1-C. basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions. Hence the appeal. the two photographs were in advertently switched.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests out to be false it brought attention to the government that people in that most people in the area are sick sick. meeting. "any act. 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. a businessman contractor from Santa Maria.

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. Now. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. (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. directly or indirectly. 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. to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting. that the Court has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Yes. or procession in the streets and other public places of the City of Manila. Under our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be validly granted to any officer of the government. obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. and to provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder. 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. Enrique Zaldivar. A little later. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the state. The Court found respondent guilty of contempt of court and indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The Court did not purport to announce a new doctrine of "visible tendency. Dealing with the ordinance. 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. specifically. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondent wherein he included statements which were unrelated in the Issue raised in the Court. he however becomes the Special Prosecutor of the State. except perhaps in cases of national emergency." Page 117 Section 1-C. G. 1119. said section provides for two constructions: (1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse." 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. 1 FEB 1989] Facts: The case stemmed from the resolution of the Supreme Court stopping the respondent from investigating graft cases involving Antique Gov. invoking his freedom of speech. NO. to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others. The Court ruled that since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution. 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. Sec. respondent‘s powers as Tanodbayan ha ve been superseded by the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman. upon the ground that respondent cannot expect due process from this Court. 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. and can only conduct an investigation and file cases only when so authorized by the Ombudsman. Now. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one . 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. parade. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Held: There was no violation. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. to impede. (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." Statements of the respondent saying that the SC‘s order '"heightens the people's apprehension over the justice system in this country. 79690-707. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. he assails said conviction." and (c) that in several instances.R. First construction tantamount to authorizing the Mayor to prohibit the use of the streets." Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom of speech/expression. The court favored the second construction. ZALDIVAR VS. SANDIGANBAYAN [170 SCRA 1. The Mayor‘s first defense is untenable. SY ’06-‘07 .

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. there is freedom of access. It is settled law that as to public places.R. rights. REYES VS.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Under either the "clear and present danger" test or the "balancing-of-interest test. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. Time immemorial Luneta has been used for purposes of assembly. There was likewise an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly. 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. which has some implications to the society. Notice is given to applicants for the denial. 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. the public place where and the time when it will take place. especially so as to parks and streets. 9 NOV 1983] Facts: Petitioner sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26. If it were a private place." 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. a short program would be held. 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. as to transcend the permissible limits of free speech. Hence the Court resolves. Issue: Whether or Not the freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble violated. and discussing public questions. Once there. and in an open space of public property. Nor is their use dependent on who is the applicant for the permit. The march would be attended by the local and foreign participants of such conference. Such use of the public places has from ancient times. 1983 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon. However the request was denied. on the choice of Luneta as the place where the peace rally would start. 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. whether an individual or a group. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. BAYAN VS. 25 APR 2006] Facts: Page 118 Section 1-C. 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. G. 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. 169838. only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. communicating thoughts between citizens. been a part of the privileges. There can be no legal objection. Held: Yes. However Justice Aquino dissented that the rally is violative of Ordinance No. NO. and liberties of citizens. all the necessary steps would be taken by it "to ensure a peaceful march and rally. starting from the Luneta to the gates of the United States Embassy. 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. With regard to the ordinance. absent the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil. immunities. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ERMITA [488 SCRA 226. L-65366. 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. The validity of his denial of the permit sought could still be challenged. BAGATSING [125 SCRA 553.

Second. No. 880 and violates the Constitution as it causes a chilling effect on the exercise by the people of the right to peaceably assemble. 7160 gives the Mayor power to deny a permit independently of B. causing injuries on one of them. in turn. aside from being void for being vague and for lack of publication. It also characterizes public assemblies without a permit as illegal and penalizes them and allows their dispersal. No. et al. and that no law. No. a rally KMU co-sponsored was to be conducted at the Mendiola bridge but police blocked them along C. KMU asserts that the right to peaceful assembly. are affected by Batas Pambansa No. et al. No. SY ’06-‘07 .As to the CPR policy. allowing the Mayor to deny the permit on clear and convincing evidence of a clear and present danger is too comprehensive. as well as the policy of CPR. place and manner of holding public assemblies.P. 880 The Public Assembly Act of 1985. 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time. and that the permit is for the use of a public place and not for the exercise of rights. Held: No question as to standing. No. its provisions are not mere regulations but are actually prohibitions.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Rallies of September 20. Furthermore..P. 5.P. B. 12. 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. they argue that it is preemptive. Their right as citizens to engage in peaceful assembly and exercise the right of petition. No. 880. And even assuming that the legislature can set limits to this right. They further allege that on October 6. All petitioners assail Batas Pambansa No. argue that B. 26 petitioners were injured. as guaranteed by the Constitution. ordinance or executive order supports the policy. 880 is not a content-based regulation because it covers all rallies. The reference to ―lawful cause‖ does not make it content -based because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes. KMU. According to Atienza RA. 6. Police officers blocked them along Morayta Street and prevented them from proceeding further. argue that the Constitution sets no limits on the right to assembly and therefore B. 2005 is at issue. 2005.M. 13(a). KMU. it contravenes the maximum tolerance policy of B. Thus.P. 880.. and 14(a). BP 880 entails traffic re-routing to prevent grave public inconvenience and serious or undue interference in the free flow of commerce and trade. It is content-neutral regulation of the time. No.. They seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the ―no permit. 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. is directly affected by B. the limits provided are unreasonable: First. claim that on October 4.P. October 4. 880 requires a permit before one can stage a public assembly regardless of the presence or absence of a clear and present danger. No. They were then forcibly dispersed. 880 and the policy of ―Calibrated Preemptive Response‖ (CPR) being followed to implement it. 880.P. arrested and detained when a peaceful mass action they was preempted and violently dispersed by the police. 21.P. otherwise interest on the issue would possibly wane. Recto and Lepanto Streets and forcibly dispersed them. Respondents argued that petitioners have no standing. Petitioners Bayan. no rally‖ policy and the CPR policy announced on Sept. 5 and 6. Issue: Whether or Not BP 880 and the CPR Policy unconstitutional. Three other rallyists were arrested. and that B. et al. it is void for being an ultra vires act that alters the standard of maximum tolerance set forth in B. causing injuries to several of their members. They argue that 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. It refers to all kinds of public assemblies that would use public places. 2 005. place and manner of the assemblies.. otherwise they would not be ―peaceable‖ and Page 119 Section 1-C. 2005. Regarding the CPR policy. that the government takes action even before the rallyists can perform their act. 880 cannot put the prior requirement of securing a permit. Petitioners Jess del Prado.P.P. et al. BAYAN‘s rally was violently dispersed. 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. the five-day requirement to apply for a permit is too long as certain events require instant public assembly. some of them in toto and others only Sections 4.

to 12:00 P. which they deemed pornographic. 1982. are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. (Kottinger Rule Applied).M. no prior restraint. Fernando Music Fair (Music Fair) in Quiapo. 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. Swank. along with other students. There is. 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. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments. they marched toward the Life Science Building and continued their rally. they held a general assembly at the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science basketball court (VMAS). likewise. 21 MAY 1984] Facts: Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of respondent University. Issue: Whether or Not the CA erred in affirming RTC‘s decision. SY ’06-‘07 .M. Copies of Hustler International Magazine with nude obscene pictures. M ALABANAN VS. subject to the giving of advance notices.R. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision. G. 6 DEC 2006] Facts: Acting on reports of sale and distribution of pornographic materials.62270. It was outside the area covered by their permit. officers of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in the National Capital Region conducted police surveillance on the store Gaudencio E. Pursuant to such permit. d. ESTORNINOS [G. they were informed that they were under preventive suspension for their Page 120 Section 1-C. NO 159751. Playhouse. Insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance. c. As obscenity is an unprotected speech which the State has the right to regulate. Petitioners were charged and convicted. immoral and indecent materials must justify the regulation or limitation. 1 FERNANDO VS. 1982. Rave. Even they rallied beyond the period allowed. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. Then on September 9.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests entitled to protection. CA affirmed the decision hence this appeal. They sought and were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from 8:00 A. not in the basketball court as therein stated but at the second floor lobby. Copies of IOU Penthouse Magazine with nude obscene pictures.R. They were asked to explain on the same day why they should not be held liable for holding an illegal assembly. Copies of New Rave Magazines with nude obscene pictures. since the content of the speech is not relevant to the regulation. Held: No. Gallery. NO. 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. Erotic. b. RAMENTO [129 SCRA 359. this was declared null and void. the place indicated in such permit. The same day. and Copies of VHS tapes containing pornographic shows. Maximum tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of the content of the expressions in the rally. on August 27. QUI). 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. 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. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. Penthouse. the State in pursuing its mandate to protect the public from obscene.

there was an infringement of the right to peaceable assembly and its cognate right of free speech. Held: Yes. Students. Camarines Norte. 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. however. 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. Hence this petition. Culture. Issue: Whether on the facts as disclosed resulting in the disciplinary action and the penalty imposed. Issue: Whether or Not the students‘ right to freedom of speech and assembly infringed . there be violations of its terms. which was also applied in the case. but the trial court dismissed the petition. who are devoid of the power to deny such request arbitrarily or unreasonably. If the assembly is to be held in school premises. SY ’06-‘07 . therefore. The permissible limitation on Student Exercise of Constitutional Rights within the school presupposes that conduct by the student. Respondent Ramento found petitioners guilty of the charge of illegal assembly which was characterized by the violation of the permit granted resulting in the disturbance of classes and oral defamation. The validity thereof was challenged by petitioners both before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against private respondents and before the Ministry of Education. The peaceable character of an assembly could be lost. and Sports. permit must be sought from its school authorities. students in private respondent Mabini Colleges. by an advocacy of disorder under the name of dissent. This is without prejudice to the taking of disciplinary action for conduct. made clear in the pleadings. NON VS. the penalty incurred should not be disproportionate to the offense. DAMES [185 SCRA 523. in Daet. however. were not allowed to re-enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or participating in student mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. The subject of the protests is not.R. Petitioners filed a petition in the court seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to the school. are required to behave in accord with the Mabini College code of conduct and discipline. which for any reason whether it Page 121 Section 1-C. They would be ineffective if during a rally they speak in the guarded and judicious language of the academe. 89317. Inc. G. They now petition the court to reverse its ruling in Alcuaz 1 vs." The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed students of educational institutions. Held: Yes. 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. The court said that petitioners waived their privilege to be admitted for re-enrollment with respondent college when they adopted. "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. Necessarily. 20 MAY 1990] Facts: Petitioners. As a corollary. has a right to present. no clear and present danger of public disorder is discernible. and used its enrollment form for the first semester of school year 1988-89. 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. in class or out of it.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests failure to explain the holding of an illegal assembly. The penalty was suspension for one academic year. NO. PSBA . however. the utmost leeway and scope is accorded the content of the placards displayed or utterances made. whatever grievances that may be aired being susceptible to correction through the ways of the law. In granting such permit. But with the activity taking place in the school premises and during the daytime. Even if. signed. Student leaders are likely to be assertive and dogmatic. However there are limitations.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
stems from time, place, or type of behavior should not materially disrupt classwork or must not involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.

IN RE: TULFO [A.M. NO. 90-4-1545-0; 17 APR 1990] Facts: In Oct. 13, 1989, Tulfo wrote an article in his column in PDI 'On Target' stating that the Supreme Court rendered an idiotic decision in legalizing checkpoints, and again on Oct. 16, 1989, where he called the Supreme Court stupid and "sangkatutak na mga bobo justices of the Philippine Supreme Court". Tulfo was required to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Tulfo said that he was just reacting emotionally because he had been a victim of harassment in the checkpoints, and "idiotic" meant illogical and unwise, and "bobo" was just quoted from other attorneys, and since the case had been decided and terminated, there was not contempts. Lastly, the article does not pose any clear and present danger to the Supreme court. Issue: Whether or Not Tulfo is in contempt.

Held: Yes. At the time Tulfo wrote the article, the checkpoints case had not yet been decided upon, and the Supreme Court was still acting on an MR filed from the CA. The power to punish is inherent as it is essential for self-preservation. Contempt of court is defiance of the authority, justice and dignity of the courts. It brings disrepute to the court. There are two kinds of publications which can be punished for contempt: a. those whose object is to affect the decision in a pending case. b. those whose object is to bring courts to discredit. Tulfo's article constituted both. It should have been okay to criticize if respectful language was used, but if its object is only to degrade and ridicule, then it is clearly an obstruction of justice. Nothing constructive can be gained from them. Being emotional is no excuse for being insulting. Quoting is not an excuse also, because at the end of his article, Tulfo said, "So you bobo justices, watch out!" Also, he said he was not sorry for having written the articles. Tulfo is found in contempt of court and is gravely censured.

PBM EMPLOYEES VS. PBM [51 SCRA 189; G.R. NO. L-31195; 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., Inc., and petitioners. Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner Union. Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police. 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. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management. The Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager, 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. Workers who without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly , the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike. 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.M. to 2 P.M. on March 4, 1969, filed a

Page 122 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
charge against petitioners and other employees who composed the first shift, for a violation of Republic Act No. 875(Industrial Peace Act), and of the CBA providing for 'No Strike and No Lockout.' Petitioners were held guilty in by CIR for bargaining in bad faith, hence this appeal. Issue: Whether or Not the petitioners right to freedom of speech and to peaceable assemble violated. Held: Yes. A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. This is not present in the case. It was to the interest herein private respondent firm to rally to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits. Herein respondent employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local police. In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression well as their right of assembly and of petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the employees and laborers of herein private respondent firm were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the weapons afforded them by the Constitution — the untrammelled enjoyment of their basic human rights. 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, is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights. The employees' pathetic situation was a stark reality — abused, harassment and persecuted as they believed they were by the peace officers of the municipality. As above intimated, the condition in which the employees found themselves vis-a-vis the local police of Pasig, was a matter that vitally affected their right to individual existence as well as that of their families. Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights — freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances — over property rights has been sustained. To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, 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, stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition. 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. The more the participants, the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally. Moreover, 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.

Page 123 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE Art 3, Sec. 10. “No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.”

RUTTER VS. ESTEBAN [93 PHIL 68; NO.L-3708; 18 MAY 1953] Facts: On August 20,1941 Rutter sold to Esteban two parcels of land situated in the Manila for P9,600 of which P4,800 were paid outright, and the balance was made payable as follows: P2,400 on or before August 7, 1942, and P2,400 on or before August 27, 1943, with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum. To secure the payment of said balance of P4,800, a first mortgage has been constituted in favor of the plaintiff. Esteban failed to pay the two installments as agreed upon, as well as the interest that had accrued and so Rutter instituted an action to recover the balance due, the interest due and the attorney's fees. The complaint also contains a prayer for sale of the properties mortgaged in accordance with law. Esteban claims that this is a prewar obligation contracted and that he is a war sufferer, having filed his claim with the Philippine War Damage Commission for the losses he had suffered as a consequence of the last war; and that under section 2 of RA 342(moratorium law), payment of his obligation cannot be enforced until after the lapse of eight years. The complaint was dismissed. A motion for recon was made which assails the constitutionality of RA 342. Issue: Whether or Not RA 342 unconstitutional on non-impairment clause grounds. Held: Yes. 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. The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts. The question is not whether the legislative action affects contracts incidentally, or directly or indirectly, but whether the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end and the measures taken are reasonable and appropriate to that end. However based on the President‘s general SONA and consistent with what the Court believes to be as the only course dictated by justice, fairness and righteousness, declared that the continued operation and enforcement of RA 342 at the present time is unreasonable and oppressive, and should not be prolonged should be declared null and void and without effect. This holds true as regards Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32, 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.

ORTIGAS VS. FEATI BANK [94 SCRA 533; NO.L-24670; 14 DEC 1979] Facts: Plaintiff is engaged in real estate business, developing and selling lots to the public, particularly the Highway Hills Subdivision along EDSA. On March 4, 1952, plaintiff, as vendor, and Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles, as vendees, entered into separate agreements of sale on installments over two parcels of land of the Subdivision. On July 19, 1962, the said vendees transferred their rights and interests over the aforesaid lots in favor of one Emma Chavez. Upon completion of payment of the purchase price, the plaintiff executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Emma Chavez. Both the agreements (of sale on installment) and the deeds of sale contained the stipulations or restrictions that: 1. The parcel of land shall be used exclusively for residential purposes, and she shall not be entitled to take or remove soil, stones or gravel from it or any other lots belonging to the Seller.

Page 124 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

has become a convenient substitute for money. Resolution is a valid exercise of police power. under pain of penal sanctions. commented that it was premature for the accused to elevate to the Supreme Court the orders denying their motions to quash. in this modem day and age. SY ’06-‘07 . It should be stressed. as the statute is unconstitutional. it forms part of the banking system and therefore not entirely free from the regulatory power of the state. The petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief. Health. Checks can not be categorized as mere contracts. The offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. NO. Plaintiff demand to stop it.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 2. upholding police power. Issue: Whether or Not non-impairment clause violated. Held: The freedom of contract which is constitutionally protected is freedom to enter into "lawful" contracts. Plaintiff claims that restriction is for the beautification of the subdivision. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Issue: Whether or Not BP 22 impairs freedom of contract. the Supreme Court finds it justifiable to intervene for the review of lower court's denial of a motion to quash. contending that no offense was committed. 18 DEC 1986] Facts: A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made. Defendant began constructing a commercial bank building. (a) of strong materials and properly painted. safety. EDSA. Page 125 Section 1-C. supports an endless stream of traffic and the resulting activity. Eventually said lots were bought by defendant. M ARTINEZ [146 SCRA 323. which forced him to file a case. LOZANO VS. a main traffic artery which runs through several cities and municipalities in the Metro Manila area. peace. Held: No. It is a commercial instrument which. the rule is not absolute. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power. noise and pollution are hardly conducive to the health. and (c) shall not be at a distance of less than two (2) meters from its boundary lines. Contracts which contravene public policy are not lawful. Whether or not BP 22 transgresses the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. (b) provided with modern sanitary installations connected either to the public sewer or to an approved septic tank. hence the appeal. All buildings and other improvements (except the fence) which may be constructed at any time in said lot must be. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. Defendant claimed of the commercialization of western part of EDSA.L-63419. Lot 5 directly from Chavez and Lot 6 from Republic Flour Mills by deed of exchange. Such motion was denied by the RTC. which was later dismissed. Motion for recon was denied. with same restrictions. The Solicitor General. The thrust of the law is to prohibit. However. that while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed. good order and general welfare of the people in the locality are justifications for this. safety or welfare of the residents in its route.

Issue: Whether or not RA1700 is a bill of attainder/ ex post facto law. for being members/leaders of the NPA. to be UNLAWFUL. the following requisites must be present: 1. Section 7 provides for 2 witnesses in open court for acts penalized by prision mayor to death. Attended by Aggravating Circumstances of Aid or Armed Men.” PEOPLE VS. Why is membership punished. In order for a statute be measured as a bill of attainder. NOS. SY ’06-‘07 . Section 6 provides for penalty for furnishing false evidence. 27 DEC 1972] Facts: Hon. groups. dismissing the information of subversion against the following: 1. The trial court is of opinion that 1. This is the required proof of a member‘s direct participation. Held: The court holds the VALIDITY Of the Anti-Subversion Act of 1957. The Act‘s focus is on the co nduct not person. It defined the Communist Party being although a political party is in fact an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government. Craft. Sec. 2. 2. the statute is PROSPECTIVE in nature. and Fraud. the statute simply declares the CPP as an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the Government for purposes of example of SECTION 4 of the Act. assembly and association.L-32613-14. Section 4 prohibits acts committed after approval of the act. It is the substitution of judicial determination to a legislative determination of guilt. 3.) It created a presumption of organizational guilt by being members of the CPP regardless of voluntariness. subversion and other illegal means. Judge Simeon Ferrer is the Tarlac trial court judge that declared RA1700 or the AntiSubversive Act of 1957 as a bill of attainder. subversion by a band and aid of armed men to afford impunity. instigating people to unite and overthrow the Philippine Government.) Nilo Tayag and 5 others.) The statute specifies persons. 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 Page 126 Section 1-C. Membership makes himself party to its unlawful acts. and for other purposes. Membership to this organizations. Section 5 states that due investigation by a designated prosecutor by the Secretary of Justice be made prior to filing of information in court. Membership renders aid and encouragement to the organization. It is an act to outlaw the CPP and similar associations penalizing membership therein. Furthermore. FERRER [48 SCRA 382. not only by force and violence but also by deceit. Thus. “No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. Whether or Not RA1700 violates freedom of expression. inciting. Section 9 declares the constitutionality of the statute and its valid exercise under freedom if thought. It declares that the CPP is a clear and present danger to the security of the Philippines. 22.) The Congress usurped the powers of the judge 2. It punishes without the benefit of the trial. The Act applies not only to the CPP but also to other organizations having the same purpose and their successors.) Assumed judicial magistracy by pronouncing the guilt of the CPP without any forms of safeguard of a judicial trial. This is the element of MEMBERSHIP with KNOWLEDGE that is punishable. Section 8 allows the renunciation of membership to the CCP through writing under oath. A bill of attainder is solely a legislative act.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests EX POST FACTO LAWS Art 3.) the statute is applied retroactively and reach past conduct. it must be shown that membership was acquired with the intent to further the goals of the organization by overt acts.) 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.) In the case at bar. Section 4 provided that affiliation with full knowledge of the illegal acts of the CPP is punishable. The Anti Subversive Act of 1957 was approved 20June1957. (A bill of attainder relatively is also an ex post facto law.

Held: The court finds no merit in the petitioner‘s contention that RA 3019 as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg 195. 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. 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 amendatory provision Page 127 Section 1-C. Accdg to the RPC suspension from employment and public office during trial shall not be considered as a penalty. Before the enactment of the statute and statements in the preamble. This declaration is only a basis of Section 4 of the Act. which includes the crime of estafa through falsification of Public Documents as among crimes subjecting the public officer charged therewith with suspension from public office pending action in court. The court set basic guidelines to be observed in the prosecution under RA1700. 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.L-61861. while Bayot ran for municipal mayor of Amadeo Cavite and was elected on January 1980. if acquitted the official who is suspended shall be entitled to reinstatement and the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. The declaration of that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Philippine Government should not be the basis of guilt. with some other employees from the said ministry. It is not a penalty because it is not a result of a judicial proceeding. 2.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 8. 1987. The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the TRIAL COURT. the continued pursuance of its subversive purpose. SANDIGANBAYAN [128 SCRA 383. And does not violate the constitutional provision against ex post facto law. NO. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. In fact. Membership is willfully and knowingly done by overt acts. In case of CPP. The 1 32 cases were filed on july 25. is a penal provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto law. careful investigations by the Congress were done. The court did not make any judgment on the crimes of the accused under the Act. 1982 Batas Pambansa Blg 195 was passed amending RA 3019.L-61776 TO NO. Subversive Organizations besides the CPP. The statute applies the principle of mutatis mutandis or that the necessary changes having been made. the following elements must also be established: 1. The bureau of treasury and the teacher‘s camp in Baguio City for the preparation and encashment of ficti tious TCAA checks for the nom-existent obligations of the teacher‘s camp resulting in damage to the st government of several millions. In addition to proving circumstances/ evidences of subversion. 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. The EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL justifies the limitation to the exercise of ―Freedom of Expression and Association‖ in this matter. 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. BAYOT VS. On Mach 16. 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.

RA 3019. To apply BP 1 195 to Paredes would make it an ex post facto law 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. as it is prejudicial to the accused. 1989 an information for violation of RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was then filed in the Sandiganbayan after an ex parte preliminary investigation. 3326. A motion to quash the information was filed by the private respondent contending among others that he is charged for an offence which has prescribed. Held: Yes. shortly after private respondent had replaced Mrs. Page 128 Section 1-C. 3 JUL 1992] Facts: Two letter complaints were filed with the Tanodbayan by Teofilo Gelacio on October 28.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 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 from office. 1982. Now the motion to quash was being assailed. SANDIGANBAYAN [211 SCRA 241. BP 195 which was approved on March 16. NO. 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. Said motion was granted. therefore it has prescribed in 1986.1986 and December 9. thereby inducing said inspector to recommend approval of his application for free patent. G. Plaza as OIC/provincial Governor of Agusan del Sur on March 1986 The complaint questioned the issuance to Governor Paredes. Additionally. 1976. which begins to run from the day of the commission of the crime and not the discovery of it. SY ’06-‘07 . The crime was committed on January 21.R. On August 10. a political leader of Governor Valentina Plaza. wife of Congressman Democrito Plaza of Agusan del Sur. 101724. The use of the word ―office‖ applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding and not only the particular office under which he was charged. Agusan del Sur. Issue: Whether or Not the motion to quash validly granted. He misrepresented to a Lands Inspector of the Bureau of Lands that the lands subject herein are disposable lands. amending Sec. 1986. 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. PEOPLE VS. period of prescription was 10 years. 29 of Act No. being a special law the computation of the period for the prescription of the crime is governed by Sec.

his debt is considered a simple loan granted by her friends to her. The offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. commented that it was premature for the accused to elevate to the Supreme Court the orders denying their motions to quash.L-63419. and issuing on the same day the warrant of arrest upon his utterly baseless finding "that the accused is probably guilty of the crime charged. 30 SEPT 1975] Facts: Plaintiff failed to pay a simple indebtedness for P1500 Carmelito Mendoza. Further she contended that no person should be imprisoned for non-payment of a loan of a sum of money. 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. 297-MJ. since elements of estafa are not present. Even if complainant desisted case was pursued. under pain of penal sanctions. ADM. not malum in se but because of the harm that it inflicts on the community. SY ’06-‘07 . contending that no offense was committed. 18 DEC 1986] Facts: A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT Art 3. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. M ARTINEZ [146 SCRA 323. Issue: Whether or not BP 22 is constitutional as it is a proper exercise of police power of the State. The Solicitor General.” SERAFIN VS. 20. they could get her valuable things at her home. Two months after respondent dismissed plaintiff‘s case. “No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. 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. 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. Complainant admitted complaint. However. Since plaintiff did not commit any offense as. but an offense against public order. (Judge here committed gross ignorance of law. LOZANO VS. it can be Page 129 Section 1-C. LINDAYAG [67 SCRA 166. MATTER. Such motion was denied by the RTC.) 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. Sec. Under the Constitution she is protected." respondent grossly failed to perform his duties properly. An act may not be considered by society as inherently wrong. The thrust of the law is to prohibit. 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 petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief. hence. as the statute is unconstitutional. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property. NO. NO. then municipal secretary and his wife Corazon Mendoza and therefore an estafa case was filed against her. the Supreme Court finds it justifiable to intervene for the review of lower court's denial of a motion to quash.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests outlawed and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. Page 130 Section 1-C. The state can do this in the exercise of its police power. SY ’06-‘07 .

Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. Freedom may be lost d ue to external moral compulsion. 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. to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed. for her to work as a maid. regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid. owned by Julia Salazar. to founded or groundless fear. respondent herein. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency. “(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE Art 3. freedom to transfer from one place to another. The fact that no physical force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent does not make less real the deprivation of her personal freedom of movement. which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave. 18. which was disallowed by the employment agency. However. Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence. the victim is entitled to the protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by duress or physical coercion. 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. Page 131 Section 1-C. to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will.” CAUNCA VS. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another. SY ’06-‘07 . Sec. freedom to choose one‘s residence. NO.L-2690.

1971. two hand grenades were thrown at the platform where said candidates and other persons were. 1971. Proc. (b) to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Eight persons were killed and many more injured. the suspension of the privilege is the least harsh. has exploited the (11) major student or youth organizations. confirmatory of an alleged July-August Plan. prior to and at the time of the suspension of the privilege." and (b) "public safety" must require the suspension of the privilege. about thirty (30) mass organizations actively advancing the CPP. Whether or Not public safety require the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus decreed in Proclamation No. Only 18 provinces and sub-provinces and 2 cities whose privilege was suspended. L-33964. 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. Held: The President has authority however it is subject to judicial review. Proc. has actually taken place after August 21. 15. Sec. 889-A was issued as an amendment. is nonexistent and unjustified. 889-D further lifted the suspension in 7 provinces and 4 cities. Two conditions must concur for the valid exercise of the authority to suspend the privilege to the writ (a) there must be "invasion. called out the armed forces. or rebellion" or "imminent danger thereof. Proc. Incidentally.” LANSANG VS. 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. 1971. 889-C was issued restoring the suspension in 13 provinces and cities(mostly in Mindanao). GARCIA [42 SCRA 448. CPP has managed to infiltrate or establish and control nine major labor organizations. and (c) to place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. Proc. that there were fourteen (14) meaningful bombing incidents in the Greater Manila Area in 1970. insurrection. Petitioners maintained that Proclamation No. (d) that the President's alleged apprehension. at about 9 p. however it became moot and academic since it was amended. 889-B was also issued lifting the suspension of privilege in 27 provinces. It was stated that one of the safeguards of the proclamation was that it is to be applied to persons caught in flagrante delicto. the Government was functioning normally. proved inadequate. inserting the word ―actually staging‖. while the Liberal Party of the Philippines was holding a public meeting at Plaza Miranda. because of said plan. (c) that no untoward incident. Page 132 Section 1-C. is negatived by the killing of 5 mayors. Petitioners further contend that public safety did not require the issuance of proclamations stating: (a) that there is no rebellion. Now the Court resolves after conclusive decision reached by majority. He had. 11 Dec 1971] Facts: In the evening of August 21. (b) that. Petitions for writ of habeas corpus were filed by persons (13) who have been arrested without a warrant. as were the courts. 20 barrio captains and 3 chiefs of police. Petitioners contention that CPP-NPA has no ability.. Proclamation 889 was issued by the President suspending privilege of writ of habeas corpus stating that there is a conspiracy of rebellion and insurrection in order to forcibly seize political power. 889 did not declare the existence of actual "invasion insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger thereof. Of the two other alternatives. for the presentation of its candidates in the general elections scheduled for November 8. 3 sub-provinces and 26 cities. 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. already. 889-A. President has three (3) courses of action: (a) to call out the armed forces.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Art 3. SY ’06-‘07 .m. Manila.

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

Page 133 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

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

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

Page 134 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests
plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. On the right to due process, petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive and constitutional right, 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; only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.

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

PEOPLE VS. M AQUEDA [242 SCRA 565; G.R. NO.112983; 22 MAR 1994]

Page 135 Section 1-C, SY ’06-‘07

NO. Confession. despite his knowing fully well that a case had already been filed in court. 27 MAY 1994] Facts: Six armed men barged into the compound of Polo Coconut Plantation in Tanjay. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case. Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan. Note: a distinction between a confession and admission has been made by the SC: Admission of a party.R. when the two accused asked them for directions. According to SPO3 Molleno. 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. may be given in evidence against him. such extra-judicial admission is inadmissible as evidence. he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. 89223. While he was under detention. G. SY ’06-‘07 . First. — The act. and as to the other admission (Salvosa). Second. Benguet while his Filipino wife. As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa. it was given to a private person therefore admissible. Quezon. 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." Maqueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery to Prosecutor Zarate and to Salvosa. The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before he signed such document. And yet. including accused. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation. Quezon where he signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime." Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Bill of Rights therefore. 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. He was taken to Calauag. Negros Oriental. he still confessed when he did not have to do so. Teresita Mendoza was badly battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robbery. Mike Tabayan and his friend also saw the two accused a kilometer away from the house of the victims that same morning. it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case. the accused was already facing charges in court. The armed men were identified by Security Guard. declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. PEOPLE VS. he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. or of any offense necessarily included therein. 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. BANDULA [232 SCRA 566. Held: No. 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. is untenable. Two household helpers of the victims identified Salvamante (a former houseboy of the victims) and Maqueda as the robbers. Salva and Pastrano.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Facts: British Horace William Barker (consultant of WB) was slain inside his house in Tuba. Afterwards he was brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail. but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness. At the time of the confession. Page 136 Section 1-C.

The next morning. without the extrajudicial confessions. Garay. domino style. in due time. Appellant was convicted. When accused-appellant Bandula and accused Dionanao were investigated immediately after their arrest. Certainly. thus inflicting upon him mortal wounds. belonging to DR. these are blatant violations of the Constitution which mandates in Sec. Lucero was accompanied by CIS agents to Atty. Irregularities present include: 1. even before attempting to elicit statements that would incriminate them. PEOPLE VS. armed with handgun. a driver of the said offended party. If at all. III. 29 MAY 1995] Facts: Alejandro Lucero. Peralta left to attend the wake of his friend. LUCERO [244 SCRA 425. one gold Rolex watch. It was already signed by Lucero. And. Atty. 2. Diosdado Peralta conferred with Lucero. and two weeks later with respect to appellant Bandula. one solid gold bracelet. public or private prosecutor. counsel who supposedly assisted both accused was Atty. blocked the way of the said complainant who was on board a Mercedes Benz passing along Road 14. The three accused denied complicity in the crime charged. Nonetheless. one gold necklace with cross pendant. Counsel must be independent. was not entirely an independent counsel nor counsel of their choice.R. SY ’06-‘07 . Held: No. Baldejera admitted is not established. hence. Pag-asa. Page 137 Section 1-C.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests security guards were hogtied and accused proceeded to the Atty. Atty. the Municipal Attorney of Tanjay. counsel of the police. there are telltale signs that violence was used against the accused. Art. Reason for Accused Sedigo‘s "black eye" which even Pat. Richard Doe and John Doe were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. Peralta gathered the impression that Lucero understood his advice. Ruben Zerna. rob and carry away cash money. QC. Atty. 3. and were merely countersigned later by the municipal attorney who. they had no counsel present. When the investigator started asking the preliminary questions. Bienvenido Echavez.97936. Balbino Echavez. DEMETRIO Z. The prosecution: Accused-appellant (alighted from a gray-reddish car). one 3 karat gold ring. The investigators did not inform the accused of their right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. He cannot be a special counsel. or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. NO. Only the accused Echavez brothers and Alejandro Lucero were apprehended. Atty. appellant argues that the extrajudicial confessions he and accused Dionanao executed suffer from constitutional infirmities. They ransacked the place and took with them money and other valuables. G. counsel came in only a day after the custodial investigation with respect to accused Dionanao. Mindanao Avenue. Peralta. Investigators continuously disregard the repeated requests of the accused for medical assistance. When Lucero told him that he had no lawyer. Garay was killed. MADRID.600. Peter Doe. The extrajudicial statement of Lucero was presented to Atty. Accused-appellant is charged with robbery with homicide along with 3 others who were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.00. one 2 karat gold ring. Accused shot LORENZO BERNALES y ALERIA. 12. Peralta's house. Now. On top of this. as well as Bandula‘s fractured rib. which resulted to the instantaneous death of ALERIA. counsel of plantation. He observed no reaction from Lucero. He apprised Lucero of his constitutional rights. by the nature of his position. all worth P363. the prosecution is left without sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime charged. inadmissible in evidence considering that they were extracted under duress and intimidation. Issue: Whether or Not extrajudicial confessions of appellant is admissible as evidence against him. Consequently. preferably of their own choice. 7 karat.

a dentist. Madrid at the CIS Office during the police line-up. the court a quo acquitted the Echavez brothers for insufficient evidence. The trial court. Danny went home and was then brought to the Hospital for treatment. a man came out from the right side of a car parked about two meters to the church. the Echavez brothers and the other accused in this case. Dominic. The circumstances clearly demonstrate that appellant received no effective counseling from Atty. The Brasilia swerved and hit a fence. Constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime should be provided with counsel. After trial. were on their way aboard their Brasilia to the doctor's residence at Malvar Street. Peralta himself admitted he received no reaction from appellant although his impression was that appellant understood him. 110290. Anthony. and fired at the passengers. who was not the counsel of choice of appellant. While they were cruising along Malvar Street and nearing the Baptist church. Dominic was bale to get out of the Brasilia to run to the Alabanza store where she telephoned her mother. Bayquen and Anna Theresa died on the spot. The men turned out to be police officers. He denied engaging the services of Atty. 25 JAN 1995] Facts: Dr. Anna Theresa. Lucero denied knowing Dr. They chased him. PEOPLE VS. however. Madrid. The records show that Atty. Accused Quiaño. The man approached the Brasilia. a family friend. Peralta was not present during his actual custodial interrogation. Held: Appellant's conviction cannot be based on his extrajudicial confession. Peralta. Issue: Whether or Not the lower court erred in convicting accused-appellant. He said he was surprised when several unidentified men accosted him while he was walking towards his house. The gunman immediately returned to the parked car which then sped away. All those in the car were hit and Dr. Peralta. Constitution requires the right to counsel. SY ’06-‘07 .San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Appellant Lucero's defense is alibi. it did not mean any kind of counsel but effective and vigilant counsel. Peralta. Atty. convicted accused Lucero GUILTY as principal by direct participation of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to suffer an imprisonment term of RECLUSION PERPETUA. The Court have constitutionalized the right to counsel because of hostility against the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions from a suspect. He claimed that he was tortured. his daughter. and Danny. He was made to line-up four (4) times before Dr. He was not informed of the offense for which he was being investigated. confessed during the investigation conducted by Baguio City Fiscal Erdolfo Balajadia Page 138 Section 1-C. he learned he was in Camp Crame. together with his son. G. Lucero also claimed he signed the extrajudicial confession under duress. NO. He testified that he was at his house in Caloocan City. Bayquen. AGUSTIN [240 SCRA 541. More so.R. handcuffed and blindfolded him and pushed him into a jeep. The next day. Baguio City. an alleged former military agent who had been picked up by the police authorities. He said he only met Dr. Decision convicting appellant Alejandro Lucero y Cortel is hereby reversed. it was during his absence that appellant gave an uncounselled confession. she and her mother brought her father and Anthony to the hospital. Madrid finally identified him on the fourth time. Force and fraud tarnish confessions can render them inadmissible. aimed his armalite rifle through its window. Later. Neither did they reveal the identity of the complainant. He likewise confirmed that Atty. He was blindfolded the whole night and did not know where he was taken. Anthony's girlfriend. Whereof.

Held: Yes.The extrajudicial admission of the appellant. waived his right to remain silent by agreeing to be investigated. SY ’06-‘07 . Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao. Page 139 Section 1-C. whether he would agree to be assisted by one to be provided for him. Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. BOLANOS [211 SCRA 262. 3. deceased was with two companions on the previous night. Balagtas Bulacan.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests in his office that he was the triggerman. if he could not. Hence the appeal. Cajucom. Extrajudicial statement is not extrajudicial confession. Wilfredo Quiaño was assisted by Atty. Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to counsel. Jr. The following day.. Cajucom but for reasons not explained in the records. Cajucom (a law partner of the private prosecutor). Cajucom was ready to assist him." During the investigation. Held: No. G. who provided the armalite. whether he could afford to hire his services. According to Pat. the transcript of the notes which consists of twelve pages was not signed by the appellant. The rule on inadmissibility. Yet. while an admission is a statement direct or implied of facts pertinent to the issue. 1 and par. one of whom the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased. and that Atty. after the appellant said that he wanted to be assisted by counsel. appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III. however expressly includes admissions. and a certain "Jimmy. The appellant was not explicitly told of his right to have a competent and independent counsel of his choice. 101808. In short. to read or decipher its contents. more particularly par. Cajucom interviewed him from only two minutes in English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano. He implicated Abenoja. since conspiracy was established.R. PEOPLE VS. NO. not just confessions. the City fiscal. there is an acknowledgment of guilt of the accused. When they apprehended the accused they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated. if so. other accused on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. Oliver Tabin. Firstly. contained in twenty-two pages appear to be signed by him and Atty. no written waiver of such right appears in the transcript and no other independent evidence was offered to prove its existence. 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. Agustin was apprehended. He had. RTC convicted him hence the appeal. and was investigated and was afforded the privileges like that of Quijano. and swore to before City Fiscal Balajadia. through suggestive language. 3 JUL 1992] Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply. who engaged him to kill Dr. Article III of the Constitution. in fact. Stenographic notes of the proceedings during the investigation as transcribed with the sworn statement of Quiaño was signed. The appellant. 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. who is a farmer and who reached only the fourth grade. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased. therefore was deprived of his rights under Section 12(1). They boarded accused along with Magtibay. specifically asked if he had in mind any such counsel and. the dialect he understands. Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant‘s extrajudicial statements admissible as evidence. immediately informed him that Atty. asked for his uncle Atty. The promise that he would be discharged as a witness did not push through since Quijano escaped. he was not fully and properly informed of his rights. with the assistance of Atty. Since the court cannot even read or decipher the stenographic notes it cannot be expected that appellant. Reynaldo Cajucom. Cartel. In a confession. Moreso said counsel is not independent since he is an associate of the private prosecutor. Bayquen for a fee. He further declared that although he was given a lawyer. and. he nevertheless. However the RTC convicted him. Agustin‘s defense interpose that he was forced to admit involve ment at gunpoint in the Kennon Road.

Eduardo Macam. 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‖. The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant.00. he was given a calling card by Eduardo Macam so that he can be paid the following day. After a while Leticia was brought to the bathroom and after she screamed she was stabbed and killed by A. When Eugenio Cawilan pulled a gun and announced the hold-up.. accused did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up. SY ’06-‘07 . G. Eugenio Cawilan was also charged with Anti-fencing Law but was acquitted in the said case. while remaining outside the house served as a looked out. He also testified that his brother Ernesto Roque has just arrived from the province and in no way can be involved in the case at bar. was brought to the QC General Hospital before each surviving victims and made to line-up for identification. HOWEVER. children. A police line-up is considered a ―critical‖ stage of the proceedings. 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. Issue: Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated. He and his brother was suddenly apprehended by the security guards and brought to the police headquarters in Q. Any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. After which.1987. The court believed the version of the prosecution. 91011-12. Eugenio Cawilan Jr. Cedro. Instead of paying him. Roque remained in the tricycle. Ernesto Roque. Roque entered the house while E. WON the evidence from the line-up is admissible. Benito invited the former to have lunch. A. Page 140 Section 1-C. together with his brother. Also. After all the accused had taken their lunch. he together with all the accused. 24 NOV 1994] Facts: Prosecution‘s version: On Aug 18.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests PEOPLE VS. MACAM [238 SCRA 306. he went with the accused inside the house to have lunch. Upon the arrival of the accused. WON the arrest was valid. Cedro.R. On the following day. The witnesses identified the accused again in open court. in handcuffs and bore contusions on their faces caused by blows inflicted in their faces during investigation. Eduardo Macam grabbed the clutch bag of Benito Macam and pulled out his uncle‘s gun then declared a hold -up. Nilo and Salvacion was also stabbed but survived.00. They tied up the wife (Leticia Macam). NOS. Upon hearing such phrase he escaped and went home using his tricycle. 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. decision of lower court is Affirmed. 700.C. The total value of the items taken was P536. Benito asked his maid Salvacion Enrera to call the companions of Eduardo who were waiting in a tricycle outside the house. Wherefore. Cawilan and D. he was asked to gather some things and which he abided out of fear. Upon arriving. 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. Thereafter he washed the dishes and swept the floor. Benito. They were also forced to admit certain things. Antonio Cedro.00) . the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant‘s identification at the l ine-up. Held: It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before trial. E. maid (Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara and brought them to the room upstairs. Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque went to the house of Benito Macam (uncle of Eduardo Macam) located at 43 Ferma Road QC. HOWEVER. they went to the factory of the Zesto Juice (owned by the father of Eduardo Macam) for him to get his payment (50.

Samsonite attache case. CO2 refiller." What was told by the Accused to Pat. Special Prosecutor Luz L. Aklan (Boracay) situated on the Island which caused the death of Christian Langel Philippe. Surigao del Norte. chessboard. On 15 November 1984. G. The accused denied having made any oral confession alleging that he went to Pat. 24 years old and a Swiss nationale. 74517. on 10 December 1978.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Things taken: 2 toygun. SY ’06-‘07 . Sworn Complaint for "Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm" signed by the Chief of Police also attests to Appellant's oral confession. A warrant of arrest was issued. G. airgun riffle. typewriter. he pleaded not guilty. A new order for Navallo's arrest was issued by the Sandiganbayan. Upon motion of the prosecution. Padilla was a spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning. DY [158 SCRA 111. TOYOTA Crown Car Plate No. Padilla a gun which his helper found the following morning while cleaning the bar. preparation of vouchers for salaries of teachers and employees. He was found guilty in the RTC. betamax tapes. 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. assorted jewelry. but accused-petitioner could not be found. The warrant was returned with a certification by the RTC Clerk of Court that the accused had posted a bail bond. Navallo was finally arrested. TV. Issue: Whether or Not the lower court correct in saying that the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation is not applicable in the instant case. if it were so. and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.38 as suspect to the shooting incident at "Benny's Bar. NAVALLO VS. An information for malversation of public funds was filed. That Complaint forms part of the record of the proceedings before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga. 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 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. CAS-997. When arraigned by the RTC on 18 July 1985.R. Hence the appeal. with caliber . Appellant alleges that he carried the victim to the shore to be brought to the hospital to save the latter. and remittance of collections exceeding P500. The information was then docketed with the Sandiganbayan. Navallo filed a motion to quash.R. betamax rewinder. Manoc-Manoc Malay. He was charged with the Murder With the Use of Unlicensed firearms. The Accused argues that even if he did make such a confession. contending (1) that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense and the person of the Page 141 Section 1-C. NO. Padilla reported along with Benny Dy. but given in ordinary manner. which school is also located at del Carmen. His duties included the collection of tuition fees. . the RTC should continue taking cognizance of the case. tourist. He was released on provisional liberty upon the approval of his property bail bond. The matter was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman which held otherwise. Held: YES. Presidential Decree No. SANDIGANBAYAN [234 SCRA 177. Accused posted bail which was granted. Aklan. the RTC transferred the case and transmitted its records to the Sandiganbayan. No written confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial investigation. 18 JUL 1994] Facts: Accused was the Collecting and Disbursing Officer of the Numancia National Vocational School. it would have been absurd for him to have placed himself under police custody in the early morning after the incident. PEOPLE VS. 23 FEB 1988] Facts: Pat. 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.00 to the National Treasury.22 gun and money. 97214. and who facilitated the surrender to Pat." at Sitio Angol. Quiñones-Marcos opined that since Navallo had already been arraigned before the case was transferred to the Sandiganbayan. Padilla picked up the gun from the bar at his request. the same would be inadmissible in evidence.

and (4) The accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is dismissed without his express consent. the attempt to prosecute him before the Sandiganbayan would constitute double jeopardy. PEOPLE VS. A neighbor. a stained pillow and a stained T-shirt all of which were presented as evidence for the prosecution. The records do not reveal that the Information against the appellant was read in the language or dialect known to him. 117487. the allegation of his having been "pressured" to sign the Examination Report prepared by Dulguime (examined cash. NO. Hence an automatic review for the imposition of death penalty. Rogelio Antiquiera of the PAO. The trial court violated section 3 of Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant. The RTC convicted him. the rule implementing the constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. However this was denied and trial ensued and he was found guilty. as ordered by Espino. 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. Moreover. choking her with his right hand. The Information against the appellant is written in the English language. a buri mat. Khazie Mae's green slippers. Appellant pleaded guilty. When life is at stake. Said section requires that the court shall conduct a searching inquiry the voluntariness and full Page 142 Section 1-C. Issue: Whether or Not the death penalty proper. Neither is it known what dialect is understood by the appellant. Held: No. There could be no presumption. The RTC violated section 1(a) of Rule 116. SY ’06-‘07 . A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation. Appellant is not in custodial investigation. It is unknown whether the appellant knows the English language. (3) The accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the charge. In any case. An audit examiner himself can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule. Held: No. On the basis of his uncounselled verbal confession and follow up interrogations. Appellant was living in his uncle's house some five arm's length from Penecilla's house. neither did the case there terminate with conviction or acquittal nor was it dismissed. It also denied appellant his constitutional right to due process of law. He verbally confessed his guilt without the assistance of counsel. G. Issue: Whether or Not the constitutional right against double jeopardy and in custodial investigations in favor of the accused violated. The court must be sure. a minor. He was arraigned with the assistance of Atty.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests accused and (2) that since the accused had already been arraigned by the RTC. The RTC was devoid of jurisdiction when it conducted an arraignment of the accused which by then had already been conferred on the Sandiganbayan. (2) The court has jurisdiction to try the case. Leopoldo Santiago found the victim‘s body and the parents and police were informed. No. Appellant was arrested and interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan. The incident happened after appellant drank liquor. we cannot lean on this rebuttable presumption. the police came to know and recovered from appellant's house. the provincial auditor) appears to be belied by his own testimony.R. It is urged that we must presume that the arraignment of the appellant was regularly conducted. a pair of gold earrings. Double jeopardy requires the existence of the following requisites: (1) The previous complaint or information or other formal charge is sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. 2 DEC 1995] Facts: Appellant was charged with the crime of rape with homicide of Khazie Mae Penecilla. ALICANDO [251 SCRA 293. four years of age.

NOS. Further. while Victor Nuñez was found guilty. Carteciano. The witnesses also positively identified the accused. Then. Page 143 Section 1-C. The other three informations charged them with the murder of Francisco Carteciano y Sorilla and Antonio S. Nuñez demanded Lorna to give Nuñez her husband‘s pistol. Near the intersection.45 cal pistol and fired. the civil indemnity imposed by the trial court should be increased to P50.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. However. Carteciano. how and where he was interrogated.000 in conformity with our recent rulings on the matter. 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. PEOPLE VS. 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. accused-appellant is still convicted of the four charges against him. and the other co-accused were acquitted only because there was reasonable doubt. SY ’06-‘07 . The trial court simply inquired if appellant had physical marks of maltreatment. and Bantug‘s son. therefore. and the frustrated murder of Lorna V. neighbor Bantug. there are physical evidence to prove Khazie was raped. Lorna identified Nuñez as the one who shot her husband. 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. Issue: Whether or not the accused Nuñez‘s constitutional right was violated Held: No. he is estopped from questioning the validity of his arrest. The facts shown by evidence are: One morning. Major Antonio Carteciano was driving his private jeep Camp General Arcadio Maxilom in Lahug. In the case at bar. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. However.R. etc. Jose Bantug. and her son Reiser Carteciano positively identified the accused. We. They strongly corroborate the testimony of Luisa Rebada that the victim was raped. the Court held that conspiracy was still proven by the evidence. whether he was medically examined before and after his interrogation. and his wife Lorna were hit. son. he was not then under custodial investigation. so he cannot question the credibility of the witnesses. Lorna. 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. Regarding his right to counsel. gunshots were heard from the left side of the street. Accused-appellant also argued that since his coaccused were acquitted. Then the gunmen hijacked another jeep and took off. Major Carteciano took his . These physical evidence are evidence of the highest order. G. who arrested him. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused. Nuñez shot Major Carteciano‘s head point blank. that is. several gunmen approached them. The victim Jose Bantug was found with gunshots in the head. 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. and at the backseat are his mother in law. brother Francisco. and skull.the right to counsel attaches only upon the start of an investigation. Cebu City where he was stationed as medical officer of the PC/INP Provincial Command. The other 8 accused were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. the Supreme Court held that-. Lorna asked to take her valu ables instead. 98321-24. Therefore.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. It limited its efforts trying to discover late body marks of maltreatment as if involuntariness is caused by physical abuse alone. when accused was subjected to a paraffin test. It did not ask the appellant when he was arrested. When the jeep stopped. Nuñez pleaded not guilty at the arraignment. then their acquittal negates conspiracy among them. However. and Major Carteciano. body. DE GUZMAN [224 SCRA 93. Therefore. 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. his brother Francisco. At such point or stage. Furthermore. In the front seat with him is his wife Lorna. and he should not be convicted with the charges filed. her mother Juanita Ricaplaza. gunshots were fired in succession.

Agreements were made therein: accused to remain under custody.R. We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. Pursuant to Ministry Order No. the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in all other respects. M AGLALANG [196 SCRA 41. 1996. This however was denied. Nos. there was a waiver. Bail in the instant case is a matter of right. 19 APR 1991] Page 144 Section 1-C. The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and was an escapee from detention when arrested. May 9. He and his companions were on board a private vehicle with a declared owner whose identity and address were also found to be false. Ergo. 78162.000. P. 1986 for acts committed before and after February 1986. 6968 approved on 24 October 1990. NO. or good customs.R. public policy. It was contended that: 1. 1-A dated 11 January 1982 . G. Said petition for HC was dismissed. which was opposed that the respondent is not entitled to bail anymore since rebellion became a capital offense under PD 1996. or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. a reward of P250. Cavite. is not applicable to the accused as it is not favorable to him. 5 JUN 1991] Facts: Private respondent and his co-accused were charged of rebellion on October 2. 6. However it was wrong for the Judge to change the amount of bail from 30K to 50K without hearing the prosecution. This was denied.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests WHEREFORE. and (d) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished. with costs against accusedappellant PEOPLE VS. On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order No. The address he gave "Panamitan. among others. 4. JUDGE DONATO [198 SCRA 130. therefore prosecution has no right to present evidence." turned out to be also a false address. 942 and 1834 amending ART. providing a penalty of reclusion perpetua to the crime of rebellion. which was fixed at P30. 1987 Respondent filed a petition for bail.000.00 was offered and paid for his arrest. NO. He was not arrested at his residence as he had no known address. Accused validly waived his right to bail in another case(petition for habeas corpus). 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. Issue: Whether or Not the private respondent has the right to bail. It is only when it is a capital offense that the right becomes discretionary. except for the modification that the civil indemnity to be paid by accusedappellant Victor Nuñez. (b) the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged. (c) the Court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. G. to the heirs of each victim who died is hereby increased to P50. (Chairman of CPP-NPA) 2. Judge Donato now granted the bail. 942 and 1834 and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees. public order. Jr. whereas his co-detainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be released immediately. with a condition that they will submit themselves in the jurisdiction of the court. It is absolute since the crime is not a capital offense. SY ’06-‘07 . morals. Republic Act No.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. Hence the appeal. CARPIO VS. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. Held: Yes.000. Private respondent filed with a Motion to Quash alleging that: (a) the facts alleged do not constitute an offense. 5.D. 135 of RPC. Kawit.79269. 3. 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. 187 repealing.

the Court resolved the issue of the legality of the order granting bail to Escaño. Section 13.000. The order granting bail had been rendered moot not only by the fact that he had been released from NBI custody. 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. that the reasons advanced in said application would be overcome by strong and sufficient evidence. 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. that said agents. it was for the best interest of Escaño that he be detained at the NBI lock-up cell where security measures were adequate. in the summary proceeding on a motion praying for admission to bail. and that during the custodial investigation. when evidence of guilt is Page 145 Section 1-C. the order is defective and voidable. the prosecution should be afforded procedural due process. he was represented by counsel. Notwithstanding. Held: No. In the case at bar the RTC erred in not summarizing the factual basis of its order granting bail. Otherwise. However another motion was executed by Escaño stating that he now wants to be detained in the NBI. he was not represented by counsel. Also. the court merely stated the number of prosecution witnesses but not their respective testimonies. Although the right to bail is principally for the benefit of the accused. Through counsel Rolando T. but also because Escaño jumped bail and did not appear on the date set for his arraignment. alleging that he did not authorize his counsel to execute the first motion. that Mayor Payumo was killed on August 20. that in view of the finding of NBI agents that the other accused and suspects in the case were subversive elements or members of the New People's Army. Four days later. 1987 during the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution which abolished the death penalty. 1986 when the 1973 Constitution allowing the death penalty was still in force and that the application for bail was made on March 5. searched his house when he was arrested. Issue: Whether or Not the order granting right to bail was proper. and concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not "sufficiently strong" to deny bail to Escaño. This was granted. In opposing said application. Director Carpio was ordered to justify his actions and so as not to be considered in contempt. Thus. in the judicial determination of the availability of said right. the Acting Executive Judge of said court issued an order of arrest against Escaño recommending no bail for his provisional liberty. shall before conviction. The facts. SY ’06-‘07 . 1987. and that during the custodial investigation. the court should spell out at least a resume of the evidence on which its order granting or denying bail is based. Cainoy filed an application for bail stating that Escaño was arrested by NBI agents on December 7. however. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. having found no sufficient evidence against accused. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. the public prosecutor averred that the accused was charged with a capital offense for which no bail may be availed of. the prosecution should be given the opportunity to present evidence and. be bailable by sufficient sureties. thereafter. also without a warrant. Article III of the Constitution explicitly provides that "(a)ll persons. Cesar Diego who acted on the warrant returned to the court with a certification issued by NBI agent Gonzales. Pat. 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." As the phrase "capital offenses" has been replaced by the phrase "offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua. Cainoy. 25 crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua instead of those punishable by the death penalty. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Facts: On January 8. stating therein that accused was still under investigation. The court granted the application for bail fixing the same at P30. 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. Escaño's counsel Rolando T. 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. that he was subjected to inhuman torture and forced to admit participation in the killing of Mayor Payumo and to implicate other persons. should not have gotten in the way of resolving the application for bail in accordance with the Constitution and procedural rules.

accompanied his 13-year old daughter. It is clear from Section 13. A motion for dismissal was denied. He filed with the RTC a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for provisional liberty and a writ of preliminary injunction. 2 AUG 1991] Facts: The petitioners in G.. NO. Ltc Jacinto Ligot applied for bail on June 5. An appeal to RTC was filed.14. No. the request for the fixing of bond was denied. If the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of discretion. It did not have to invoke the abolition of the death penalty and the lack of legislative enactment restoring it in justifying the grant of bail. the court is controlled by the following: first.R. All it had to do was to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong in the light of the provision of Section 13. Rule 114 has been amended to reclusion perpetua. However he was not released immediately.e. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court. Now accused assails denial of bail on the ground that the same amounted to an undue denial of his constitutional right to bail. As the court itself acknowledged in its order of April 2. Petitioners now claim that there was no pre-trial investigation of the charges as mandated by Article of War 71. 1990. G. 1987 that "capital punishment" in Section 4. as amended. The RTC has the discretion in the consideration of the strength of the evidence at hand. In G. Now. FORTES [223 SCRA 619. second. and third. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. 97454 filed with SC a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that they were being detained in Camp Crame without charges. by those principles of equity and justice that are deemed to be part of the laws of the land. the applicable provisions of the Constitution and the statutes. 93177. 25 JUN 1993] Facts: Agripino Gine of Barangay Naburacan. SY ’06-‘07 . The MCTC found him guilty. DE VILLA [200 SCRA 80. are the exceptions to the rule that the right to bail should be made available to all accused. that before conviction bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. Alleging denial of due process. Merelyn. the court should have proceeded accordingly: i.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong.R. Article III. the accused was apprehended and charged. However. The RTC now declared that even military men facing court martial proceedings can avail the right to bail. A bond of P25000 was granted for accused‘s provisional release. Article III of the Constitution. but the application was denied by GCM No. bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. To that extent the right is absolute. 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. in the exercise of said discretion. Municipality of Matnog.R. resolved the application for bail pursuant to Section 13.R. 90643. Following this. 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. 1989. Issue: Whether or Not the accused‘s right to bail violated. Nos. their motion for reconsideration. COMMENDADOR VS. NO. by the rules which this Court may promulgate. 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. G. The petition was referred Page 146 Section 1-C. 95020. No. The private respondents in G. bail also becomes a matter of right. Held: No. But once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong. to the police station of the said municipality to report a rape committed against the latter by the accused. Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3. Judge of GCM then granted the provisional liberty. Province of Sorsogon.R.

the petitions are also granted. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. On the contention that they had not been charged after more than one year from their arrest. and then again after the denial of their motion of February 21. 30 MAY 1986] Facts: Petitioner was charged with estafa. The right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist. the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other bodies and on petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto." Petitioners have a right to pre-emptory challenge. * The Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari. (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." stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States. the respondent courts have no authority to order their release and otherwise interfere with the court-martial proceedings. of Judges Camilon and Pronove. Nos. they filed instead a verbal motion for reconsideration which they were again asked to submit in writing. 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. Issue: Whether or Not the right to bail a matter of right. This is without merit. to submit their counter-affidavits. as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. the petition is granted. In G. as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission.R. in G. No. NO. Held: NO denial of due process. Issue: Whether or Not there was a denial of due process. SY ’06-‘07 . Whether or not there was a violation of the accused right to bail. M ANOTOC VS. 1990. On that date. denying his leave to travel abroad. He posted bail. 95020 and 97454. Petitioners were given several opportunities to present their side at the pre-trial investigation. neither the courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has no jurisdiction over his liberty could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel. The 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. L-62100. No costs. and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to exercise the right of peremptory challenge under article 18 of the articles of war. both trial judges denied the same.R.R. Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right. In G.R. and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are hereby reversed and set aside. Page 147 Section 1-C. 1990. Accordingly. 1990. 1982." The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing. 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. 93177.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests to RTC. there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process and the right to a speedy trial. first at the scheduled hearing of February 12. Petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled. COURT OF APPEALS [142 SCRA 149. when they were given until March 7. respectively. 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. No. "relative to his business transactions and opportunities. Finding after hearing that no formal charges had been filed against the petitioners after more than a year after their arrest. The right to bail invoked by the private respondents has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the military. G. "motion for permission to leave the country. 96948. the trial court ordered their release.

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. recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against former Minister Tatad and Antonio L. CALLANTA VS. Tatad. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on April 1. Petitioner questions the validity of the issuance of warrant of arrest by respondent. 1980 which was around two months after petitioner Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. Felipe Villanueva. 1982. originally filed what he termed "a report" with the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) on October 1974. all affidavits and counter- Page 148 Section 1-C. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. he has waived whatever defect. NOS. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner‘s contentions are to be given merit. There is no indication that the business transactions cannot be undertaken by any other person in his behalf. if any. TATAD VS. 20 JUN 1977] Facts: Two complaints for grave oral defamation were filed against Faustina Callanta. By October 25.R. and may release. 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. the CIS report was submitted to the Tanodbayan. Held: Based on many precedent cases of the Supreme Court. ―where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper. for investigation and report. denied the motions to quash the complaints.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 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. Cantero. 21 MAR 1988] Facts: The complainant. the 1974 complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan. After the issuance of the warrants of arrest and the bail fixed at P600. The City Fiscal in this case did not disagree with the judge‘s investigation. SY ’06-‘07 . 24646 & L-24674. In the case at bar. G. On June 16. it is futile for the petitioner to question the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. According to petitioner‘s counsel. Petitioner also erred in arguing that only the City Fiscal can conduct a preliminary investigation. he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. NOS. According to the Charter of the City of Dagupan. Antonio de los Reyes. Presidential Security Command. L-72335-39. Thus. ―the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense.R. Indeed. 1980. or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court‖. Act No. because she posted the bail bond. SANDIGANBAYAN [159 SCRA 70. Petition for certiorari is denied. On December 12. The City Judge of Dagupan City. if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason. arguing that the City Fiscal should have conducted the preliminary investigation. Marcos by referring the complaint to the CIS. petitioner Callanta brought the suits for certiorari in the Supreme Court. in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest‖. VILLANUEVA [77 SCRA 377. petitioner posted the bail bond. there was jurisdictional infirmity. containing charges of alleged violations of Rep. and agreed with the complaints filed. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. 1979. Restraining order issued by the Court is lifted and set aside. Petitioner has not shown the necessity for his travel abroad. G. without regard to the limits of punishment. 3019 against then Secretary of Public Information Francisco S. thus obtaining her provisional liberty.

His brain was smashed by a bullet fired pointblank into the back of his head by an assassin. 1985 that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan. Held: YES. Secondly. 911) prescribes a ten-day period for the prosecutor to resolve a case under preliminary investigation by him from its termination. Five criminal informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 12. not a communist plot. only after petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos. (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. and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. Page 149 Section 1-C. G. which require the submission of affidavits and counter-affidavits by the complainant and the respondent and their witnesses. Firstly. that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy. 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. President/General Manager of Amity Trading Corporation as consideration for the release of a check of P588. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests affidavits were in the case was already for disposition by the Tanodbayan. Aquino could have shot him.000.D. It was denied hence the appeal." yet. 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.000. the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Presidential Security Command for finding investigation and report. 1985. it was only on June 5. all against petitioner Tatad alone. SANDIGANBAYAN [144 SCRA 43. on the other hand. Then Pres. Only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. as it were. However.00 from Roberto Vallar. departing from established procedures prescribed by law for preliminary investigation. No. Jr. justice and freedom.R. the complaint came to life. advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions. unwarranted benefits. (2) Violation of Section 3. 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. GALMAN VS.72670. Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining respondent court from rendering a decision in the two criminal cases before it. paragraph (e) of RA. He was killed from his plane that had just landed at the Manila International Airport. 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.00 to said corporation for printing services rendered for the Constitutional Convention Referendum in 1973. " while the chairman's minority report would exclude nineteen of them. Due process (Procedural) and right to speedy disposition of trial were violated. Marcos stated that evidence shows that Galman was the killer. NO. The Court also granted petitioners a five-day period to file a reply to respondents' separate comments and respondent Tanodbayan a three-day period to submit a copy of his 84-page memorandum for the prosecution. The law (P. it can not be disregarded or ignored completely. While we agree with the respondent court that this period fixed by law is merely "directory. 1976 and 1978. The military investigators reported within a span of three hours that the man who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando Galman) was a communist-hired gunman. 12 SEP 1986] Facts: Assassination of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino. with absolute impunity. 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. a private corporation controlled by his brother-in-law. paragraph (b) for receiving a check of P125. SY ’06-‘07 . (1) Section 3. the Court resolved by nine-to-two votes 11 to issue the restraining order prayed for. 3019 for giving D' Group.

(First Division) would personally handle the trial. the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests But ten days later. 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.' and that on their way out of the room Pres. Respondents submitted that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal. 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. if the accused are charged in court and subsequently acquitted. A conference was held in an inner room of the Palace. mag moro-moro na lamang kayo. According to J. "nobody was looking for these persons because they said Marcos was in power. at the same time. petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for reconsideration alleging that respondents committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. It was. Thereafter. The disappearance of witnesses two weeks after Ninoy's assassination. the instant case had become moot and academic. Marcos told them 'Okay. decided that the presiding justice. 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. Held: 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. Malacañang wanted dismissal to the extent that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel. but by a communist hired gun. petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. SY ’06-‘07 . and after an agreement was reached. resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the TRO issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. Whether or not there was a violation of the double jeopardy clause. presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see the President. Herrera. 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. Marcos expressed his thanks to the group and uttered 'I know how to reciprocate'. no evidence at all that the assignment was indeed by Page 150 Section 1-C. such a procedure would be a better arrangement because. Hence." 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. Pres. More so was there suppression of vital evidence and harassment of witnesses. would clear his name and his administration of any suspected guilty participation in the assassination. However. Marcos came up with a public statement aired over television that Senator Aquino was killed not by his military escorts. Justice Pamaran. declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability. During the conference. Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15 months later when former Pres. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. therefore. 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). not a source of wonder that President Marcos would want the case disposed of in a manner consistent with his announced theory thereof which. The assignment of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant Justice Lazaro were with the President. Pres. The conferees were told to take the back door in going to the room where the meeting was held. Also predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total absolution of the twenty-six respondents-accused of all criminal and civil liability. Thus. 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. same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential directive. A void judgment is. The custody of the accused and their confinement in a military camp." Our Penal Code penalizes "any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice. Respondents accused must now face trial for the crimes charged against them before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process. no judgment at all. instead of in a civilian jail. who was returning from Sapao.R. 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. 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. serve no majority nor minority but serve only the public interest as they see it in accordance with their oath of office. There was no double jeopardy." Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. "This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst. The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. That is a right safeguarded both appellants. and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake. is to fill the public posts. It is to be admitted that the starting point is the Presumption of innocence. Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was clearly obvious. according to the Constitution. Hence the appeal Issue: Whether or not the accused‘s criminal liability proved beyond reasonable doubt. Justices and judges must ever realize that they have no constituency. The monitoring of proceedings and developments from Malacañang and by Malacañang personnel. under our system of government. 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. guided only the Constitution and their own conscience and honor. according to the fundamental law. L-21325. 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. Accusation is not. So it must be. By it no rights are divested. With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings. The idea was for Dramayo and Ecubin to ambush Estelito. in the case at bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth. G. the cases must now be tried before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. 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. In this case. comments. petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the TRO enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which had required the respondents'. PEOPLE VS. synonymous with guilt. It neither binds nor bars anyone. In rendering its decision. More so. The others were to station themselves nearby. No double jeopardy attaches. deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth. SY ’06-‘07 . respondent Sandiganbayan should not have precipitately issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused pending the final action of this Court. except the uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran himself. Although no restraining order was issued anew. including the Sandiganbayan's. DRAMAYO [42 SCRA 60.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests virtue of a regular raffle. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are void. Held: Yes. Only Dramayo and Ecubin were convicted in the RTC for murder. Courts' Resolution of acquittal was a void judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. The courts would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice. The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the people. It is incumbent on the prosecution Page 151 Section 1-C. therefore. in legal effect.

after such investigation. L-52245. The challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. their guilt had been more than amply demonstrated. Their guilt be shown beyond reasonable doubt. insurrection. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52. notwithstanding a majority of the defendants being acquitted. DUMLAO VS.‖ Page 152 Section 1-C. according to the fundamental law. is not synonymous with guilt. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel (Article IV. It condemns before one is fully heard. 4. the element of conspiracy likewise being allegedly present. In ultimate effect. According to Dumlao. and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof regular to constitute the offense. 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. 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. The purpose of the provision is to satisfy the ―need for new blood‖ in the workplace. as both of them would be ineligible to run for public office. ―Explicit is the constitutional provision that. did hold the party or parties. 44. Absolute certain of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict of any carnal charge but moral certainty is required. In regards to the second paragraph of Sec. section 19. 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. Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on their behalf. 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. no distinction is made between a person convicted of acts of dislotalty and one against whom charges have been filed for such acts. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. including those amounting to subversion. which carries with it the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the term of the sentence (Art. Revised Penal Code). a moral certainty having arisen as to their capability. except as to the degree of proof. there had been cases where this Court. 22 JAN 1980] Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. also assail the validity of Sec. Petitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. as from the evidence deserving of the fullest credence. It must be stated likewise that while squarely advanced for the first time. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. 1973 Constitution). Issue: Whether or not the aforementioned statutory provisions violate the Constitution and thus. it should be declared null and void for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. 4 of BP Blg 52 remains constitutional and valid. to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. rebellion. in all crim inal prosecutions. Sec. but it is doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability. responsible for the offense guilty of the crime charged. In this case. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. The principal contention raised is thus clearly untenable. 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. should be declared null and void Held: In regards to the unconstitutionality of the provisions." The judgment of conviction should not have occasioned any surprise on the part of the two appellants. SY ’06-‘07 . which states that any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State. "By reasonable doubt is meant that which of possibility may arise. What is required then is moral certainty. shall not be qualified for any of the offices covered by the act. An accusation. or other similar crimes. the provision amounts to class legislation. One class can be treated differently from another class. employees 65 years of age are classified differently from younger employees.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests demonstrate that culpability lies. Sec.

1988. Awanan asked Venancio twice if appellant was among those who hijacked the truck he was driving.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests And although the filing of charges is considered as but prima facie evidence. Appelant‘s Defense: Denial and alibi. 17 JAN 1995] Facts: On July 19. a legislative/administrative determination of guilt should not be allowed to be substituted for a judicial determination. He was made to confront Venancio whom he saw for the first time. he refused to admit to the crime. and told the latter to just point at the suspect. Venancio did not respond. Appellant was brought to the Headquarters at Camp Crame where he confessed. Alberto Awanan brought the appellant to the MCU hospital and was presented to Venancio for identification. Appellant was the brought to the MCU hospital. yet. He was arrested. A few days later. Venancio obeyed. to the extreme detriment of a person charged. CHPG Sgt. appellant's interrogators started boxing him and kicking him. for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused. thereafter they were stabbed and left bleeding to death. He was also hit on the back with a chair. A highly possible conflict of findings between two government bodies. On both times. Additionally. a partial declaration of nullity of only that objectionable portion is mandated. he confessed to being one of the hijackers. He was led to another room. he was turned over to the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group. At Ortigas Ave. Appellant had four companions. Wherefore. 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. Awanan. 52 which can stand by itself.Appellant was arrested in the vicinity of Otis Street in Pandacan. Water was slowly and continuously poured on his face. ALCANTARA [240 SCRA 122. over his mouth. SY ’06-‘07 .R. Manila. Furthermore. time constraints will prevent one charged with acts of disloyalty from offering contrary proof to overcome the prima facie evidence against him. Later. In the midst of his ordeal." He was then blindfolded and brought to another room where he was made to lie down. Awanan directed. "Tubigan na iyan. PEOPLE VS. drove a ten-wheeler truck a Coca-Cola plant in Antipolo to load cases of softdrinks. He denied any knowledge of the "hit" on the Coca-cola delivery truck. he was made to sign prepared statements containing his full confession." Sgt. Undaunted. He remained in the custody of the police for two days and two nights. hours after questioning began. appellant heard someone say. Sgt. Venancio and Salvador(helper) were brought down from the vehicle and tied to the fence of the expressway. On the third day of his detention. Being infected with constitutional infirmity. and electrocuted. Still. The trial court convicted the accused despite the following inc onsistency between Venancio‘s affidavit and testimony: Affidavit 1. and therefore. At ten o'clock that night. Without being apprised of his rights nor provided with counsel. 91283. he was turned over to the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group. G. He balked.only Alcantara was identified Page 153 Section 1-C. one of them poked a gun at Venancio and grabbed the steering wheel. While he was applying for CONCEPCION TRUCKING located across Otis street from the Coca-cola plant.. From the hospital. mentioned 5 assailants Testimony . there is "clear and present danger" that because of the proximity of the elections. forced appellant to stand about a foot from Venancio. Ascertaining that Salvador knew appellant. may be rebutted. to confirm with the truck drivers. At the North Diversion Road. Alcantara was arraigned under an information charging him and four others (at large) with the crime of robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. Venancio survived but Salvador did not. Venancio Patricio. It is separable from the first portion of the second paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Big. NO. he was interrogated and urged to confess his guilt. They were about to leave the plant at 10:00pm when several men approached them to hitch for a ride. appellant was brought to the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group headquarters at Camp Crame. Sgt. Appellant could no longer bear the pain caused by the water treatment. called to a photographer present. He said that he was just applying to be a driver and stayed there even if he was told that no work was available. and pictures of him pointing to the suspect were taken. Finally. accompanied by Larry Salvador. Venancio accommodated appellant's request. it is best that evidence pro and con of acts of disloyalty be aired before the Courts rather than before an administrative body such as the COMELEC. will thereby be avoided. "Basta ituro mo lang. where he was handcuffed and left until the following day.

NO. The failure of the public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable. G. He was convicted in Sandiganbayan. Appellant belongs to the economically deprived in our society. Corpuz claim that he was absent when Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks. 74259. was familiar to them Issue: Whether or not the rights of the accused was violated. Awanan was not corroborated by Venancio. he received collections. He was designated Acting Supervising Cashier in the said office.596. In this capacity. REPUBLIC [194 SCRA 73.R.only 3 assailants had a . The equipoise rule(balancing test) which is the presumption of innocence is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balance. disbursed funds and made bank deposits and withdrawals pertaining to government accounts. Also.00. SY ’06-‘07 . Conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not the weakness of the defense.conference .159. Corpuz did not deny such facts but he insists that the shortage was malversed by other persons. claimed to have allowed assailants 5. 1981 his designation as Acting Supervising Cashier was terminated and a transfer of accountabilities was effected between him and his successor. a case of malversation was filed against him. 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. in which case the scale of justice should be tilt in Page 154 Section 1-C. The people‘s evidence failed to meet the quantum required to overcome the presumption.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 2. After a final demand letter for the total of P50. Acting Deputy Provincial Treasurer Bernardo Aluning made to post the amount on his cashbook although he had not received the said amount. On April 13. There was blatant violation of the constitutional rights of appellant as an accused. It was also incorrect to give too much weight to Police Sgt. upon demand by an authorized officer shall be a prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use. 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. Post-Audit is not a preliminary requirement to filing a malversation case. Also. He is nearly illiterate(third grade education).at the hospital and in open .court (pointed to another person) Held: YES. The testimony of Sgt. The second identification which correctly pointed to accused by Venancio should not be credited. . The Certificate of turnover revealed a shortage of P72. CORPUZ VS.50. was not proven. There is no reason for him to err as they know each other for 3 years. He was able to pay only P10. The identification procedure was irregular. stabbing was preceded by a 3.823.07 which was not met. conference by all assailants 4. Awanan‘s testimony as to the ―previous identification‖ at the hospital.failed to identify Alcantara . He alleged that Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks while he was of leave. 14 FEB 1991] Facts: Generoso Corpuz is the Supervising Accounting Clerk in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Viscaya. 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. Issue: Whether or Not Corpuz is guilty of malversation. to hitch a ride because Alcantara 6.

first of which was on August 1.. section 3 of ROC that : ―If the defendant appears without attorney. But above all. Rivera moved to withdraw as de officio counsel and it was favorably acted on by the court on September 7. 1970. Dominador Cariaso de officio counsel for the accused.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests favor of the accused. so Atty. He pleaded guilty (without a counsel) and said that he was just instructed by Mr. Ocampo was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. Atty. On that date. 1970. 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. Mario Rivera as de officio counsel for the accused. Prior to the next hearing. The case was actually set and rescheduled for six (6) times. for failure of the de officio and de parte counsels to appear. the hearing was re-set for the next day and the court appointed Atty. Moreso the guarantees of our Constitution that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law". 1970. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. which no evidence was presented to indict the latter. Rule 112. Page 155 Section 1-C.L-32888. There is no such balance in the case at bar. PEOPLE VS.L-2809. PEOPLE VS. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his claims. Ocampo. At the second hearing on September 8. and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. 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. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. NO. Apparently the court became satisfied with the fiscal's information that he had investigated Mr. his arraignment was scheduled before the Criminal Circuit Court of San Fernando. G. the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. Held: Yes. 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. MAGSI [124 SCRA 64. On the third hearing date. Appellant was found guilty of murder and made to suffer the death penalty. He is guilty as principal of Malversation of Public Funds. and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. La Union. being a private person. 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. hearing was re-set to September 8. Rivera was reappointed that day as de officio counsel for arraignment purposes only. Wherefore his petition is denied. neither the de parte nor the de officio counsel was in Court.R.‖ This was violated. Issue: Whether or Not there was any irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions of Mr. he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. despite a second call of the case. The presumed innocence must yield to the positive finding that he is guilty of malversation. 1970. despite appointment by the court of Atty. 1970 on motion of Atty. The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of the qualified plea of accused. 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.R. 12 AUG 1983] Facts: Soon after appellant was apprehended on August 20. Rivera. G. HOLGADO [85 PHIL 752. he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned. who was prompted to ask for it because of accused desire to be represented by a de parte counsel.

present.A. hence this instant petition. The offense of direct bribery is not the offense charged and is not included in the offense charged which is violation of R. who was an Asst. Corrupt practices of public officers .RA.4000 from Tan as price for dismissing the case. NO. the severity of the consequences attached thereto as well as the meaning and significance of his plea of guilty. and any other party wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. Citing People vs. Page 156 Section 1-C.In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing laws. SORIANO VS.210 of the RPC and not a violation of R.R. Petitioner is guilty of direct bribery under Art.A. The court agrees with the petitioner.3019). is not limited to commercial or business transaction. It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was neither a contract nor transaction. Judgment modified. or administrative in nature. The petitioner. Held: R. Issue: Whether or Not the investigation conducted by the petitioner can be regarded as contract or transaction within the purview of . A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Fiscal.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the rights of the accused. and he had supplied the other half. to assure the court that the accused has not misunderstood the nature and effect of his plea of guilty.3019. The petitioner stated that the facts make out a case of direct bribery under Art. for himself or for other person. 3019 Sec. civil. marked bill. Tan reported it to the NBI which set up an entrapment. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. The desire to speed up the disposition of cases should not be effected at the sacrifice of the basic rights of the accused. In the course of the investigation. who fails to genuinely protect the interests of the accused.A. perfunctory queries addressed to the accused whether he understands the charges and the gravity of the penalty. Held: YES. 3019 sec. 31 JUL 1984] Facts: Tan was accused of qualified theft. The respondent claimed that. resetting of hearing by the court for alleged reception of evidence when in fact none was conducted.210 of the RPC. After trial.3.3019 sec. SANDIGANBAYAN [131 SCRA 184. G. And this element is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.L-65952. petitioner demanded Php.2000.A. SY ’06-‘07 . Tan was given a Php. 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.3 (b). was assigned to investigate. transaction as used hereof. Mere pro-forma appointment of de officio counsel. are not sufficient compliance. the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx b.3 (b). and that the prudent and proper thing to do in capital cases is to take testimony. A transaction like a contract is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions. the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as a principal in violating the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift. but includes all kinds of transaction whether commercial. share percentage or benefit. in connection with any contract or transaction between the Govt.

NO. Also. RIVERA [45 PHIL 650. he was not arraigned. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner‘s constitutional right was violated when he was n ot arraigned. like all other accused Page 157 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 . MENDOZA [77 SCRA 422. At the very least then. Being arraigned is thus a vital aspect of the constitutional rights guaranteed him. 1976. the petition for certiorari is granted. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial. The case was appealed to the Court o First Instance in Cebu presided by respondent Judge Mendoza. for the first time. CONDE VS. starting with the arraignment of petitioner. respondent Judge Senining proceeded with the trial in absentia and rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime charged. Aurelia Conde. 20 JUN 1977] Facts: Borja was accused of slight physical injuries in the City of Cebu. Mendoza dated November 16. respondent Judge Senining convicted petitioner notwithstanding the absence of an arraignment. it is correct that the Solicitor General agreed with petitioner that the sentence imposed on him should be set aside for being null. G. has appeared with her witnesses and counsel at hearings no less than on eight different occasions only to see the cause postponed. formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena. It is required in the Rules that an accused. Held: Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. after the passage of more than one year from the time when the first information was filed. Tayabas. NO.R. and now. 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. finding the accused guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries. seems as far away from a definite resolution of her troubles as she was when originally charged. 1973. to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. 21741. 25 JAN 1924] Facts: Aurelia Conde. Wherefore. is nullified and set aside. has been forced to respond to no less the five information for various crimes and misdemeanors. has twice been required to come to the Supreme Court for protection. However. It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of possible loss of freedom.L-45667. even of his life. It was also alleged that without any notice to petitioner and without requiring him to submit his memorandum. is nullified and set aside. a decision on the appealed case was rendered The Solicitor General commented that the decision should be annulled because there was no arraignment. is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. 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. That not withstanding. Held: Yes.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests BORJA VS. affirming the aforesaid decision of Judge Senining. the decision of respondent Judge Rafael T. depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. The decision of respondent Judge Romulo R. with due respect and observance of the provisions of the Rules of Court. It is also not just due process that requires an arraignment. Senining dated December 28. The case is remanded to the City Court of Cebu for the prosecution of the offense of slight physical injuries. G. Likewise. With the violation of the constitutional right to be heard by himself and counsel being thus manifest.R. 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.

by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. the respondent judge should have given the prosecution a fair opportunity to prosecute its case. judge or court in which the charge is pending. 22 MAY 1995] Facts: Luis Tampal. REPUBLIC ACT NO. claiming that his absence was because such date was a Muslim holiday and the office of the Provincial prosecutor was closed on that day. Arsenio Padumon. but in this case. NO 01-4-03-SC. Thereafter. We lay down the legal proposition that. secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time. The respondent judge considered the absence of the prosecutor as unjustified. The case was called on September 20. or if he be restrained of his liberty. hence. the order of dismissal is annulled and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information. Held: In determining the right of an accused to speedy disposition of their case. whichever date last occurs. there was no showing that there was an unjust delay caused by the prosecution. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed 180 days from st the 1 day of trial. A. 1991 but the prosecutor was not present. Pablito Suco. In several cases it was held that dismissal on the grounds of failure to prosecute is equivalent to an acquittal that would bar another prosecution for the same offense. without good cause.R. 102485. this does not apply. In the facts above. and she has been deprived of that right in defiance of law. Whether or Not the dismissal serves as a bar to reinstatement of the case. Luis Tampal. only private respondents. 29 JUN 2001] Facts: Page 158 Section 1-C. The motion was denied by respondent judge. Therefore. The case was set for hearing on July 26. while the others remained at large. Domingo Padumon. Dario Suco and Galvino Cadling were charged of robbery with homicide and multiple serious physical injuries in the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga with Hon. as in this instance for more than a year. considering that the rights of the accused to a speedy trial was not violated by the State. courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. the accused shall have at least 15 days to prepare for trial. Trial shall commence within 30 days from arraignment as fixed by the court. and Samuel Padumon were arrested. has a right to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go free. NO. 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 reset without any objection from the defense counsel. Samuel Padumon. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsidereation. RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE TV OF TRIAL OF JOSEPH ESTRADA [360 SCRA 248.M. 8493 “THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT” The arraignment of an accused shall be held within 30 days from filing of the information. 1991. and dismissed the criminal case for failure to prosecute. TAMPAL [244 SCRA 202. The private respondents cannot invoke their right against double jeopardy. where a plea of not guilty is entered. However. G. Arsenio Padumon.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests persons. PEOPLE VS. SY ’06-‘07 . Wilfredo Ochotorena as presiding judge. Domingo Padumon. where a prosecuting officer. What are violative of the right of the accused to speedy trial are unjustified postponements which prolong trial for an unreasonable length of time. except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. or from the date the accused has appeared before the justice. but Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Wilfredo Guantero moved for postponement due to his failure to contact the material witnesses.

a 60 year old woman. SY ’06-‘07 . Nevertheless. she was last seen alive at about 3:00 o'clock early morning of March 6. Cesar N.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 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. The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public information. a ring and P135. the victim's wristwatch. recovered at the scene a pin. 1992. Orlando Pangan heard a shout. more than anyone else. one Ramil Talens. by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo. where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. one Resultay was with Virginia Talens at about 5:00 afternoon of March 5. 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.00 which he claims his mother placed in her purse and claims further that at the wake. 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. jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred to win. Issue: Whether or Not live media coverage of the trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E.00 bill but as she had no change she instead took P8. Sarino and. 1992 he gave her mother for safekeeping the sum of P1. within the courthouse. When these rights race against one another. a son of the victim corroborated the claim of Resultay that Virginia had with her at that time money worth P2. NO. Police Investigator Gonzales who immediately responded upon report. testified that she likewise was awakened by a shout at about 3:00 in the morning. 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.00 as in the morning of March 5. PEOPLE VS. It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public." The request was seconded by Mr. it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come.00 money. on the other hand. both 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. along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. Dr.000. SALAS [143 SCRA 163. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history. the doctor claims. another woman. earring. An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him. 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. sit in the available seats. 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. an abrasion on the left chin and stabwound on the neck which stabwound. Aguda who autopsied the victim found hematoma on the head and chest. Mexico. Pampanga. still later. L-66469. where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded.00 from her other pocket. 29 JUL 1986] Facts: At about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of March 6. just a few minutes after reaching his house and while inside his house. was the cause of death of the victim. San Nicolas.R. 1992 in going to the wake. conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. 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 ob ject 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. 1992 by Orlando Pangan and Richard Pangan who were with her going home coming from the wake of one Leonardo Flores. one Serafia Gutierrez. he Page 159 Section 1-C. identified as Virginia Talens was found lying dead in a canal at Bo. he likewise found on March 9.500. 1992. Estrada should be permitted by the court. G. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secret conclaves of long ago.

Appellant was nowhere when his co-worker and barrio mate. on his clothing. Pampanga. Ana. Appellant hastily abandoned his house in Barrio San Nicolas. Ana. 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. all the circumstances must be consistent with each other. Appellant was apprehended only a full six months after the date of the crime. Pampanga where one Elmer Salas was the victim and was hospitalized at the district hospital at Arayat. however. The victim was. Despite efforts of the police to find appellant as the principal suspect. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests asked and was given P50. Virginia likewise gambled at the wake. but the following day. 1992. Ana. as the author of the crime. and on his yellow slippers after the victim was killed. 1992 when accused left Mexico. However. When hospitalized. and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other possible. either to the robbery or to the homicide and none of the things allegedly stolen were ever recovered. appellant used the alias Rommel Salas. not at Mexico. his residence since childhood. to the exclusion of all other persons. 1992. Denial is an inherently weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of nonculpability to merit credibility. but since March 6. Pampanga where he was ultimately apprehended by the Mexico Police on September 22. the date of the crime. in weight and probative value. came to appellant's house to fetch him for work at around 6:30 to 7:00 a. 1992 at Arayat.00 was no longer to be found when she was found dead. direct evidence is not the only matrix from which the trial court may draw its findings and conclusion of culpability. the purse of Virginia containing about P2. following his confinement in a hospital in Arayat. Held: There was no eyewitness or direct evidence. Pampanga. was no longer to be found and was last seen at about 3:00 morning together with Virginia Talens on their way home coming from the wake. instead of his true name Elmer Salas. 1992 after chancing on a radio message by the police of Arayat to their Provincial commander that a vehicular incident occurred at Arayat. What was left was a safety pin which victim used to fasten the missing purse to her clothes. Pampanga.000. Page 160 Section 1-C. The fatal stabbing of Virginia Talens occurred at around 3:00 a. Pampanga because he was sideswiped by a Victory Liner bus in Arayat. Whether or Not the appellant‘s crime homicide or robbery with homicide. on that very date. he returned only on September 19. of March 6. He was not seen again from said date. the parents of [the] accused were informed by Investigator Gonzales that their son was the suspect and adviced them to surrender him. consistent with the theory that the accused is guilty of the offense charged.00 by his mother as he also participated in the gambling thereat. enjoying a winning streak when her son.m. Police investigators found human bloodstains on the front door of appellant's house. Pampanga. Eduardo Bagtas. Ramil Talens. and she refused to leave. came to fetch her but which he failed to do because his mother was winning. may be deemed to surpass even direct evidence in its effect on the court. Pampanga where he used the name of Rommel Salas and not Elmer Salas. Mexico. Appellant also abandoned his job as a painter in Sta. The facts and circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence can constitute evidence which. accused had been working for three days before March 6 at Sta. rational hypothesis excepting that of guilt.m. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction. of March 6. 1992. 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. leaving behind an unfinished painting project. in fact. The purse of Talens containing cash was gone when her corpse was found in the canal with a stab wound and bruises. has always been considered by the courts as indicative of guilt. which when unexplained. These circumstances denote flight. Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake they attended. appellant did not present himself to the authorities. 1992. on March 6. a fact known to appellant's family and neighbors. Pampanga. Orlando Pangan saw the accused gambled in the wake. SY ’06-‘07 . he did not anymore report for work at Sta. All the circumstances established must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one and fair and reasonable conclusion pointing solely to the accused. Pampanga and up to March 5.

Held: The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. Robbery with Homicide is a special complex crime against property. 92415. the crime of homicide. Costs against appellant. While there is indeed no direct proof that Virginia Talens was robbed at the time she was killed. The reason is that the lower court has jurisdiction over Magumnang the moment the latter was in custody. (2) The appellant knew that victim was winning.R. (4) The victim's purse containing her money and earrings were missing from her body when found. The decision of the regional trial court is affirmed. was committed. Simeon Calama. Omar Magpalao and Rex Magumnang. In charging Robbery with Homicide. (b) the property belongs to another. So ordered. the onus probandi is to establish: "(a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. Quiambao. the car stopped so that one of the passengers could urinate.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests 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. Galvez however. the court has jurisdiction over Magumnang. 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. 14 MAY 1991] Facts: Eleven (11) people rode in a Ford Fiera going to Baguio. The robbers then escaped. (c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi. there is testimony that the victim had more or less P2. Ompa. 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. Magpalao and Magumnang pointed guns and knives at the other passengers and divested them of their properties. 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. Edris.00. Adolfo Quiambao. Gumanak Ompa and defendant-appelants in this case. The robbers were then apprehended with the exception of Edris who remain at large. The other passengers jumped out of the car and went to different directions to escape. These were never recovered. Ompa. the trial in absentia continued as to him. was left in side the car and was stabbed by one of the robbers. Rene Salonga. Homicide is incidental to the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. When the car was near the precipice. and wore gold earrings valued at P750. we may conclude from four circumstances that the robbery occasioned her killing: (1) Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake. Namely they are: Felizardo Galvez. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of parties but until the case is terminated. and Magumnang were all held guilty as principal by direct participation of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Jimmy Jetwani. MAGPALAO [197 SCRA 79. who owned the car helped Galvez to get to a hospital. After an hour of driving. Galvez died in the hospital. Anwar Hadji Edris. Mangumnang however escaped while being in detention and Bara-akal died inside the jail. (3) The victim was last seen alive with appellant. Since all the requisites of trial in absentia are complete. which is used in the generic sense. On of the robbers then ordered Galvez to drive the car towards the precipice (bangin). Galvez then stepped to the brakes. Magpalao. While the car was stopped the Bara-akal.00. Since Mangumnang was not arrested. Page 161 Section 1-C. NO." Although there was no witness as to the actual robbing of the victim. PEOPLE VS. Eduardo Lopez. SY ’06-‘07 . G. and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof.000. Aliman Baraakal.

did then and there willfully. this Court believes that simple frustrated homicide only is committed by the accused Engracio Valeriano only. the penalty now for murder is Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua. Thus. 4585 for the killing of Rizalina ApatanSilvano having been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. including several 'John Does'. Bulado. Municipality of Sta. Criminal Case No." Issue: Whether or not the judgment complied with the Rules of Court. Its rulings are found in the last two paragraphs which read as follows: "The elements of murder in this case. the Constitutional mandate was not violated.000. namely: Juanito Rismundo. For the wounding of the victim Wilson A.00) Pesos since this case occurred [sic] in 1980. Criminal Cases Nos. the accused JUANITO RISMUNDO. An alias warrant for his arrest was issued on 26 June 1989. per Judge Pacifico S. All the other two (2) accused. Macario Acabal and Abundio Nahid are hereby ordered cancelled and let a warrant of arrest be issued for their immediate confinement. After the completion of the re-taking of the testimonies of the witnesses in Branch 37. and with treachery and evident premeditation and being then armed with bolos and 'pinuti'. 4584 and 4585 were re-raffled to Branch 33 of the trial court. accused Engracio Valeriano only is nowhere to be found. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. PEOPLE VS. 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. ACABAL [226 SCRA 694 . conspiring and confederating with one another. MACARIO ACABAL and ABUNDIO NAHID. thereby causing upon said Rizalina Apatan Silvano her death and burning her beyond recognition. 103604. G. The decision of the trial court. then presided over by Judge Pacifico S. Province of Negros Oriental. Philippines. Page 162 Section 1-C. 1980. 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. left leg hacked behind the knee. contained no specific dispositive portion. and allowing her to be burned inside said house which was burned to the ground. he being a fugitive or at large. Catalina. NO. no penalty could be imposed on him since he is beyond the jurisdiction of this court to reach. however. the penalty impossable [sic] here will be in its maximum degree. The testimonies of the witnesses were retaken. to wit: 'right leg amputated below the knee. Magumnang was presumed innocent during his trial in absentia. with intent to kill. Bulado.' and did then and there set the house on fire while the aforementioned Rizalina Apatan Silvano was inside said house trying to escape therefrom. not brought to the bar of justice. But since the person who actually inflicted the injuries of victim Wilson Silvano. and for all the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30. a fire gutted the building where Branch 37 was located and the records of these two cases were burned. 23 SEP 1993] Facts: The accusatory portion in the information for murder. at Nagbinlod. hence.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests In addition. Silvano. The records were subsequently reconstituted upon petition of the prosecuting fiscal. JUANITO RISMUNDO and ABUNDIO NAHID are hereby ordered and declared absolved from any criminal responsibility from frustrated homicide. dated 31 October 1991 but promulgated on 20 December 1991. but he remains at large up to the present. But on 16 May 1987. Facts are as follows: "That sometime in the evening of the 28th of January. the accused. The bail bond put up by the three accused. the abuse of superior strength. considering the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of nighttime. abdomen hacked with viscerae evacerated. unlawfully and feloniously attack.R. that is reclusion perpetua taking into account Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 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. 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. before it could commence. SY ’06-‘07 .

G. it is apparent that their abovementioned contention is highly illogical.R. and (d) the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act to be recovered from the accused by the offended party. provided that the notice requiring him to be present at the promulgation is served through his bondsmen or warden and counsel. (c) the penalty imposed upon the accused. SY ’06-‘07 . a seven-year-old girl. 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. TAN TENG [23 PHIL 145. 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. that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. whether as principal.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or not the cancellation of the bail bonds of the accused is valid. The decision did impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua. One who jumps bail can never offer a justifiable reason for his non-appearance during the trial. (b) the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. after the trial in absentia. Short of this. it is not only the right of the accused to be freed. Were it otherwise. he being a fugitive or at large. Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of frustrated murder. unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate action has been reserved or waived. the trial court still had jurisdiction over the persons of the accused-appellants. hence. not brought to the bar of justice. Held: We find that the decision substantially complies with the Rules of Court on judgments as it did sentence the accused-appellants to reclusion perpetua. they would not have declared in open court their intention to appeal immediately after the promulgation of the decision and would not have subsequently filed their written notice of appeal. 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. 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. 4585. Section 14. 4584 because he "is nowhere to be found. 7081. Since the order cancelling their bail bonds and directing their arrest is contained in the decision itself. US VS. it is even the constitutional duty of the court to acquit him. Accordingly. A judgment of conviction shall state (a) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused. if there is any. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Every accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission. accomplice or accessory after the fact. the accused-appellants must be acquitted. 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. Pacomio was suffering from a disease called gonorrhea. Several days later. The trial court further erred in holding that no penalty could be imposed on accused Engracio Valeriano in Criminal Case No. Pacomio told her sister about what had happened and reported it to the police. Page 163 Section 1-C. In conclusion. 7 SEP 1912] Facts: The defendant herein raped Oliva Pacomio. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. because of reasonable doubt as to their guilt." The court ignored the fact that Engracio jumped bail after he had been arraigned. just before the retaking of evidence commenced. if there are any. Whether or not the accused may be tried in absentia. NO. At the time the order in question was made. Paragraph (2).

The defendant alleged that the said evidence should be inadmissible because it was taken in violation of his right against self-incrimination. refused to write a sample of his handwriting as ordered by the respondent Judge. when it may be material. 16444. The lower court held that the results show that the disease that the victim had acquired came from the defendant herein. The substance was taken from his body without his objection and was examined by competent medical authority. He was neither compelled to make any admissions or to answer any questions. G. The policeman took a portion of the substance emitting from the body of the defendant and turned it over to the Bureau of Science. The corollary to the proposition is that. 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. Held: The court held that the taking of a substance from his body was not a violation of the said right. SAMSON [53 PHIL 570.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Tan Teng was called to appear in a police line-up and the victim identified him. Held: No. The trial judge ordered the petitioner to subject herself into physical examination to test whether or not she was pregnant to prove the determine the crime of adultery being charged to her. Issue: Whether or not the 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 Page 164 Section 1-C. 32025. and not an exclusion of his body as evidence. Issue: Whether or Not the physical examination was a violation of the petitioner‘s constitutional rights against self-incrimination. He also argued that such an act will make him furnish evidence against himself. The rule that the constitutional guaranty. that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The results showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea. 23 SEPT 1929] Facts: Beltran. SY ’06-‘07 . He was found to have the same symptoms of gonorrhea.R. Such disease was transferred by the unlawful act of carnal knowledge by the latter. which the latter should have gotten in the first place. It is not a violation of her constitutional rights. 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. He was then stripped of his clothing and was examined by a policeman. NO. BELTRAN VS. 8 SEP 1920] Facts: Petitioner Villaflor was charged with the crime of adultery.R. 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. is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial 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. The prohibition of self-incrimination in the Bill of Rights is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him. SUMMERS [41 PHIL 62. G. as a defendant for the crime of Falsification. VILLAFLOR VS. NO.

of grave abuse of discretion for failure to respect the constitutional right against self-incrimination. SY ’06-‘07 . unless he chooses to take the witness stand — with undiluted. This constitutional privilege exists for the protection of innocent persons. as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states. also. the right against self-incrimination being available only when a question calling for an incriminating answer is asked of a witness." It is the right of a defendant "to forego testimony. the crime would go unpunished. counsel for complainants announced that he would present as his first witness the petitioner. It cannot be contended in the present case that if permission to obtain a specimen of the petitioner's handwriting is not granted. we believe the present case is similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. G. unfettered exercise of his own free genuine will. They likewise alleged that the right against self-incrimination cannot be availed of in an administrative hearing. that is no reason for trampling upon a personal right guaranteed by the constitution. or the hands. it should not be a difficult matter for the fiscal to obtained genuine specimens of his handwriting. It was alleged therein that at the initial hearing of an administrative case for alleged immorality. made of record his objection. relying on the constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. We say that. to take the witness stand. not only to answer incriminatory questions. this appeal by respondent Board. BME [28 SCRA 345. Jr. consistently with the selfincrimination clause. for in both cases. for the purposes of the constitutional privilege. through counsel. The Court found for the petitioner in accordance with the well-settled principle that "the accused in a criminal case may refuse. It might be true that in some cases criminals may succeed in evading the hand of justice. 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. Petitioner was sustained by the lower court in his plea that he could not be compelled to be the first witness of the complainants. NO. he being the party proceeded against in an administrative charge for malpractice. Writing is something more than moving the body. to remain silent. Hence.R. writing is not a purely mechanical act. the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. filed an action for prohibition against the Board of Medical Examiners. 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. constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and meaning of the constitutional provision under examination." If petitioner would be compelled to testify against himself. Held: The Supreme Court held that in an administrative hearing against a medical practitioner for alleged malpractice. and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting. but. 26 MAY 1969] Facts: Petitioner Arsenio Pascual. or the fingers. while admitting the facts stressed that it could call petitioner to the witness stand and interrogate him. Thereupon. at the very least. 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. petitioner. 25018. the Board of Examiners was guilty. respondent Board of Medical Examiners cannot. Considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a municipal treasurer. But even supposing it is impossible to obtain specimen or specimens without resorting to the means complained herein. PASCUAL VS. The answer of respondent Board. but such cases are accidental and do not constitute the raison d' etre of the privilege. Petitioner then alleged that to compel him to take the witness stand." Page 165 Section 1-C. he could suffer not the forfeiture of property but the revocation of his license as a medical practitioner. there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document. compel the person proceeded against to take the witness stand without his consent. Except that it is more serious.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests falsified. Issue: Whether or Not compelling petitioner to be the first witness of the complainants violates the SelfIncrimination Clause.

In doing so. the dismissal will not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense because his action in having the case 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. he was assisted y counsel. The constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government . Therefore. Held: In order that the accused may invoke double jeopardy. he entered into a plea of guilty.vs. PEOPLE VS. Issue: Whether or Not the present appeal places the accused in Double Jeopardy. Pangasinan. Issue: Whether or Not the appeal placed the accused in double jeopardy. 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. Said motion was granted. the converted dismissal was ordered by the Trial Judge upon the defendant's motion to dismiss.R.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The reason for this constitutional guarantee. such desirable objectives should not be accomplished according to means or methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded the human personality. he was allowed to present evidence and consequently testified that he stabbed the deceased in selfdefense. d) defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. b) competent court. NO. More and more in line with the democratic creed. the following requisites must have obtained in the original prosecution. there has been no standing of plea during the judgment of acquittal.. This was not done. OBSANIA [23 SCRA 1249. In addition. On the basis of the testimony of the accused. In the case at bar. the deference accorded an individual even those suspected of the most heinous crimes is given due weight. SY ’06-‘07 . BALISACAN [17 SCRA 1119. Page 166 Section 1-C. a) valid complaint. G. L-26376. PEOPLE VS. 31 AUG 1966] Facts: Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the CFI of Ilocos Norte.R. Held: The Supreme Court held that it is settled that the existence of plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy. G. must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. 29 JUN 1968] Facts: The accused was charged with Robbery with Rape before the Municipal Court of Balungao. the prosecution appealed. The ―doctrine of double jeopardy‖ as enunciated in P. so there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein. Upon being arraigned. His counsel moved for the dismissal of the charge for failure to allege vivid designs in the info. 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. or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. At his counsel de officio. From this order of dismissal the prosecution appealed. c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge. L-24447. Thus. He pleaded not guilty. Salico applies to wit when the case is dismissed with the express consent of the defendant. The accused had first entered a plea of guilty but however testified that he acted in complete self-defense. he stated that he surrendered himself voluntarily to the police authorities. he was acquitted.

accused Pacifico Sensio.1743. Furthermore. The rule on summary procedure was correctly applied. The latter is always based on merit that shows that the defendant is beyond reasonable doubt not guilty. While the former.R. In the case at bar. in the case at bar. He inquired the nearby security guard for the identity of the owner of the vehicle. Mabuyo filed a MOR thus the dismissal was reversed. with relief of preliminary injunction and the issuance of a TRO‖ (CEB -9207). he has deemed to have waived his protection against double jeopardy. Upon the arrival of the police. were smothered with dust when they were overtaken by the vehicle owned by Petitioner Spouses. L-43790. G. terminated the proceedings because no finding was made as to the guilt or innocence of the petitioners. It wa s dismissed by the court acting on the motion of the petitioners. weighed cane cars No. Later that day. 103323. 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. Double jeopardy thus did not attach. Petition is dismissed for lack of merit and for being a prohibited pleading and ordered to proceed with the trial of the case. 9 DEC 1976] Facts: That sometime on January 4. 21 JAN 1993] Facts: Respondent and Brgy Capt. Where the dismissal was ordered upon motion or with the express assent of the accused. SY ’06-‘07 . GIMENEZ [217 SCRA 386. the dismissal was granted upon motion of the petitioners. if the indictment against him is revived by the fiscal. while in a jeep.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests In essence. petitioners put their guns down and were immediately apprehended. Whether or Not the judge ignored petitioner‘s right against double jeopardy by dismissing CEB 9207. he immediately ordered his subordinate to call the police and block road to prevent the petitioners‘ escape. respondent court issued 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 Page 167 Section 1-C. Held: For double jeopardy to attach. The three accused then were charged with ―Falsification by private i ndividuals and use of falsified document‖. this instant petition. After the prosecution had presented. such dismissal is not considered as an acquittal. A complaint ―grave threats‖ was filed against the petitioners (Criminal Case No. while engaged in his duties. Thus. prohibition. 9 Rule 113. Thereafter. 5204). G. 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. Hence. PEOPLE VS. petitioners allegedly pointed their guns at him. Romeo Millan and Wilfredo Jochico who were then scalers at the Hawaiian-Philippine Company. Acting on the motion. PAULIN VS.1686 and 1022 loaded with sugar canes which were placed in tarjetas (weight report cards). Issue: Whether or Not the dismissal of 5204 was a judgment of acquittal. Mabuyo. petitioners filed for ―certiorari. COURT OF SILAY [74 SCRA 248.1974. Apparently.R. damages. 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. NO. Mabuyo followed the vehicle until the latter entered the gate of an establishment. NO. the dismissal of the case must be without the express consent of the accused. Irked by such. 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.

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. There was indeed a valid. 1975. People of the Philippines seeks to set aside the orders of Respondent Judge Hon. As it was stated on the requirements of a valid defense of double jeopardy it says: That there should be a valid complaint. Relova quashing an information for theft filed against Mr. RELOVA [149 SCRA 292. 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. The accused on the other hand. legitimate complaint and concern against the accused Sensio.L-45129. PEOPLE VS. 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. as opposed to the second offense which is theft of electricity which is punishable by the Revised Penal Code making it a st different crime charged against the 1 complaint against Mr. 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. It was also mentioned that the accused pleaded not guilty and during the time of trial. Millan and Jochico which was filed at a competent court with jurisdiction on the said case.Opulencia. Before arraignment. On Feb. where in the case was 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.. NO. In the 2 requisites given. G. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . convicted or dismissed or otherwise terminated without express consent of the accused in which were all present in the case at bar. Opulencia on the ground of double jeopardy and denying the petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration. Batangas police together with personnel of Batangas Electric Light System.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests crime of falsification which was charged earlier and that their case be dismissed. Opulencia filed a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. when the proceedings have been reasonably prolonged as to violate the right of the accused to a speedy trial. It is true that the criminal case of falsification was dismissed on a motion of the accused however this was a motion filed after the prosecution had rested its case. 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. 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. 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.062. 6 MAR 1987] FACTS: In this petition for certiorari and mandamus. another case was filed against Mr. Issue: Page 168 Section 1-C. it was done with the consent of the accused therefore waiving there defense of double jeopardy. Said devices are designed purposely to lower or decrease the readings of electric current consumption in the plant‘s electric meter. On Nov 24.16. They discovered electric wiring devices have been installed without authority from the city government and architecturally concealed inside the walls of the building.1 1975.R. 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. People asserts that the plea of double jeopardy is not tenable even if the case at bar was dismissed because according to them. 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.

the conviction or acquittal shall bar to another prosecution for the same act‖. 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. that one. Opulencia will fall on the 2 kind or definition of double jeopardy wherein it contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. 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.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Whether or Not the accused Mr. 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. G.1979 but the fiscal informed the court that it received a telegram stating that the complainant was sick. the bill of rights give two instances or kinds of double jeopardy. On Oct. During arraignment. L-54110. For double jeopardy to exist these three requisites should be present. accused Esmeña and Alba filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of double jeopardy. the fact that the two charges sprung from one and the same act of conviction or acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other thus making it against the logic of double jeopardy. would place the accused in double jeopardy Held: Yes. No trial came in after the arraignment due to the priest‘s request to move it on another date. Opulencia was nd acquitted on the first offense should bar the 2 complaint against him coming from the same st identity as that of the 1 offense charged against Mr. SY ’06-‘07 . 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. Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy as defense for the second offense because as tediously explained in the case of Yap vs Lutero. In the nd case at bar. In the case at bar.Opulencia. 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. Held: Yes. Page 169 Section 1-C. it was very evident that the charges filed against Mr. conviction of the accused. as the case filed was grave coercion. The fact that Mr.16. It further explains that even if the offenses charged are not the same. Issue: Whether or Not the revival of grave coercion case.1979. 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. 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. Sometime later Judge Pogoy issued an order setting the trial Aug. 20 FEB 1981] Facts: Petitioners Esmeña and Alba were charged with grave coercion in the Court of Cebu City for allegedly forcing Fr. The accused invoked their right to speedy trial. 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. that it is done before a court of competent jurisdiction and third. When these three conditions are present then the acquittal. POGOY [102 SCRA 861. Mr.R. 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. all three conditions were present. petitioners pleaded ―Not Guilty‖. there is a valid complaint or information filed second. ESMENA VS. that the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or information. owing that the first charge constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the second charge was a violation against the revised penal code.24. NO. In the case. which was dismissed earlier due to complainant‘s failure to appear at the trial. 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.

It also serves as a deterrent from successively retrying the defendant in the hope of securing a conviction. In People vs. 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. DE LA TORRE [380 SCRA 586. it declared that: ―while it is true that this Court is the Court of last resort.A. 11 MAR 2002] Facts: Wilfredo dela Torre. however. It argues that it has proven that the victim is the daughter of the accused. When Mary Rose was 7 yearsold. The prosecution seeks to modify the RTC Decision by imposing the supreme penalty of death of the accused. She appeared sleepy. a sudden change in Mary Rose‘s behavior behavior was noticed. instead of imposing the supreme penalty of death as mandated by R.‖ 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. The RTC convicted appellee of two counts of acts of lasciviousness and four counts of murder. NOS. her mother left them together with her youngest brother so she and her other brother were left to the care of her father. and that she was below eighteen years old when the rapes took place. 7659. from retrying the defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty. following conviction. the appeal of the prosecution cannot prosper. 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. Mary Rose admitted that she was abused repeatedly by her father. Being violative of the right against double jeopardy. in January 1997. Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. denied vehemently the charges being imputed to him by her daughter. the eldest of which is Mary Rose. any party may appeal from a judgment or final order unless the accused will be put in double jeopardy. Held: Under Section 1. . Page 170 Section 1-C. Leones. Her father. has three children from a common-law relationship. for more than five years. 137953-58.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests PEOPLE VS. As a consequence. Mary Rose and her brother were living together as a family and Mary Rose was never molested by her father. 7659. And finally. However. 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. snobbish and she also urinated on her panty. When confronted by her head teacher.R. However. it prevents the State. the RTC refused to impose the supreme penalty of death on appellee. SY ’06-‘07 . that after the mother of Mary Rose left the conjugal home. appellee. there are allegations of error committed by a lower court which we ought not to look into to uphold the right of the accused. G. Issue: Whether or Not the Court erred in penalizing the appellee with reclusion perpetua in each of the four indictments of rape.A. Wilfredo. the trial court should have been imposed the penalty of death pursuant to Section 11 of R. Mary Rose was the brightest in her class despite their poverty. She was twelve years old at that time.

San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests CITIZENSHIP Page 171 Section 1-C. SY ’06-‘07 .

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. was "merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Law Dictator's agents abroad. 1988. Sorsogon Chapter. NO. Sec. The ultimate purpose was to prevent Frivaldo from continuing as governor. and assumed office in due time. of Filipino mothers. 1988. Sec.R. represented by its President. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. 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. 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. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner Juan G. 1988. having been naturalized in the United States on January 20. 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. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. 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. unless by their act or omission they are deemed. His naturalization. Estuye. he said. 87193. and (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. 5. He was therefore not qualified to run for and be elected governor. (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. the League of Municipalities. 4 Sec. 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. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3).San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests CITIZENSHIP Art. 1973. Sec. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. the Local Government Code. 1983. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. 2. under the law. G. On October 27. 1. filed with the COMELEC a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo. Speaking for the public respondent. Held: Page 172 Section 1-C. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22. FRIVALDO VS. to have renounced it. 1988. his candidacy and election being null and void ab initio because of his alienage. 4. election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. In their Comment. 1988. 3. COMELEC [174 SCRA 245. In his answer dated May 22. (3) Those born before January 17. Sec. Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election on January 18. As an alien. Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. His election did not cure this defect because the electorate of Sorsogon could not amend the Constitution. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship." He added that he had returned to the Philippines after the EDSA revolution to help in the restoration of democracy. as provincial governor of Sorsogon. 23 JUN 1989] Facts: Petitioner Juan G. SY ’06-‘07 . and the Omnibus Election Code. 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. who was also suing in his personal capacity. he was disqualified from public office in the Philippines.

Pursuant to the ruling of the COMELEC. however. is like a jealous and possessive mother. 1987. Petitioner JUAN G. Issue: Whether or Not private respondent is qualified to hold office as Vice-Mayor. COMELEC reversed the decision and declared private respondent qualified to run for the position. In the certificate of candidacy he filed on November 19.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests The reason for this inquiry is the provision in Article XI. especially if they mistakenly believed.R. the gift is gone and cannot be lightly restored. of the Constitution. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines. this rule requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. the renewal of his loyalty and love. 135083. which is all the more reason why it should be treasured like a pearl of great price. M ANZANO [307 SCRA 630. that he was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1983 per the following certification from the United States District Court. California. The evidence shows. Page 173 Section 1-C. 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. The returning renegade must show. as in this case. This Court will not permit the anomaly of a person sitting as provincial governor in this country while owing exclusive allegiance to another country. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility. COMELEC granted the petition and disqualified the private respondent for being a dual citizen. 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. it cannot agree that as a consequence thereof he was coerced into embracing American citizenship. omitting mention of any subsequent loss of such status. 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. among other qualifications. FRIVALDO is hereby declared not a citizen of the Philippines and therefore disqualified from serving as Governor of the Province of Sorsogon. Even so. Obviously. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which remained pending until after election. Petition Dismissed. it is not quick to welcome back with eager arms its prodigal if repentant children. Section 9.S. NO. G. Mamaril alleged that the private respondent is not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States. he must owe his total loyalty to this country only. of the Constitution that all public officials and employees owe the State and the Constitution "allegiance at all times" and the 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. Section 1. for all its difficulties and limitations. It is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the natural-born citizen is favored by the Constitution and our laws. Frivaldo described himself as a "natural-born" citizen of the Philippines. this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be. U. 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. Once rejected. The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone.A. 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. SY ’06-‘07 . MERCADO VS. Petitioner sought to intervene in the case for disqualification. the board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as vice mayor. But once it is surrendered and renounced. abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state. pursuant to the Local Government code that provides that persons who possess dual citizenship are disqualified from running any public position. that the candidate was qualified. Northern District of California. 1998 elections. by an express and unequivocal act. as duly authenticated by Vice Consul Amado P. Accordingly. This country of ours. Cortez of the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco. The Court sees no reason not to believe that the petitioner was one of the enemies of the Marcos dictatorship. 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. a citizen of the Philippines.

private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizenship.R. Allan F. Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and. his mother. Considering the citizenship clause (Art. Poe. The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship. was a Spanish national. Poe. IV) of our Constitution. No. would have himself been a Filipino citizen and. refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes. USA. being the son of Lorenzo Pou. effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. depended on whether or not the father of respondent. a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. Allan F. effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen. as far as the laws of this country are concerned. 161434. SY ’06-‘07 . The former arises when. For instance. 3 Mar 2004] Facts: Victorino X. his place Page 174 Section 1-C. practiced his profession as an artist. when the Philippines was under Spanish rule. 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.first. and taken part in past elections in this country. Fornier. unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. private respondent‘s oath of allegiance to the Philippine. By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post. By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen. the latter being an illegitimate child of an alien mother.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests Held: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Pangasinan. that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country. according to Fornier. and his father. when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood. petitioner asseverated. Private respondent is considered as a dual citizen because he is born of Filipino parents but was born in San Francisco. ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part. is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Granting. he could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ. private respondent has. Allan F. G. on the other hand. a Spanish subject. in turn. COMELEC [424 SCRA 277. leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship. Such a person. in the affirmative. Petitioner based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of respondent on two assertions . While dual citizenship is involuntary. as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states. dual allegiance is the result of an individual‘s volition. (3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter‘s country the former are considered citizens. Issue: Whether or Not FPJ is a natural born Filipino citizen. by some positive act. loyalty to two or more states. which. received his education. second. 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. even if no such prior marriage had existed. 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. and that San Carlos. TECSON VS. Dual allegiance. Poe was a Filipino citizen. whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. Held: It is necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen. 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. Allan Poe. On the other hand. that Allan F. it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to posses dual citizenship: (1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli. married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of respondent. (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. his parents were foreigners. was an American. Bessie Kelley Poe.

confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate. who was then running for reelection. Poe. of the Omnibus Election Code. R. "rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country. The fundamental law then applicable was the 1935 Constitution. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. He won over petitioner Antonio Bengson III. 2630. 7 May 2001] Facts: Respondent Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. 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. of Filipino parents. He was born in San Clemente. On the other hand. HRET [357 SCRA 545.‖ He was naturalized in US in 1990. Tarlac. could have well been his place of residence before death. No.‖ Held: Respondent is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act No. He ran for and was elected as the Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11. father of respondent FPJ. during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light. on April 27. among other.San Beda College of Law – Alabang Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests of residence upon his death in 1954. On March 17. section 1(4). As a Consequence. Allan F. 1985. he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. however. Page 175 Section 1-C. if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship. BENGZON VS. 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. if acquired. in the absence of any other evidence. But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. 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. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou). 1998 elections. such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. would thereby extend to his son. The 1935 Constitution. 142840. respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines. in relation to Section 74. a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by. he lost his Filipino citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No. On November 5. G. SY ’06-‘07 . As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization. 1994. 63. 1960. took an oath of allegiance to the United States.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful