You are on page 1of 120

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D.

GACAYAN 2008
CHAPTER I CHAPTER I
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE
STATE
(Pol!" Po#"$%
1. Define:
&ol!" &o#"$---is the power vested in
the legislature ! the Constitution to
"a#e$ ordain$ estalish all "anner of
wholeso"e and reasonale laws for the
good and welfare of the %tate and its
people. &ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS.
CITY MAYOR' ()ly *+' +,-.%
The asi' purposes of poli'e power are:
/. to &$o0ot" t1" 2"3"$/l
#"l4/$"' !o04o$t /35 !o36"3"3!" o4
t1" &"o&l"7 (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL
LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY' +.8
SCRA *9*7 US VS. TORI:IO' +8 P1l.
88
;. to &$o0ot" /35 &$"<"$6"
&);l! 1"/lt1( &VILLANUEVA VS.
CASTANEDA' S"&t"0;"$ 2+' +,8.7
DECS VS. SAN DIEGO' +80 SCRA 8**
=NMAT>7 LOREN?O VS. DIRECTOR OF
HEALTH' 80 P1l. 8,8@/&&$"1"35 /35
!o343" l"&"$< 3 / l"&$o</$)0%
PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS
COMMISSION VS. ARLENE DE
GU?MAN' ET AL.' ()3" 2+' 2009
P)*ICE P)+ER,P-.*IC HEA*TH( THE
RI/HT T) PRACTICE A PR)0E%%I)1
0a'ts:
A4t"$ t1" P$o4"<<o3/l
R"2)l/to3< Co00<<o3 (PRC%
$"l"/<"5 t1" 3/0"< o4 <)!!"<<4)l
"A/03""< 3 t1" M"5!/l L!"3<)$"
EA/03/to3' t1" :o/$5 o4 M"5!3"<
o;<"$6"5 t1/t t1" 2$/5"< o4 t1" .,
F/t0/ Coll"2" o4 M"5!3" <)!!"<<4)l
"A/03""< #"$" )3)<)/lly /35
"A!"&to3/lly 121 3 t1" t#o (2% 0o<t
544!)lt <);B"!t< o4 t1" "A/0' .".'
:o!1"0<t$y /35 O;<t"t$!< /35
Gy3"!olo2y.
The .oard then issued Resolution
1o. 12 withholding the registration as
ph!si'ians of all the e3a"inees fro"
0ati"a College of 4edi'ine. Co"pared
with other e3a"ines fro" other s'hools$
the results of those fro" 0ati"a were not
onl! in'redil! high ut unusuall!
'lustered 'lose to ea'h other. The 1.I
Investigation found that the 50ati"a
e3a"inees gained earl! a''ess to the test
6uestions.7
)n 8ul! 9$ 122:$ the respondents-
e3a"inees filed a petition for "anda"us
efore the RTC of 4anila to 'o"pel the
PRC to give the" their li'enses to
pra'ti'e "edi'ine. 4eanwhile on 8ul! ;1$
122:$ the .oard of "edi'ine issued
Resolution 1o. ;1 'harging the
respondents of i""oralit!$ dishonest
'ondu't$ fraud and de'eit and
re'o""ended that the test results of the
0ati"a E3a"inees e nullified.
)n De'e"er 12$ 122<$ the RTC of
4anila pro"ulgated its de'ision ordering
the PRC to allow the respondents to ta#e
the ph!si'ian=s oath and to register the"
as ph!si'ians. The sa"e was appealed !
the PRC to the Court of Appeals whi'h
sustained the RTC de'ision.
Hen'e$ this petition.
Held:
It 0)<t ;" <t$"<<"5 t1/t t1"
&o#"$ to $"2)l/t" t1" &$/!t!" o4 /
&$o4"<<o3 o$ &)$<)t o4 /3 o!!)&/to3
!/33ot ;" "A"$!<"5 ;y t1" St/t" 3 /3
/$;t$/$y' 5"<&ot! o$ o&&$"<<6"
0/33"$. Ho#"6"$' t1" $"2)l/t32
;o5y 1/< t1" $21t to 2$/3t o$ 4o$;5
<)!1 &$6l"2" 3 /!!o$5/3!" #t1
!"$t/3 !o35to3<.
.ut li#e all rights and freedo"s
guaranteed ! the Constitution$ their
e3er'ise "a! e regulated pursuant to the
poli'e power of the %tate to safeguard
health$ "orals$ pea'e$ edu'ation$ order$
safet!$ and general welfare of the people.
As su'h$ "anda"us will not lie to 'o"pel
the .oard of 4edi'ine to issue li'enses for
the respondents to pra'ti'e "edi'ine.
RA ;:>; whi'h pres'ries the
re6uire"ents for ad"ission to the pra'ti'e
of "edi'ine$ the 6ualifi'ations of the
'andidates for the oard e3a"ination$ the
s'ope and 'ondu't of the e3a"inations$
the grounds for the den!ing of the
issuan'e of a ph!si'ian=s li'ense$ or
revo#ing a li'ense that has een issued. It
is therefore 'lear that the e3a"inee "ust
prove that he has full! 'o"plied with all
the 'onditions and re6uire"ents i"posed
! law and the li'ensing authorit! to e
granted the privilege to pra'ti'e "edi'ine.
In short$ he shall have all the
6ualifi'ations and none of the
dis6ualifi'ations. The petition is therefore
granted.
!. to &$o0ot" /35 &$ot"!t
&);l! </4"ty7 &AGUSTIN VS. EDU' 88
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW + +
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
SCRA +,87 TACICA: OPERATORS VS.
(UINIO' ++, SCRA 8,. %
5. to 0/3t/3 /35 </4"2)/$5
&"/!" /35 o$5"$7 (GUA?ON VS. DE
VILLA%
". to &$ot"!t &);l! 0o$/l<(
&DE LA CRU? VS. PARAS' +2* SCRA
8-,7 ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY
MAYOR' ()ly *+' +,-.7 (MM
PROMOTIONS VS. CA' 2-0 SCRA *+,7
VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS' F";$)/$y +*'
+,8*%
4. to pro"ote the e'ono"i'
se'urit! of the people. (ICHONG VS.
HERNANDE?' +0+ P1l. +++88%
Not / 6/l5 "A"$!<" o4 &ol!" &o#"$D
/. CITY GOVERNMENT OF EC
VS. ERICTA' +22 SCRA .8,7 (-F%
. YNOT VS. IAC' +98 SCRA
-8,( the Dire'tor of Ani"al Industr! or
the Chair"an if the 1ational 4eat
Co""ission 5"a! dispose of the 'araeef
to 'haritale agen'ies as he "a! dee"
fit7. This is oppressive and unreasonale
sin'e the owner is denied due pro'ess of
law and he is given so "u'h dis'retion as
the law is not 'o"plete in itself nor is
there a standard to guide the offi'ial.
!. DE LA CRU? VS. PARAS' +2*
SCRA 8-,
power of e"inent do"ain power of e"inent do"ain
power of taxation
;. Differen'es and si"ilarities
DIDIPIO EARTH SAVERS MULTI
PURPOSE ASSOCIATION VS. DENR
SEC. ELISEA GO?U' ET AL.' 988 SCRA
88-
Chi'o-1a?ario$ 8.
1. The power of
e"inent do"ain is the inherent right of
the %tate to 'onde"n or to ta#e private
propert! for puli' use upon pa!"ent of
@ust 'o"pensation while poli'e power is
the power of the state to pro"ote puli'
welfare ! restraining and regulating the
use of liert! and propert! without
'o"pensation(
;. In the e3er'ise of
poli'e power$ en@o!"ent of a propert! is
restri'ted e'ause the 'ontinued use
thereof would e in@urious to puli'
welfare. In su'h 'ase$ there is no
'o"pensale ta#ing provided none of the
propert! interests is appropriated for the
use or for the enefit of the puli'.
)therwise$ there should e 'o"pensale
ta#ing if it would result to puli' use.
:. Properties
'onde"ned under poli'e power are usuall!
no3ious or intended for no3ious purpose(
hen'e $ no 'o"pensation shall e paid.
*i#ewise$ in the e3er'ise of poli'e power$
propert! rights of private individuals are
su@e'ted to restraints and urdens in
order to se'ure the general 'o"fort$
health and prosperit! of the state.
+hile the power of e"inent do"ain often
results in the appropriation of title to or
possession of propert!$ it need not alwa!s
e the 'ase. Ta#ing "a! in'lude trespass
without a'tual evi'tion of the owner$
"aterial i"pair"ent of the value of the
propert! or prevention of the ordinar!
uses for whi'h the propert! was intended
su'h as the estalish"ent of an
ease"ent.
As su'h$ an i"position of urden over a
private propert! through ease"ent &!
the govern"entA is 'onsidered ta#ing(
hen'e$ pa!"ent of @ust 'o"pensation is
re6uired. The deter"ination of @ust
'o"pensation$ however$ is a @udi'ial
fun'tion &EPBA vs. Dula!$ 1<2 %CRA :C9A
and initial deter"inations on @ust
'o"pensation ! the e3e'utive
depart"ent and Congress 'annot prevail
over the 'ourt=s findings.
0inall!$ servi'e 'ontra'ts with foreign
'orporations is not prohiited under the
12>D Philippine Constitution with foreign
'orporations or 'ontra'tors would invest in
and operate and "anage e3tra'tive
enterprises$ su@e't to the full 'ontrol and
supervision of the %tate( this ti"e$
however$ safet! "easures were put in
pla'e to prevent auses of the past
regi"e.
:. *i"itations in the e3er'ise of said
powers
<. Tests for a valid e3er'ise of poli'e
power
a. the interests of the
puli'$ not "ere parti'ular 'lass$ re6uire
the e3er'ise of poli'e power( &LAWFUL
SU:(ECTA
. the "eans e"plo!ed is
reasonal! ne'essar! for the
a''o"plish"ent of the purpose and not
undul! oppressive to individuals.
(LAWFUL MEANSA. In short$ the end
does not @ustif! the "eans.
9. Read:
a. 844 Pro"otions vs. CA$ ;EC
%CRA :12
. ER4ITA-4A*ATE H)TE* F%.
4AG)R )0 4A1I*A$ 8ul! :1$ 12ED(
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 2 2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
'. ICH)1/ F%. HER1A1DEB$ 1C1
Phil. 1199
d. CH-RCHI** F%. RA00ERTG$ :;
Phil. 9>C
e. PE)P*E F%. P)4AR$ <E Phil.
<<D
f. -% F%. T)RI.I)$ 19 Phil. >9
g. FE*A%C) F%. FI**E/A%$
0eruar! 1:$ 12>:
h. I*)I*) ICE H C)*D %T)RA/E
F%. 4-1ICIPA* C)-1CI*$ ;< Phil. <D1
i. A/-%TI1 F%. ED-$ >> %CRA
129
@. G1)T F%. IAC$ 1<> %CRA E92
RESTITUTO YNOT VS. THE
ITERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT'
G.R. No. .998.'M/$!1 20' +,8.

Cru?$ 8.
0a'ts:

1. )n 8anuar!$ 1:$ 12><$ Gnot
transported si3 'araaos ! using a
pu"poat fro" 4asate to Iloilo. The si3
'araaos$ were$ however$ 'onfis'ated !
the Poli'e %tation Co""ander of .arato'
1uevo$ Iloilo for alleged violation of
E3e'utive )rder 1o. E;E-A whi'h prohiits
the inter-provin'ial transporting of
'araaos and 'araeefs whi'h does not
'o"pl! with the provisions of E3e'utive
1o.E;E(
;. That %e'tion 1 of the said law
provides that Ihen'eforth$ no 'araaos
regardless of age$ se3 ph!si'al 'ondition
or purpose and no 'araeef shall e
transported fro" one provin'e to another.
The 'araao or 'araeef transported in
violation of the said law shall e su@e'ted
to 'onfis'ation and forfeiture ! the
govern"ent to e distriuted to 'haritale
institution and si"ilar institutions as the
Chair"an of the 1ational "eat inspe'tion
Co""ission "a! see fit in the 'ase of the
'araeef$ and to deserving far"ers
through the dispersal of the Dire'tor of
Ani"al Industr!$ in the 'ase of 'araaos(
:. Gnot filed a suit for re'over! and the
'araao were returned to hi" upon the
issuan'e of a writ of replevin upon his
filing of a supersede as ond in the
a"ount of P1;$CCC.CC(
<. After trial of the 'ase$ the 8udge
upheld the validit! of the a't of the Poli'e
%tation Co""ander in 'onfis'ating the
'araaos. Gnot was ordered to returned
the 'araaos ut sin'e he 'ould not do so$
the 'ourt ordered the 'onfis'ation of the
ond. The 'ourt refused to rule on the
'onstitutionalit! of the said E3e'utive
)rder on the ground of la'# of authorit! to
do so and also e'ause of its presu"ed
validit!(
9. The petitioner appealed to the IAC ut
the said 'ourt upheld the de'ision of the
Trial Court. Hen'e this petition for review
on 'ertiorari efore the %upre"e Court
where G1)T 'lai"ed that the penalt! of
'onfis'ation is I1FA*ID the sa"e was
i"posed without a''ording the owner the
right to e heard efore a 'o"petent and
i"partial triunal as guaranteed ! due
pro'ess.
Issues:

1. 4a! a lower 'ourt &li#e the 4TC$ RTC$
of the Court of AppealsA de'lare a law
un'onstitutionalJ
;. Is E3e'utive )rder 1o. E;E-A
'onstitutionalJ
%u-issues under this are:
a. +as it a valid poli'e power
"easureJ
. +as there an undue delegation
of legislative powerJ
Held:
1. +hile the lower 'ourts should oserve
a e'o"ing "odest! in e3a"ining
'onstitutional 6uestion$ THEG ARE 1)T
PREFE1TED 0R)4 RE%)*FI1/ THE %A4E
+HE1EFER +ARRA1TED$ su@e't onl! to
review ! the supre"e 'ourt. This is so
e'ause under %e'tion 9$K;&aAL$ Art. FIII$
of the 12>D Constitution provides that the
%upre"e Court has the power to Ireview$
revise$ reverse$ "odif! or affir" on
appealI or 'ertiorari as the rules of 'ourt
"a! provide$ final @udge"ents and orders
of the lower 'ourts in all 'ases involving
the 'onstitutionalit! of 'ertain "easures.
This si"pl! "eans that lower 'ourts "a!
de'lare whether or not a law is
'onstitutional.
;. I3 o$5"$ t1/t / 0"/<)$" o$ l/#
0/y ;" B)<t4"5 )35"$ t1" &ol!"
&o#"$ o4 t1" <t/t"' t 0)<t 0""t t#o
t"<t<D
/. t1" <);B"!t 0)<t ;" l/#4)l7 /35
;. t1" 0"/3< "0&loy"5 < l/#4)l.
%in'e the prohiition of the
slaughtering of 'araaos e3'ept where
the! are at least D !ears old when "ale
and at least 11 !ears old when fe"ale is
in furtheran'e of the puli' interest sin'e
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW * *
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
said 'araaos are ver! useful to the wor#
at the far"$ it is 'on'eded
that the E3e'utive )rder "eets the first
test---- it has lawful su@e't.
.ut does the law "eets the se'ond
re6uisite or test whi'h is lawful "ethodJ
E3e'utive )rder 1o. E;E-A i"poses
an asolute an not on the slaughtering of
'araaos .-T )1 THIER 4)FE4E1T$
providing that Ino 'araao regardless of
age$ se3$ ph!si'al 'ondition or purpose
and no 'araeef shall e transported fro"
one provin'e to another.I The reasonale
'onne'tion etween the "eans e"plo!ed
and the purpose sought to e a'hieved !
the 6uestion "easure is "issing. +e do
not see how the prohiition of the inter-
provin'ial transport 'an prevent their
indis'ri"inate slaughter 'onsidering that
the! 'an e #illed an! where$ with no less
diffi'ult! in one provin'e than in the other.
)viousl!$ retaining a 'araao in one
provin'e will not prevent their slaughter
there$ an! "ore than "oving the" to
another provin'e will "a#e it easier to #ill
the" there.
The law is un'onstitutional e'ause
it stru'# at on'e and poun'ed upon the
petitioner without giving hi" a 'han'e to
e heard$ thus den!ing hi" the 'enturies-
old guarantee of ele"entar! fair pla!.
%in'e the E3e'utive )rder in
6uestion is a penal law$ then violation
thereof should e pronoun'e not ! the
poli'e .-T .G A C)-RT )0 8-%TICE$
+HICH A*)1E +)-*D HAFE HAD THE
A-TH)RITG T) I4P)%E THE PRE%CRI.ED
PE1A*TG$ A1D )1*G A0TER TRIA* A1D
C)1FICTI)1 )0 THE ACC-%ED.
Also$ there is no reasonale
guidelines or ases of the Dire'tor of
Ani"al Industr! or the Chair"an of the
1ATI)1A* 4eat Inspe'tion Co""ission in
the disposition of the 'araaos or 'araeef
other than what Ithe! "a! see fitI whi'h
is ver! dangerous and 'ould result to
opportunities for partialit! and ause$ and
even graft and 'orruption.
The E3e'utive )rder is$ therefore$
invalid and un'onstitutional and not a
valid poli'e power "easure e'ause the
4ETH)D E4P*)GED T) C)1%ERFE
CARA.A)% I% 1)T REA%)1A.*G
1ECE%%ARG T) THE P-RP)%E )0 THE
*A+ A1D$ +)R%E I% -1D-*G
)PPRE%%IFE. D-E PR)CE%% I% FI)*ATED
.ECA-%E THE )+1ER )0 THE PR)PERTG
C)10I%CATED I% DE1IED THE RI/HT T)
.E HEARD I1 HI% DE0E1%E A1D I%
I44EDIATE*G C)1DE41ED A1D
P-1I%HED. THE C)10ER4E1T )1 THE
AD4I1I%TRATIFE A-TH)RITIE% &li#e the
poli'eA )0 THE P)+ER T) AD8-D/E THE
/-I*T )0 THE %-PP)%ED )00E1DER I% A
C*EAR E1CR)ACH4E1T )0 8-DICIA*
0-1CTI)1% A1D 4I*ITATE% A/AI1%T THE
D)CTRI1E )0 %EPARATII)1 )0 P)+ER%.
Also$ there is undue delegation of
legislative power to the offi'ers "entioned
therein &Dire'tor of Ani"al Industr! and
Head of the 1ational 4eat Co""issionA
e'ause the! were given unli"ited
dis'retion in the distriution of the
propert! 'onfis'ated.
#. TAMICA. )PERAT)R% F%. .)T$
112 %CRA 92D
l. .A-TI%TA F%. 8-I1I)$ 1;D
%CRA :;2
MARY CONCEPCIONG:AUTISTA VS.
ALFREDO (UINIO' ET AL' +2. SCRA
*2,

0ernando$ C.8.
F/!t<D

1. )n 4a! :1$ 12D2$ President 4ar'os
issued *etter of Instru'tion 1o. >E2
prohiiting the use of private "otor
vehi'les with H &Heav! Fehi'lesA and EH
&E3tra Heav! Fehi'lesA on wee#-ends and
holida!s fro" 1;:CC a.". %aturda!
"orning to 9:CC a.". 4onda! "orning$ or
1:CC a.". of the holida! to 9:CC a.". of
the da! after the holida!. 4otor vehi'les of
the following 'lassifi'ations are however$
e3e"pted:
1. %----servi'e(
;. T----Tru'#(
:. DP*--Diplo"ati'(
<. CC---Consular Corps( and
9. TC---Tourist Cars
;. )n 8une 11$ 12D2$ the then
Co""issioner of *and Transportation$
R)4E) ED- issued Cir'ular 1o. :2
i"posing Ithe penalties of fine$
'onfis'ation of vehi'le and 'an'ellation of
registration on owners of the aove-
spe'ified found violating su'h letter of
Instru'tionsI(
:. .autista is 6uestioning the
'onstitutionalit! of the *)I and the
I"ple"enting Cir'ular on the grounds
that:
a. The anning of H and EH vehi'les is
unfair$ dis'ri"inator!$ and aritrar! and
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 9 9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
thus 'ontravenes the EN-A* PR)TECTI)1
C*A-%E( and
. The *)I denies the owners of H
and EH vehi'les of due pro'ess$ "ore
spe'ifi'all! of their right to use and en@o!
their private propert! and of their freedo"
to travel and hold fa"il! gatherings$
reunions$ outings on wee#-ends and
holida!s$ while those not in'luded in the
prohiition are en@o!ing unrestri'ted
freedo"(
'. The Cir'ular violates the
prohiition against undue delegation of
legislative power e'ause the *)I does
not i"pose the penalt! of 'onfis'ation.
HELDD

1. It "ust e pointed out that the
*)I was pro"ulgated to solve the oil 'risis
whi'h was esetting the 'ountr! at that
ti"e. It was therefore a valid poli'e power
"easure to ensures the 'ountr!Os
e'ono"! as a result of spiralling fuel
pri'es. In the interpla! of .autistaOs right
to due pro'ess and the e3er'ise of poli'e
power ! the %tate$ the latter "ust e
given leewa!. The poli'e power is intended
to pro"ote puli' health$ puli' "orals$
puli' safet! and general welfare.
;. The petitionersO 'lai" that their
right to e6ual prote'tion was violated is
without asis. This is so e'ause there is a
valid 'lassifi'ation in this 'ase. Definitel!$
Heav! and E3tra-Heav! vehi'les 'onsu"e
"ore gasoline that the other #inds of
vehi'les and it is ut proper to regulate
the use of those whi'h 'onsu"es "ore
gasoline. If all the owner of H and EH
vehi'les are treated in the sa"e fashion$
or whatever restri'tions 'ast on so"e in
the group is held e6uall! inding on the
rest$ there is no violation of the e6ual
prote'tion 'lause.
:. The penalt! of "impounding"
the vehi'le as e"odied in Cir'ular 1o. :2
has no statutor! asis. Therefore$ it is not
valid eing an Iultra viresI.
". A%%)CIATI)1 )0 %4A**
*A1D)+1ER% F%. %ECRETARG )0
A/RARIA1 RE0)R4$ 1D9 %CRA :<:
n. DEC% F%. %A1 DIE/)$ 1>C
%CRA 9::
o. FI**A1-EFA F%. CA%TA1EDA$
%epte"er ;1$ 12>D
9-a. 1ot a valid e3er'ise of poli'e power
CITG /)FER14E1T )0 N-EB)1
CITG F%. ERICTA$ 1;; %CRA D92
CHAPTER IIDUE PROCESS
S"!to3 +GGGNO PERSON SHALL :E
DEPRIVED OF LIFE' LI:ERTY OR
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW' NOR SHALL ANY PERSON :E
DENIED EEUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS.
Pinds of Due Pro'ess:
a. sustantive due pro'ess---re6uires the
intrinsi' validit! of the law in interfering
with the rights of the person to life$ liert!
or propert!. In short$ it is to deter"ine
whether it has a valid govern"ental
o@e'tive li#e for the interest of the puli'
as against "ere parti'ular 'lass.
. Pro'edural due pro'ess---one whi'h
hears efore it 'onde"ns as pointed out
! Daniel +ester.
Due pro'ess is a law whi'h hears efore it
'onde"ns$ whi'h pro'eeds upon in6uir!
and renders @udg"ent onl! after trial &Per
Daniel +ester in the DARTMOUTH
COLLEGE CASE%
1. Re6uisites of 5@udi'ial due pro'ess7.
/. :ANCO ESPANOL VS.
PALANCA' *. P1l. ,2+
R"H)<t"<D
1. There "ust e an i"partial
'ourt or triunal 'lothed with @udi'ial
power to hear and de'ide the "atter
efore it(
;. 8urisdi'tion "ust e lawfull!
a'6uired over the person of the defendant
or over the propert! su@e't of the
pro'eedings(
:. The defendant "ust e given
the opportunit! to e heard(
<. 8udg"ent "ust e rendered
onl! after lawful hearing.
a. GALMAN VS. PAMARAN &the 1
st
'aseA
. I4E*DA 4ARC)% F%.
%A1DI/A1.AGA1$ )'toer E$ 122>
I4E*DA R. 4ARC)% F%.
%A1DI/A1.AGA1$ /.R. 1o. 1;E229$
)'toer E$ 122>
Purisi"a$ 8.
0a'ts:
1. )n 8une >$ 12><$ I4E*DA 4ARC)%
and 8)%E DA1%$ as Chair"an and Fi'e
Chair"an of the *ight Railwa! Transit
Authorit! &*RTAA entered into a *ease
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8 8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
Contra't with the Philippine /eneral
Hospital 0oundation &P/H0IA involving an
*RTA propert! in Pasa! Cit! for
P1C;$DEC.CC per "onth for ;9 !ears(
;. )n 8une ;D$12><$ the P/H0I suleased
the said propert! for PD:<$CCC.CC per
"onth to the Transnational Constru'tion
Corporation represented ! one Igna'io
8u"ene?(
:. After petitioner=s husand was
deposed as President of the Philippines$
she and Dans were 'harged of alleged
violation of %e'tion : KgL of RA :C12$
otherwise #nown as the Anti-/raft and
Corrupt Pra'ti'es A't efore the
%andigana!an(
<. After trial $ the 0irst Division of the
%andigana!an failed to 'o"pl! with the
legal re6uire"ent that all the : @usti'es
"ust e unani"ous in its De'ision
e'ause 8usti'e /ar'hitorena and 8usti'e
8ose .ala@adia voted for the 'onvi'tion of
oth a''used while 8usti'e 1ar'iso Atien?a
voted to a'6uit the"(
9. Thereafter$ 8usti'e /ar'hitorena as
Presiding 8usti'e issued Ad"inistrative
)rder 1o. ;>>-2: 'onstituting a %pe'ial
Division of five and designating 8usti'es
Augusto A"ores and Cipriano del Rosario(
E. )n %epte"er ;1$ 122:$ 8usti'e
A"ores wrote 8usti'e /ar'hitorena that he
e given 19 da!s his 4anifestation. )n the
sa"e date$ however$ 8usti'e /ar'hitorena
dissolved the division of 9 allegedl!
e'ause he and 8usti'e .ala@adia had
agreed to the opinion of 8usti'e del
Rosario(
D. )n %epte"er ;<$ 122:$ a De'ision
was rendered 'onvi'ting the petitioner
and Dans of violation of %e'. : KgL of RA
:C12(
>. )n 8une ;2$ 122>$ the Third Division
of the %upre"e Court ! a vote of :-;
affir"ed the 'onvi'tion of the petitioner
ut a'6uitted DA1%(
2. Petitioner then filed a 4otion for
Re'onsideration and at the sa"e ti"e
pra!ed that her 4otion e heard ! the
%upre"e Court en an' 'lai"ing that her
right to due pro'ess of law$ oth
sustantive and pro'edural$ was violated:
a. as a result of the fa't that she
was 'onvi'ted as a result of the alleged
disparit! of the rentals agreed upon with
P/H0I and the suse6uent su-lease
'ontra't etween P/H0I and Transnational
Constru'tion Corporation( and
. the 0irst Division 'onvi'ted her
after 8usti'e /ar'hitorena dissolved the
%pe'ial Division of 9 after a lun'h in a
Nue?on Cit! restaurant where the! agreed
to 'onvi't her in one 'ase and a'6uit her
in her other 'ases. The said "eeting was
attended ! another @usti'e who is not a
"e"er of the 0irst Division or the %pe'ial
Division in violation of the Rules of the
%andigana!an whi'h re6uires that
sessions of the 'ourt shall e done onl! in
its prin'ipal offi'e in 4anila and that onl!
@usti'es elonging to the division should
@oin the delierations.
H"l5D
The petitioner is here! a'6uitted.
1. The great disparit! etween the rental
pri'e of the lease agree"ent signed !
the petitioner &P1C;$DEC.CC per "onthA
and the su-lease rental &PD:<$CCC.CC per
"onthA does not ne'essaril! render the
"onthl! rate of P1C;$DEC.CC "anifestl!
and grossl! disadvantageous to the
govern"ent in the asen'e of an!
eviden'e using rentals of ad@a'ent
properties showing that the rentals in the
propert! su@e't of the lease agree"ent
is indeed ver! low. 1) EFIDE1CE
+HAT%)EFER +A% PRE%E1TED .G THE
PR)%EC-TI)1 RE/ARDI1/ THE RE1TA*
RATE )0 AD8ACE1T PR)PERTIE%.. As
su'h$ the prose'ution failed to prove the
guilt of the petitioner reasonale dout.
;. The 'ourt notes li#ewise the ias and
pre@udi'e of Presiding 8usti'e /ar'hitorena
against the petitioner as shown ! his
leading$ "isleading and aseless
h!potheti'al 6uestions of said @usti'e to
RA4)1 0. C-ERF)$ witness for the
petitioner. %aid @usti'e as#ed 1D2
6uestions to the witness as against the
prose'utor who 'ross-e3a"ined the
witness whi'h was D:. %aid nu"er of
6uestions 'ould no longer e des'ried as
5'larifi'ator! 6uestions7. Another ground
therefore for the a'6uittal of the petitioner
is that she was denied I4PARTIA* TRIA*
efore the %andigana!an. This is one
reason wh! the 'ase 'ould no longer e
re"anded to the %andigana!an
espe'iall! so that the other
%andigana!an 8usti'es in the %pe'ial
Division of 9 have retired. There is
therefore no 'o"pelling reason wh! the
'ase should still e re"anded to the lower
'ourt when all the eviden'e are alread!
with the %upre"e Court.
&1)TE: The vote was 2-9 for A'6uittal. C8
1arvasa$ 8usti'es Regalado$ Davide$ 8r.$
Ro"ero$ and Panganian voted for
'onvi'tion while 8usti'e Fitug was the onl!
8usti'e who voted for the return of the
'ase to the %andigana!an 5to allow the
'orre'tions of the per'eived Qirregularities=
in the pro'eedings elow.A
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW - -
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
!. D:P VS. CA' (/3)/$y 2,'
+,,,
5. MATUGUINA VS. CA' 2-*
SCRA 9,0
". PEOPLE VS. CA' 2-2 SCRA
982
4. (AVIER VS. COMELEC' +99
SCRA +,9
(AVIER VS. COMELEC
/.R. 1o.*- E>:D2->1;$ %epte"er
;;$ 12>E
FACTSD
1. The petitioner Evelio 8avier and the
private respondent Arturo Pa'ifi'ador were
'andidates in Anti6ue for the .atasang
Pa"ansa ele'tion in 4a! 12><(
2. All"232 <"$o)< /3o0/l"< 3 t1"
!o35)!t o4 t1" "l"!to3< /35 t1"
!/36/<< o4 t1" "l"!to3 $"t)$3<' (/6"$
#"3t to t1" COMELEC to &$"6"3t t1"
0&"3532 &$o!l/0/to3 o4 1< $6/l7
:. )n 4a! 1>$ 12><$ the %e'ond Division
of the C)4E*EC dire'ted the provin'ial
oard of 'anvassers to pro'eed with the
'anvass ut to suspend the pro'la"ation
of the winning 'andidate until further
orders(
<. )n 8une D$ 12><$ the sa"e %e'ond
Division ordered the oard to i""ediatel!
'onvene and to pro'lai" the winner
without pre@udi'e to the out'o"e of the
petition filed ! 8avier with the C)4E*EC(
9. )n 'ertiorari with the %.C. the
pro'la"ation "ade ! the .oard of
Canvasser was set aside as pre"ature$
having een "ade efore the lapse of the
9 - da! period of appeal$ whi'h the
petitioner seasonal! "ade(
E. )n 8ul! ;:$ 12>< the %e'ond Division
itself pro'lai"ed Pa'ifi'ador the ele'ted
asse"l!"an of Anti6ue.
ISSUE:
+as the %e'ond Division of the
C)4E*EC$ authori?ed to pro"ulgate its
de'ision of 8ul! ;:$ 12>< pro'lai"ing
Pa'ifi'ador the winner in the ele'tion J
APP*ICA.*E PR)FI%I)1% )0 THE
C)1%IT-TI)1:
The appli'ale provisions of the 12D:
Constitution are Art. MII-C$ se's. ; and :$
whi'h provide:
I%e'tion ;. .e the sole @udge of all
'ontests relating to the ele'tion$ returns
and 6ualifi'ations of all "e"ers of the
.atasang Pa"ansa and ele'tive
provin'ial and 'it! offi'ials.I
I%e'tion :. The Co""ission on
Ele'tions "a! sit en an' or in three
divisions. All ele'tion 'asesa "a! e heard
and de'ided ! divisions e3'ept 'ontests
involving "e"ers of the .atasang
Pa"ansa$ whi'h shall e heard and
de'ided en an'. -nless otherwise
provided ! law$ all ele'tion 'ases shall e
de'ided within ninet! da!s fro" the date
of their su"ission for de'ision.I
C)1TE1TI)1% )0 THE PARTIE%:
Petitioner:
The pro'la"ation "ade ! the %e'ond
Division is invalid e'ause all 'ontests
involving "e"ers of the .atasang
Pa"ansa 'o"e under the @urisdi'tion of
the Co""ission on Ele'tions "3 ;/3!.
Respondents:
)nl! I'ontestsI need to e heard and
de'ided "3 ;/3!' /ll ot1"$ !/<"< !/3 ;"
G 3 4/!t' <1o)l5 ;" G 4l"5 #t1 /35
5"!5"5 o3ly ;y /3y o4 t1" t1$""
56<o3<.
There is a differen'e etween
I'ontestsI and I'asesI and also a
differen'e etween Ipre-pro'la"ation
'ontroversiesI and Iele'tion protestsI. The
pre-pro'la"ation 'ontrovers! etween the
petitioner and the private respondent was
not !et a 'ontest at the ti"e and
therefore 'ould e validl! heard ! a "ere
division of the Co""ission on ele'tions$
'onsonant with %e'. :. The issue at that
stage was still ad"inistrative and 'ould e
resolved ! a division.
HELD:
a. The %.C. de'ided to resolve the 'ase
even if the .atasang Pa"ansa had
alread! een aolished ! the A6uino
govern"ent$ and even if 8avier had
alread! died in the "eanti"e. This was
e'ause of its desire for this 'ase to serve
as a guidan'e for the future. Thus it said:
IThe %upre"e Court is not onl! the
highest ariter of legal 6uestions ut also
the 'ons'ien'e of the govern"ent. The
'iti?en 'o"es to us in 6uest of law ut we
"ust also give hi" @usti'e. The two are
not alwa!s the sa"e. There are ti"es
when we 'annot grant the latter e'ause
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW . .
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
the issue has een settled and de'ision is
no longer possile a''ording to law. .ut
there are also ti"es when although the
dispute has disappeared$ as in this 'ase$ it
nevertheless 'ries out to e resolved.
8usti'e de"ands that we a't$ then$ not
onl! for the vindi'ation of the outraged
right$ though gone$ ut also for the
guidan'e of and as a restraint upon the
future.I
. The %.C. held on the "ain issue that
in "a#ing the C)4E*EC the sole @udge of
all 'ontests involving the ele'tion$ returns
and 6ualifi'ations of the "e"ers of the
.atasang Pa"ansa and ele'tive
provin'ial and 'it! offi'ials$ the
Constitution intended to give it full
authorit! to hear and de'ide these 'ases
fro" eginning to end and on all "atter
related thereto$ in'luding those arising
efore the pro'la"ation of the winners.
The de'ision rendered ! the %e'ond
Division alone was therefore set aside as
violative of the Constitution. The 'ase
should have een de'ided "3 ;/3!.
'. Pre-pro'la"ation 'ontroversies
e'a"e #nown and designated as su'h
onl! e'ause of %e'. 1D9 of the 12D>
Ele'tion Code. The 12D: Constitution
'ould not have therefore een intended to
have divided 'ontests etween pre and
post pro'la"ation when that Constitution
was written in 12D:.
d. The word I'ontestsI should not e
given a restri'tive "eaning( on the
'ontrar!$ it should re'eive the widest
possile s'ope 'onfor"al! to the rule
that the words used in the Constitution
should e interpreted lierall!. As
e"plo!ed in the 12D: Constitution$ the
ter" should e understood as referring to
an! "atter involving the title or 'lai" of
title to an ele'tive offi'e$ "ade efore or
after the pro'la"ation of the winner$
whether or not the 'ontestant is 'lai"ing
the offi'e in dispute.
e. There was also a denial of due
pro'ess. )ne of the "e"ers of the
%e'ond Division$ Co""issioner 8ose
)pinion was a law partner of Pa'ifi'ador.
He denied the "otion to dis6ualif! hi"
fro" hearing the 'ase. The Court has
repeatedl! and 'onsistentl! de"anded
Ithe 'old neutralit! of an i"partial @udgeI
as the indispensale i"perative of due
pro'ess. To olster that re6uire"ent we
have held that the @udge "ust not onl! e
i"partial ut "ust also appear to e
i"partial as an added assuran'e to the
parties that his de'ision will e @ust.
0E*ICIA1) and 4E*E1CI)-HERRERA'
!o3!)$$32D

All ele'tion 'ontests involving
"e"ers of the .atasang Pa"ansa "ust
e de'ided ! the Co""ission on
Ele'tions en an' under %e's. ; and : of
Art. MII-C of the 12D: Constitution. These
se'tions do not distinguish etween Ipre-
pro'la"ationI and Ipost-pro'la"ationI
'ontests nor etween I'asesI and
I'ontestsI.
2. A?UL VS. CASTRO' +** SCRA
2.+
1. PADERANGA VS. A?URA'
+*- SCRA 2--
. DAVID VS. AEUILI?AN' ,9
SCRA .0.
B. LOREN?ANA VS. CAYETANO'
.8 SCRA 988 ($"<&o35"3t #/< 3ot /
&/$ty to t1" "B"!t0"3t !/<"% <o to
"34o$!" t1" 5"!<o3 o3 1"$ 6ol/t"<
1"$ $21t to 5)" &$o!"<< o4 l/#
I. ?AM:ALES CHROMITE
MINING VS. CA' ,9 SCRA 2-+
l. AN?ALDO VS. CLAVE' ++,
SCRA *8*
0. SINGSON VS. NLRC' 2.*
SCRA 288
3. AN?ALDO VS. CLAVE' ++,
SCRA *8*
o. MAYOR ALONTE VS. (UDGE
SAVELLANO' 28. SCRA 298
4AG)R .AGA1I A*)1TE F%. 8-D/E
%AFE**A1)$ ;>D %CRA ;<9
Fitug$ 8.
4a!or Alonte of .inan$ *aguna was
'harged of rape efore .ran'h ;9$ RTC of
*aguna. However$ as a result of a petition
for a transfer of venue filed ! the
prose'ution and granted ! the %C$ his
'ase was transferred to RTC .ran'h 9:$
4anila$ presided over ! the respondent
@udge.
After the petitioner=s arraign"ent$ the
prose'ution su"itted an A00IDAFIT )0
DE%I%TA1CE signed ! the private
'o"plainant 8-FIE-*G1 P-1)1/.AGA1
where she pra!ed for the withdrawal of
the 'ase e'ause she is no longer
interested in pursuing the sa"e with no
intention of re-filing the said 'ase in the
future.
Pending resolution of the said "otion to
withdraw$ the petitioner filed a "otion for
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8 8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
ail. The sa"e was not resolved despite
several "otions filed ! the petitioner to
resolve the sa"e.
)n De'e"er 1D$ 122D$ 'ounsel for the
petitioner$ ATTG. PHI*IP %I/0RID 0)RT-1$
re'eived a noti'e fro" the respondent
@udge notif!ing hi" of the pro"ulgation of
the de'ision in this 'ase despite the fa't
that the prose'ution and the defense have
not presented their eviden'e in 'ourt.
)n De'e"er 1>$ 122D$ the respondent
@udge issued a De'ision 'onvi'ting the
petitioner of rape and senten'ed to suffer
a penalt! of REC*-%I)1 PERPET-A.
Issue:
+hether or not the petitioner was denied
his right to due pro'ess of law.
Held:
In order that an a''used in a 'ri"inal
pro'eedings is dee"ed to have een given
the right to due pro'ess of law$ the
following re6uisites "ust e 'o"plied with
efore a de'ision is rendered:
1. the 'ourt or triunal tr!ing the
'ase is 'lothed with @urisdi'tion to hear
and deter"ine the "atter efore it(
;. that @urisdi'tion was lawfull!
a'6uired ! it over the person of the
a''used(
:. that the a''used is given the
opportunit! to e heard( and
<. that @udg"ent is rendered onl!
upon lawful hearing &PE)P*E F%.
DAPITA1$ 12D %CRA :D>A
The a't of the respondent @udge in
rendering a de'ision without even giving
the petitioner the right to addu'e eviden'e
in his ehalf is a gross violation of his
right to due pro'ess of law. The De'ision
rendered is 1-** A1D F)ID for want of
due pro'ess.
p. D.P F%. CA$ 8anuar! ;2$ 1222
;. Pro'edural due pro'ess efore
ad"inistrative odies
a. TI.AG F%. CIR$ E2 Phil. E:9
Re6uisites:
/. t1" $21t to / 1"/$32 #1!1
3!l)5"< t1" $21t to &$"<"3t
"65"3!"7
;. t1" t$;)3/l 0)<t !o3<5"$
t1" "65"3!" &$"<"3t"57
!. t1" 5"!<o3 0)<t 1/6"
<o0"t132 to <)&&o$t t<"l47
5. t1" "65"3!" 0)<t ;"
<);<t/3t/l7
". t1" 5"!<o3 0)<t ;" ;/<"5
o3 t1" "65"3!" &$"<"3t"5 5)$32 t1"
1"/$327
4. t1" t$;)3/l o$ ;o5y 0)<t
/!t o3 t< o#3 35"&"35"3t
!o3<5"$/to3 o4 t1" l/# o$ 4/!t<7
2. t1" ;o/$5 o$ ;o5y <1/ll 3 /ll
!o3t$o6"$</l H)"<to3<' $"35"$ t<
5"!<o3 3 <)!1 / 0/33"$ t1/t t1"
&/$t"< to t1" &$o!""532< !/3 I3o#
t1" 6/$o)< <<)"< 36ol6"5.
. A4ERICA1 T).ACC) F%.
DIRECT)R$ ED %CRA ;>D
'. 4A1I*A E*ECTRIC C)4PA1G
F%. 1*RC$ ;E: %CRA 9:1
d. DE*/AD) F%. CA$ 1ove"er
1C$ 12>E
I4 /3 /!!)<"5 #/< $"&$"<"3t"5
;y / 3o3Gl/#y"$ 5)$32 t1" t$/l
(t1o)21 1" t1o)21t t1/t 1" #/< /
l/#y"$%' 1< $21t to 5)" &$o!"<< #/<
6ol/t"5 /35 t1"$"4o$" "3ttl"5 to /
3"# t$/l.
:. Pro'edural due pro'ess in
dis'iplinar! a'tions against students
A'ade"i' freedo"( due pro'ess in
dis'iplinar! a'tions involving students
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY VS. COURT
OF APPEALS' HON.WILFREDO D.
REYES' 3 1< !/&/!ty /< P$"<532
()52" o4 :$/3!1 *-' R"2o3/l T$/l
Co)$t o4 M/3l/' THE COMMISSION ON
HIGHER EDUCATION' THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
CULTURE AND SPORTS' ALVIN
AGUILAR' (AMES PAUL :UNGU:UNG'
RICHARD REVERENTE /35 RO:ERTO
VALDES' (R.' G.R. No. +2.,80'
D"!"0;"$ +,' 200.
REYES' R.T.' J.D
THE FACTSD

PRIFATE respondents Alvin Aguilar$
8a"es Paul .unguung$ Ri'hard Reverente
and Roerto Faldes$ 8r. are "e"ers of
Tau /a""a Phi 0raternit! who were
e3pelled ! the De *a %alle -niversit!
&D*%-A and College of %aint .enilde
&C%.A
1K1L
8oint Dis'ipline .oard e'ause of
1K1L
College of %aint .enilde is an
edu'ational institution whi'h is part of the
De *a %alle %!ste".
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW , ,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
their involve"ent in an offensive a'tion
'ausing in@uries to petitioner 8a"es Gap
and three other student "e"ers of
Do"ino *u3 0raternit!.
)n 4ar'h ;2$ 1229$ 8a"es Gap
was eating his dinner alone in 4anang=s
Restaurant near *a %alle$ when he
overheard two "en ad-"outhing and
apparentl! angr! at Do"ino *u3. He
ignored the 'o""ents of the two. +hen
he arrived at his oarding house$ he
"entioned the re"ar#s to his two other
rods while wat'hing television. These two
rods had earlier finished eating their
dinner at 4anang=s. Then$ the three$
together with four other persons went
a'# to 4anang=s and 'onfronted the two
who were still in the restaurant. .!
ad"ission of respondent .unguung in his
testi"on!$ one of the two was a "e"er
of the Tau /a""a Phi 0raternit!. There
was no ru"le or ph!si'al violen'e then.
After this in'ident$ a "eeting was
'ondu'ted etween the two heads of the
fraternit! through the inter'ession of the
%tudent Coun'il. The Tau /a""a Phi
0raternit! was as#ing for an apolog!.
5Kailangan ng apolog!7 in the words of
respondent Aguilar. .ut no apolog! was
"ade.
)n 4ar'h ;9$ 1229$ Ten "inutes efore
his ne3t 'lass at E:CC p.".$ 8a"es Gap
went out of the 'a"pus using the
Engineering /ate to u! 'andies a'ross
Taft Avenue. As he was aout to re-'ross
Taft Avenue$ he heard heav! footsteps at
his a'#. Eight to ten gu!s were running
towards hi". He pani'#ed. He did not
#now what to do. Then$ respondent
.unguung pun'hed hi" in the head with
so"ething heav! in his hands R 5parang
#nu'#les.7 Respondents Reverente and
*ee were ehind Gap$ pun'hing hi".
Respondents .unguung and Faldes who
were in front of hi"$ were also pun'hing
hi". As he was l!ing on the street$
respondent Aguilar #i'#ed hi". People
shouted( guards arrived( and the group of
atta'#ers left. Gap 'ould not re'ogni?e the
other "e"ers of the group who atta'#ed
hi". +ith respe't to respondent Papio$
4r. Gap said 5hindi ko nakita ang mukha
niya, hindi ko nakita sumuntok siya.7
+hat 4r. Gap saw was a long haired gu!
also running with the group.
The "auling in'idents were a result of a
fraternit! war. The vi'ti"s$ na"el!:
petitioner 8a"es Gap and Dennis Pas'ual$
Eri'son Cano$ and 4i'hael Pere?$ are
"e"ers of the 5Do"ino *u3 0raternit!$7
while the alleged assailants$ private
respondents Alvin Aguilar$ 8a"es Paul
.unguung$ Ri'hard Reverente and
Roerto Faldes$ 8r. are "e"ers of 5Tau
/a""a Phi 0raternit!$7 a rival fraternit!.
The ne3t da!$ 4ar'h :C$ 1229$ petitioner
Gap lodged a 'o"plaint
;KDL
with the
Dis'ipline .oard of D*%- 'harging private
respondents with 5dire't assault.7 %i"ilar
'o"plaints
:K>L
were also filed ! Dennis
Pas'ual and Eri'son Cano against Alvin
*ee and private respondents Faldes and
Reverente. Thus$ 'ases entitled 5De La
Salle University and College of St. Benilde
v. Alvin Aguilar (ABBS!"#$%&$'%(,
)ames *aul Bungu+ung (AB
*S!"#&,--',(, .o+ert .. /aldes, )r. (BS
BSA*!"#&,%'01(, Alvin Lee
(2DD"#-1&,&%(, .i3hard .everente (AB
!45"#$%,0,6( and !alvin A. *apio (AB
!45"#&%$&&6(7 were do'#eted as
Dis'ipline Case 1o. 2<29-:-;91;1.
The Dire'tor of the D*%- Dis'ipline )ffi'e
sent separate noti'es to private
respondents Aguilar$ .unguung and
Faldes$ 8r. and Reverente infor"ing the"
of the 'o"plaints and re6uiring the" to
answer. Private respondents filed their
respe'tive answers.
<K2L
%aid noti'es issued ! De *a %alle
Dis'ipline .oard unifor"l! stated as
follows:
*lease +e informed that a 7oint and
e8panded Dis3ipline Board had +een
3onstituted to hear and deli+erate the
3harge against you for violation of C92D
:rder ;o. - arising from the <ritten
3omplaints of )ames =ap, Dennis C.
*as3ual, and 2ri3son =. Cano.
=ou are dire3ted to appear at the hearing
of the Board s3heduled on April $#, $##%
at #>'' a.m. at the Bro. Connon 9all for
you and your <itnesses to give testimony
and present eviden3e in your +ehalf. =ou
may +e assisted +y a la<yer <hen you
give your testimony or those of your
<itnesses.
:n or +efore April $0, $##%, you are
further dire3ted to provide the Board,
through the Dis3ipline :ffi3e, <ith a list of
your <itnesses as <ell as the s<orn
statement of their proposed testimony.
=our failure to appear at the s3heduled
hearing or your failure to su+mit the list
of <itnesses and the s<orn statement of
2KDL
Id. at 1;D.
3K>L
Id. at 1;>-1;2.
4K2L
Id. at 1:C-1::.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +0 +0
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
their proposed testimony <ill +e
3onsidered a <aiver on your part to
present eviden3e and as an admission of
the prin3ipal a3t 3omplained of.
During the pro'eedings efore the .oard
on April 12 and ;>$ 1229$ private
respondents interposed the 'o""on
defense of alii. 1o full-lown hearing was
'ondu'ted nor the students allowed to
'ross-e3a"ine the witnesses against
the".
)n 4a! :$ 1229$ the D*%--C%. 8oint
Dis'ipline .oard issued a Resolution
9K1>L
finding private respondents guilt!. The!
were "eted the supre"e penalt! of
auto"ati' e3pulsion$
EK12L
pursuant to CHED
)rder 1o. <.
DK;CL
The dispositive part of
the resolution reads:
+HERE0)RE$ 'onsidering all the
foregoing$ the .oard finds respondents
A*FI1 A/-I*AR &A.-.%4,219;1C9A$
8A4E% PA-* .-1/-.-1/ &A.-
P%4,2;:<<C:A$ A*FI1 *EE
&EDD,2<E;:;9CA and RICHARD F.
REFERE1TE &A.-4/T,219:>:DA guilt! of
having violated CHED )rder 1o. < and
there! orders their auto"ati' e3pulsion.
In the 'ase of respondent 4A*FI1 A.
PAPI) &A.-4/T,2;91;;DA$ the .oard
a'6uits hi" of the 'harge.
5K1>L
Id. at 1:2-19C.
6K12L
4anual of Regulations for Private
%'hools &122;A$ %e'. DD&'A provides that
"A&)l<o3 is 5an e3tre"e penalt! of an
erring pupil or student 'onsisting of his
e3'lusion fro" ad"ission to an! puli' or
private s'hool in the Philippines and whi'h
re6uires the prior approval of the
%e'retar!. The penalt! "a! e i"posed
for a'ts or offenses 'onstituting gross
"is'ondu't$ dishonest!$ ha?ing$ 'arr!ing
deadl! weapons$ i""oralit!$ selling
and,or possession of prohiited drugs
su'h as "ari@uana$ drug dependen'!$
drun#enness$ hooliganis"$ vandalis"$ and
other serious s'hool offenses su'h as
assaulting a pupil or student or s'hool
personnel$ instigating or leading illegal
stri#es or si"ilar 'on'erned a'tivities
resulting in the stoppage of 'lasses$
preventing or threatening an! pupil or
student or s'hool personnel fro" entering
the s'hool pre"ises or attending 'lasses
or dis'harging their duties$ forging or
ta"pering with s'hool re'ords or s'hool
for"s$ and se'uring or using forged s'hool
re'ords$ for"s and do'u"ents.7
7K;CL
.ollo, pp. 191-19:.
I S S U E
+ere private respondents a''orded due
pro'ess of law e'ause there was no full-
lown hearing nor were the! allowed to
'ross-e3a"ine the witnesses against
the"J
H E L DD

P$6/t" $"<&o35"3t<J $21t to 5)"
&$o!"<< o4 l/# #/< 3ot 6ol/t"5.

In ad"inistrative 'ases$ su'h as
investigations of students found violating
s'hool dis'ipline$ 5KtLhere are withal
"ini"u" standards whi'h "ust e "et
efore to satisf! the de"ands of
pro'edural due pro'ess and these are:
that &1A the students "ust e infor"ed in
writing of the nature and 'ause of an!
a''usation against the"( &;A the! shall
have the right to answer the 'harges
against the" and with the assistan'e if
'ounsel$ if desired( &:A the! shall e
infor"ed of the eviden'e against the"(
&<A the! shall have the right to addu'e
eviden'e in their own ehalf( and &9A the
eviden'e "ust e dul! 'onsidered ! the
investigating 'o""ittee or offi'ial
designated ! the s'hool authorities to
hear and de'ide the 'ase.7
>KEEL
+here a part! was afforded an
opportunit! to parti'ipate in the
pro'eedings ut failed to do so$ he 'annot
'o"plain of deprivation of due pro'ess.
2KEDL
1oti'e and hearing is the ulwar# of
ad"inistrative due pro'ess$ the right to
whi'h is a"ong the pri"ar! rights that
"ust e respe'ted even in ad"inistrative
pro'eedings.
1CKE>L
The essen'e of due
pro'ess is si"pl! an opportunit! to e
heard$ or as applied to ad"inistrative
pro'eedings$ an opportunit! to e3plain
one=s side or an opportunit! to see#
re'onsideration of the a'tion or ruling
'o"plained of.
11KE2L
%o long as the part! is
given the opportunit! to advo'ate her
'ause or defend her interest in due
'ourse$ it 'annot e said that there was
denial of due pro'ess.
1;KDCL
8KEEL
4u?man v. ;ational University, /.R.
1o. *-E>;>>$ 8ul! 11$ 12>E$ 1<; %CRA
E22$ DCE-DCD.
9KEDL
Bautista v. Court of Appeals, /.R. 1o.
19D;12$ 4a! ;>$ ;CC<$ <:C %CRA :9:.
10KE>L
4lo+e 5ele3om, @n3. v. ;ational
5ele3ommuni3ations Commission, /.R.
1o. 1<:2E<$ 8ul! ;E$ ;CC<$ <:9 %CRA
11C.
11KE2L
/aliao v. Court of Appeals, /.R. 1o.
1<EE;1$ 8ul! :C$ ;CC<$ <:9 %CRA 9<:.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++ ++
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
A for"al trial-t!pe hearing is not$ at all
ti"es and in all instan'es$ essential to due
pro'ess R it is enough that the parties are
given a fair and reasonale opportunit! to
e3plain their respe'tive sides of the
'ontrovers! and to present supporting
eviden'e on whi'h a fair de'ision 'an e
ased.
1:KD1L
5To e heard7 does not onl!
"ean presentation of testi"onial eviden'e
in 'ourt R one "a! also e heard through
pleadings and where the opportunit! to e
heard through pleadings is a''orded$
there is no denial of due pro'ess.
1<KD;L
Private respondents were dul! infor"ed in
writing of the 'harges against the" ! the
D*%--C%. 8oint Dis'ipline .oard through
petitioner %ales. The! were given the
opportunit! to answer the 'harges against
the" as the!$ in fa't$ su"itted their
respe'tive answers. The! were also
infor"ed of the eviden'e presented
against the" as the! attended all the
hearings efore the .oard. 4oreover$
private respondents were given the right
to addu'e eviden'e on their ehalf and
the! did. *astl!$ the Dis'ipline .oard
'onsidered all the pie'es of eviden'e
su"itted to it ! all the parties efore
rendering its resolution in Dis'ipline Case
1o. 2<29-:-;91;1.
Private respondents 'annot 'lai" that
the! were denied due pro'ess when the!
were not allowed to 'ross-e3a"ine the
witnesses against the". This argu"ent
was alread! re@e'ted in 4u?man v.
;ational University
19KD:L
where this Court
held that 53 3 3 the i"position of
dis'iplinar! san'tions re6uires oservan'e
of pro'edural due pro'ess. And it ears
stressing that due pro'ess in dis'iplinar!
'ases involving students does not entail
pro'eedings and hearings si"ilar to those
pres'ried for a'tions and pro'eedings in
'ourts of @usti'e. The pro'eedings in
student dis'ipline 'ases "a! e su""ar!(
and 'ross e3a"ination is not$ 3 3 3 an
essential part thereof.7
GU?MAN VS. NU' +92 SCRA .0-
GU?MAN VS. NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY
12KDCL
Bar?a v. Dinglasan, )r., /.R. 1o.
1:E:9C$ )'toer ;9$ ;CC<$ <<1 %CRA
;DD.
13KD1L
Seastar !arine Servi3es, @n3. v. Bul
an, )r., /.R. 1o. 1<;EC2$ 1ove"er ;9$
;CC<$ <<< %CRA 1<C.
14KD;L
Batul v. Bayron, /.R. 1os. 19DE>D H
19>292$ 0eruar! ;E$ ;CC<$ <;< %CRA ;E.
15KD:L
%upra note EE$ at DCE.
/.R. 1o. *-E>;>>$ 8ul! 11$
12>E
FACTSD
Petitioners who are students of the
1ational -niversit! were arred fro"
enrol"ent. The s'hool 'lai"s that their
s'holasti' standing is poor and that the!
have een involved in a'tivities that have
disrupted 'lasses and had 'ondu'ted "ass
a'tions without the re6uired per"its.
HELDD
a. It is apparent that despite the
a''usations of alleged violations hurled !
the s'hool against the petitioners$ the fa't
is that it had never 'ondu'ted pro'eedings
of an! sort to deter"ine whether or not
petitioners-students had indeed led or
parti'ipated Iin a'tivities within the
universit! pre"ises$ 'ondu'ted without
prior per"it fro" s'hool authorities$ that
distured or disrupted 'lasses thereinI.
Also apparent is the o"ission of
respondents to 'ite an! dul! pulished
rule of theirs ! whi'h students "a! e
e3pelled or refused re-enroll"ent for poor
s'holasti' standing.
. -nder the Edu'ation A't of 12>;$
students have the right Ito freel! 'hoose
their field of stud! su@e't to e3isting
'urri'ula and to 'ontinue their 'ourse
therein up to graduation$ EMCEPT in 'ase
of a'ade"i' defi'ien'!$ or violation of
dis'iplinar! regulations.I
The petitioner were denied of this
right$ and were eing dis'iplined without
due pro'ess$ in violation of the ad"onition
in the 4anual of Regulations for Private
%'hools that Ino penalt! shall e i"posed
upon an! student e3'ept for 'ause as
defined in SSS &theA 4anuel and,or in the
s'hool rules and regulations as dul!
pro"ulgated and onl! after 5)"
36"<t2/to3 <1/ll 1/6" ;""3
!o35)!t"5. It 1/< /l$"/5y ;""3 1"l5 3
.erina vs. Philippine 4ariti"e Institute$
11D %CRA 9>1$ that it is illegal of a s'hool
to i"pose san'tions on students without
'ondu'ting due investigation.
'. )f 'ourse$ all s'hools have the power
to adopt and enfor'e its rules. In fa't the
"aintenan'e of good s'hool dis'ipline is a
dut! spe'ifi'all! en@oined on ever! private
s'hool. The 4anual of Regulations for
Private %'hools provides that:
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +2 +2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
IS S The s'hool rules governing
dis'ipline and the 'orresponding san'tions
therefor "ust e 'learl! spe'ified and
defined in writing and "ade #nown to the
students and,or their parents or
guardians. %'hools shall have the
authorit! and prerogative to pro"ulgate
su'h rules and regulations as the! "a!
dee" ne'essar! fro" ti"e to ti"e
effe'tive as of the date of their
pro"ulgation unless otherwise spe'ified.I
d. The i"position of dis'iplinar!
san'tions re6uires oservan'e of
pro'edural due pro'ess. Due pro'ess in
dis'iplinar! 'ases involving students :
a. need not entail pro'eedings and
hearing si"ilar to those pres'ried for
a'tions and pro'eedings in 'ourt of
@usti'e(
. the pro'eedings "a! e su""ar!(
'. 'ross-e3a"ination is not an
essential part thereof.
.ut the %.C. said that the following
"ini"u" standards "ust e "et to
satisf! the de"ands of pro'edural due
pro'ess:
1. the students "ust e infor"ed in
writing of the nature and 'ause of an!
a''usation against the"(
;. the! shall have the right to answer
the 'harges against the"$ with the
assistan'e of 'ounsel(
:. the! shall e infor"ed of the
eviden'e against the"(
<. the! shall have the right to addu'e
eviden'e in their own ehalf(
9. the eviden'e "ust e dul!
'onsidered ! the investigating 'o""ittee
or offi'ial designated ! the s'hool
authorities to hear and de'ide the 'ase.
a. .ERI1A F%. P4I$ %epte"er
:C$ 12>;

Due pro'ess in the dis"issal of
e"plo!ees
Re6uisites of Due Pro'ess efore
the 1*RC
1. 1oti'e( and
;. Hearing
a. 4// 4arine %ervi'es vs.
1*RC$ ;92 %CRA EE<
. Philippine %avings .an# vs.
1*RC$ ;E1 %CRA <C2
'. RAGC)R AIR C)1TR)* F%.
1*RC$ ;E1 %CRA 9>2
d. +A**E4 4ARITI4E %ERFICE%
F%. 1*RC$ ;E: %CRA 1D<
e. %A4I**A1) F%. 1*RC$ ;E9
%CRA D>>
f. %T)*T-1IE*%E1 F%. 1*RC$ ;E<
%CRA :CD
g. /ARCIA F%. 1*RC$ ;E< %CRA
;E1
<. Effe't of a 4otion for
Re'onsideration to violation of the right to
due pro'ess
a. CA%-E*A F%. )00ICE )0 THE
)4.-D%4A1$ ;DE %CRA E:9
. C)RDE1I**) F%. EMEC-TIFE
%ECRETARG$ ;DE %CRA E9;
9. In ad"inistrative pro'eedings$
does due pro'ess re6uire that a part! e
assisted ! 'ounsel and e ale to 'ross-
e3a"ine the witnessesJ
LUMIEUED VS. ECENEA' 282
SCRA +28
There is no law$ whether the Civil
%ervi'e A't or the Ad"inistrative Code of
12>D$ whi'h provides that a respondent in
an ad"inistrative 'ase should e assisted
! 'ounsel in order that the pro'eedings
therein is 'onsidered valid. 1ot onl!$ that$
petitioner herein was given the
opportunit! several ti"es to engage the
servi'es of a law!er to assist hi" ut he
'onfidentl! infor"ed the investigators that
he 'ould prote't hi"self.
A503<t$/t6" D)" P$o!"<<
ATTY. ROMEO ERECE VS. LYN
MACALINGAY' ET AL.' G.R. No.
+--80,' A&$l 22' 2008
THE FACTSD
Petitioner is the Regional Dire'tor of the
Co""ission on Hu"an Rights &CHRA
Region I$ whose offi'e is lo'ated in %an
0ernando Cit!$ *a -nion. Respondent
e"plo!ees of the CHR Region I filed an
Affidavit-Co"plaint dated )'toer ;$ 122>
against petitioner alleging that he denied
the" the use of the offi'e vehi'le assigned
to petitioner$ that petitioner still 'lai"ed
transportation allowan'e even if he was
using the said vehi'le$ and that he
'ertified that he did not use an!
govern"ent vehi'le$ when in fa't he did$
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +* +*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
in order to 'olle't transportation
allowan'e.
Respondent filed his answer den!ing the
allegations against hi".
After a fa't-finding investigation$ the C%C
Proper in C%C Resolution 1o. 22-1:EC
dated 8ul! 1$ 1222 'harged petitioner with
Dishonest! and /rave 4is'ondu't for
using a govern"ent vehi'le in spite of his
re'eipt of the "onthl! transportation
allowan'e and for 'ertif!ing that he did
not use an! govern"ent vehi'le$ when in
fa't$ he did$ in order to re'eive the
transportation allowan'e.
Pertinent portions of the for"al 'harge
read:
1. That despite the regular re'eipt of
Ere'e of his "onthl! Representation and
Transportation Allowan'e &RATAA in the
a"ount of P<$CCC.CC$ he still prioriti?es
hi"self in the use of the offi'e vehi'le
&Ta"araw 0MA in spite of the dire'tive
fro" the Central )ffi'e that he 'annot use
the servi'e vehi'le for offi'ial purposes
and at the sa"e ti"e re'eive his
transportation allowan'e(
;. That Ere'e did not 'o"pl! with the
dire'tive of the Central )ffi'e addressed to
all Regional Hu"an Rights Dire'tors$ as
follows: Qto regulari?e !our re'eipt of the
transportation allowan'e 'o"ponent of the
RATA to whi'h !ou are entitled "onthl!$
!ou are here! dire'ted to i""ediatel!
transfer to an! of !our staff$ preferal!
one of !our law!ers$ the "e"orandu"
re'eipt of the vehi'le&sA now still in !our
na"e(=
:. That he 'ertified in his "onthl!
li6uidation of his RATA that he did not use
an! govern"ent vehi'le for the
'orresponding "onth$ whi'h is not true
e'ause he is the regular user of the
govern"ent vehi'le issued to CHR-Region
I.
The foregoing fa'ts and 'ir'u"stan'es
indi'ate that govern"ent servi'e has een
pre@udi'ed ! the a'ts of Ere'e.
+HERE0)RE$ Ro"eo *. Ere'e is here!
for"all! 'harged with Dishonest! and
/rave 4is'ondu't. A''ordingl!$ he is
given five &9A da!s fro" re'eipt hereof to
su"it his Answer under oath and
affidavits of his witnesses$ if an!$ to the
Civil %ervi'e Co""ission-Cordillera
Ad"inistrative Region &C%C-CARA. )n his
Answer$ he should indi'ate whether he
ele'ts a for"al investigation or waives his
right thereto. An! 4otion to Dis"iss$
re6uest for 'larifi'ation or .ills of
Parti'ulars shall not e entertained ! the
Co""ission. An! of these pleadings
interposed ! the respondent shall e
'onsidered as an Answer and shall e
evaluated as su'h. *i#ewise$ he is advised
of his right to the assistan'e of 'ounsel of
his 'hoi'e.
1EK<L

After a for"al investigation of the 'ase$
the C%C issued Resolution 1o. C;C1;<$
dated 8anuar! ;<. ;CC;$ finding petitioner
guilt! of dishonest! and 'ondu't
pre@udi'ial to the est interest of the
servi'e and penali?ing hi" with dis"issal
fro" the servi'e.
Petitioner filed a petition for review of the
C%C Resolution with the CA.
In the De'ision pro"ulgated on 8anuar! D$
;CC9$ the CA upheld the C%C Resolution$
the dispositive portion of whi'h reads:
WHEREFORE$ in view of the foregoing$
the petition is DENIED and the assailed
Resolutions of the Civil %ervi'e
Co""ission are here! AFFIRMED.
1DK9L
Hen'e$ this petition.
I S S U ED
Petitioner raised the issue of violation of
his right to due pro'ess e'ause he was
denied the right to 'ross-e3a"ine the
respondents on their affidavit-'o"plaint.
H E L DD
Petitioner 'ontends that he was denied
due pro'ess as he was not afforded the
right to 'ross-e3a"ine his a''users and
their witnesses. He stated that at his
instan'e$ in order to prevent dela! in the
disposition of the 'ase$ he was allowed to
present eviden'e first to support the
allegations in his Counter-Affidavit. After
he rested his 'ase$ respondents did not
present their eviden'e$ ut "oved to
su"it their position paper and for"al
offer of eviden'e$ whi'h "otion was
granted ! the C%C over his &petitioner=sA
o@e'tion. Respondents then su"itted
their Position Paper and 0or"al )ffer of
E3hiits.
Petitioner su"its that although he was
allowed to present eviden'e first$ it should
16K<L
@d. at :9-:E.
17K9L
@d. at :<.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +9 +9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
not e 'onstrued as a waiver of his right
to 'ross-e3a"ine the 'o"plainants.
Although the order of presentation of
eviden'e was not in 'onfor"it! with the
pro'edure$ still petitioner should not e
dee"ed to have lost his right to 'ross-
e3a"ine his a''users and their witnesses.
This "a! e allowed onl! if he e3pressl!
waived said right.
The Court agrees with the CA that
petitioner was not denied due pro'ess
when he failed to 'ross-e3a"ine the
'o"plainants and their witnesses sin'e he
was given the opportunit! to e heard and
present his eviden'e. In ad"inistrative
pro'eedings$ the essen'e of due pro'ess is
si"pl! the opportunit! to e3plain one=s
side.
1>KEL
/ele? v. De /era
12KDL
held:
Due pro'ess of law in ad"inistrative 'ases
is not identi'al with 5@udi'ial pro'ess7 for a
trial in 'ourt is not alwa!s essential to due
pro'ess. +hile a da! in 'ourt is a "atter
of right in @udi'ial pro'eedings$ it is
otherwise in ad"inistrative pro'eedings
sin'e the! rest upon different prin'iples.
The due pro'ess 'lause guarantees no
parti'ular for" of pro'edure and its
re6uire"ents are not te'hni'al. Thus$ in
'ertain pro'eedings of ad"inistrative
'hara'ter$ the right to a noti'e or hearing
are not essential to due pro'ess of law.
The 'onstitutional re6uire"ent of due
pro'ess is "et ! a fair hearing efore a
regularl! estalished ad"inistrative
agen'! or triunal. It is not essential that
hearings e had efore the "a#ing of a
deter"ination if thereafter$ there is
availale trial and triunal efore whi'h all
o@e'tions and defenses to the "a#ing of
su'h deter"ination "a! e raised and
'onsidered. )ne ade6uate hearing is all
that due pro'ess re6uires. . . .
T1" $21t to !$o<<G"A/03" < 3ot /3
35<&"3</;l" /<&"!t o4 5)" &$o!"<<.
1or is an a'tual hearing alwa!s essential. .
. .
;CK>L

The dis"issal of the petitioner fro" the
govern"ent is valid.
CHAPTER III - THE EN-A*
PR)TECTI)1 C*A-%E
18KEL
/ele? v. De /era, A.C. 1o. EE2D$
8ul! ;9$ ;CCE$ <2E %CRA :<9.
19KDL
@d. at :>D-:>>.
20K>L
E"phasis supplied.
K 3o$ <1/ll /3y &"$<o3 ;" 5"3"5 t1"
"H)/l &$ot"!to3 o4 t1" l/#<.
1. The s'ope of the e6ual prote'tion
'lause$ 29 %CRA <;C
;. E6ual prote'tion of the law$ 1: %CRA
;EE
:. Re6uisites for a valid 'lassifi'ation-
Read:
+. P"o&l" 6<. C/y/t' -8 P1l. +2
a. There "ust e real and
sustantial distin'tions(
. It "ust e ger"ane tot he
purposes of the law(
'. It "ust not e li"ited to
e3isting 'onditions onl!( and
d. It "ust appl! e6uall! to all
"e"ers of the sa"e 'lass.
;. Read again$ Asso'iation of %"all
*andowners vs. %e'. of Agrarian refor"$
8ul! 1<$ 12>2

<. E6ual prote'tion in general-
Read:
1. P. vs. Fera$ E9 Phil. 9E
;. TI- F%. CA$ :C1 %CRA ;D> &There
is real and sustantial distin'tion etween
usiness inside the %ui' %pe'ial
E'ono"i' Bone and outside wherein those
inside are e3e"pt fro" other ta3es as a
result of the poli'! of the govern"ent to
a''elerate the develop"ent of the portion
of %ui' left ! the A"eri'ansA
:. 4E*DA 4ARC)% F%. CA$ ;D> %CRA
><:
<. HI4A/A1 F%. PE)P*E$ )'toer D$
122<
The fa't that poli'e"en 'harged
with a 'ri"inal offense punishale !
"ore than E !ears are to e suspended
during the entire duration of the 'ase
unli#e other govern"ent e"plo!ees is
valid sin'e it rests on valid 'lassifi'ation
e'ause poli'e"en 'arr! weapons and the
adge of the law whi'h 'an e used to
harass or inti"idate witnesses against
the".
;-A /u"aon vs. Dire'tor of Prisons$ :D
%CRA <;C
;-. PA10I*) *AC%)1 F%.
%A1DI/A1.AGA1$ 8anuar! ;C$ 1222
;--1. .A%C) F%. PA/C)R$ 4a! 1<$ 1221
1o violation of the e6ual prote'tion
'lause if Congress would legali?e 'o'#-
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +8 +8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
fighting and horse ra'ing sin'e poli'e
power 'ould regulate ga"ling.
:. PHI*IPPI1E 8-D/E%
A%%)CIATI)1 F%. PRAD)$ 1ove"er 11$
122:
There is no valid distin'tion for a
law re"oving the fran#ing privilege of the
@udi'iar! while leaving the sa"e to the
E3e'utive and *egislative despite the fa't
that there is 'onsiderale volu"e of "ails
fro" the 'ourts. *oss of revenue is not a
valid ground unless it would e withdrawn
to all govern"ent offi'es.
0RA1CI%C) TATAD vs. THE %ECRETARG
)0 DEPART4E1T )0 E1ER/G$ /. R. 1o.
1;<:EC$ 1ove"er 9$ 122D
EDCE* *A/4A1$ 8)PER ARR)G)$
E1RIN-E /ARCIA$ +I/.ERT) TA1ADA$
0*A/ H-4A1 RI/HT% 0)-1DATI)1 vs.
H)1. R-.E1 T)RRE%$ H)1. 0RA1CI%C)
FIRAG$ PETR)1$ 0I*IPI1A% %HE** and
CA*TEM PHI*IPPI1E%$ /.R. 1o. 1;D>ED$
1ove"er 9$ 122D.
P-1)$ 8.
These petitions 'hallenge the
'onstitutionalit! of Repuli' A't 1o. >1>C
entitled 5An A't Deregulating the
Downstrea" )il Industr! and for )ther
Purposes7. RA >1>C see#s to end ;E
!ears of govern"ent regulation of the
downstrea" oil industr!.
The fa'ts:
1. Prior to 12D1$ no govern"ent
agen'! was regulating the oil industr!.
1ew pla!ers were free to enter the oil
"ar#et without an! govern"ent
interferen'e. There were four &<A refining
'o"panies at that ti"e. %HE**$ CA*TEM$
.ATAA1 RE0I1I1/ C)4PA1G and 0I*)I*
4ARPETI1/ and si3 &EA petroleu"
"ar#eting 'o"panies: E%%)$ 0I*)I*$
CA*TEM$ /ETTG$ 4).I* and %HE**(
;. In 12D1$ the 'ountr! was
driven to its #nees ! the 'rippling oil
'risis and in order to re"ed! the sa"e$
the )I* I1D-%TRG C)44I%%I)1 ACT was
ena'ted RE/-*ATI1/ the oil industr! (
:. )n 1ove"er 2$ 12D:$ then
President 4ar'os 'reated the Philippine
national )il Corporation &P1)CA t rea#
the 'ontrol of the foreigners to the oil
industr!. It a'6uired ownership of E%%)
Philippines and 0iloil and li#ewise ought
'ontrolling shares of the .ataan Refining
Corporation. P1)C then operated under
the usiness na"e PETR)1
C)RP)RATI)1 and for the first ti"e$
there was a 0ilipino presen'e in the
Philippine oil "ar#et(
<. In 12><$ Pres. 4ar'os through
se'tion > of PD 129E 'reated the )I*
PRICE %TA.I*IBATI)1 0-1D &)P%0A to
'ushion the effe'ts of fre6uent 'hanges in
the pri'e of oil 'aused ! the e3'hange
rate ad@ust"ents or in'rease of the world
"ar#et pri'es 'rude oil and i"ported
petroleu" produ'ts(
9. .! 12>9$ onl! three &:A oil
'o"panies were left operating in the
'ountr!. These are: CA*TEM$ 0I*IPI1A%
%HE** and P1)C(
E. In 4a!$ 12>D$ Pres. Cora?on
A6uino signed E3e'utive )rder 1o. 1D;
'reating the E1ER/G RE-*AT)RG .)ARD
to regulate the usiness of i"porting$
e3porting$ shipping$ transporting$
pro'essing$ refining$ "ar#eting and
distriuting energ! resour'es 5+HE1
+ARRA1TED A1D )1*G +HE1 P-.*IC
1ECE%%ITG REN-IRE%7. The .oard was
e"powered to 5fi3 and regulate the pri'es
of petroleu" produ'ts and other related
"er'handise(
D. In 4ar'h$ 122E$ Congress
ena'ted RA >1>C deregulating the )il
Industr! not later than 4ar'h$ 122D. The
law re6uires that the i"ple"entation of
the regulation$ shall as far as pra'ti'ale
e "ade at a ti"e +HE1 THE PRICE% )0
CR-DE )I* A1D PETR)*E-4 PR)D-CT%
I1 THE +)R*D ARE DEC*I1I1/ A1D
+HE1 THE EMCHA1/E RATE )0 THE PE%)
I1 RE*ATI)1 T) THE -% D)**AR( I%
%TA.*E(
>. )n 0eruar! >$ 122D$ E3e'utive
)rder 1o. :D; was issued ! President
0idel Ra"os i"ple"enting full
deregulation )1 THE /R)-1D THAT THE
)P%0 0-1D HA% .EE1 DEP*ETED(
2. The petitioners 6uestioned the
'onstitutionalit! of RA >1>C on the
following grounds:
a. %e'tion 9 of RA
>1>C violates the e6ual prote'tion 'lause
of the Constitution(
. The i"position of
different tariff rates does not deregulate
the oil industr! and even ars the entr! of
other pla!ers in the oil industr! ut
instead effe'tivel! prote'ts the interest of
the oil 'o"panies with e3isting refineries.
Thus$ it runs 'ounter to the o@e'tive of
the law 5to foster a trul! 'o"petitive
"ar#et7( The in'lusion of %e'. 9 KL
providing for tariff differential violates
%e'tion ;E K1L of Art. FI of the 12>D
Constitution whi'h re6uires ever! law to
have onl! one su@e't whi'h should e
e3pressed in the title thereof(
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +- +-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
'. %e'tion 19 of RA
>1>C and E) 1o. :2; are un'onstitutional
for undue delegation of legislative power
to the President and the %e'retar! of
Energ!(
d. E) :2;
i"ple"enting the full deregulation of the
oil industr! is un'onstitutional sin'e it is
aritrar! and unreasonale sin'e it was
ena'ted due to the alleged depletion of
the )P%0 fund$ a 'ondition whi'h is not
found in RA 1o. >1>C(
e. %e'tion 19 of RA
>1>C is un'onstitutional for it allows the
for"ation of a de fa'to 'artel a"ong three
e3isting oil 'o"panies in violation of the
Constitution prohiiting against
"onopolies$ 'o"ination in restraint of
trade and unfair 'o"petition.
The provisions of the law eing 6uestioned
as un'onstitutional are %e'tion 9 KL and
%e'tion 19 whi'h provide:
ASe3tion % B+C Any la< to the 3ontrary
not<ithstanding and starting <ith the
effe3tivity of this A3t, tariff duty shall +e
imposed and 3olle3ted on imported 3rude
oil at the rate of ,D and imported refined
petroleum produ3ts at the rate of seven
(6D( per3ent, e83ept fuel oil and L*4, the
rate for <hi3h shall +e the sameE
*rovided, that +eginning on )anuary $,
&''-, the tariff rate on imported 3rude oil
and refined petroleum produ3ts shall +e
the sameE *rovided, further, that this
provision may +e amended only +y an
A3t of Congress.F
3 3 3
A Se3tion $%. @mplementation of full
deregulation. *ursuant to Se3tion % BeC of
.A 61,0, the D:2, upon approval of the
*resident, implement full deregulation of
the do<nstream oil industry not later than
!ar3h, $##6. As far as pra3ti3a+le, the
D:2 shall time the full deregulation <hen
the pri3es of 3rude oil and petroleum
produ3ts in the <orld market are de3lining
and <hen the e83hange rate of the peso
in relation to the US dollar is sta+le.F
T1" <<)"< /$"D
P$o!"5)$/l I<<)"<D
a. +hether or not the petitions
raise @usti'iale 'ontrovers!( and
. +hether or not the petitioners
have the standing to 6uestion the validit!
of the su@e't law and e3e'utive order.
S);<t/3t6" I<<)"<:
a. +hether or not %e'tion 9 of RA
>1>C violates the one titleTone su@e't
re6uire"ent of the Constitution(
. +hether or not %e'tion 9 of RA
>1>C violates the e6ual prote'tion 'lause
of the Constitution(
'. +hether se'tion 19 violates the
'onstitutional prohiition on undue
delegation of legislative power(
d. +hether or not E) :2; is
aritrar! and unreasonale( and
e. +hether or not RA >1>C
violates the 'onstitutional prohiition
against "onopolies$ 'o"inations in
restraint of trade and unfair 'o"petition.
HE*D:
1. 8udi'ial power in'ludes not onl!
the dut! of the 'ourts to settle
'ontroversies involving rights ut also the
dut! to deter"ine whether or not there
has een grave ause of dis'retion
a"ounting to la'# or e3'ess of @urisdi'tion
on the part of an! agen'! or ran'h of the
govern"ent. The 'ourts$ as guardians of
the Constitution$ have the inherent
authorit! to deter"ine whether a statute
ena'ted ! the legislature trans'ends the
li"it i"posed ! the funda"ental law.
+hen the statute violates the
Constitution$ it is not onl! the right of the
@udi'iar! to de'lare su'h a't as
un'onstitutional and void.
;. The 6uestion of o!u" "tandi
"ust li#ewise fall . As held in PAPATIRA1
1/ 4/A 1A/*I*I1/P)D %A PA4AHA*AA1
1/ PI*IPI1A%$ I1C. F%. TA1$ it was held
that:
5)@e'tions to ta3pa!er=s suit for la'# of
suffi'ient personalit!$ standing$ or interest
are $ however$ in the "ain pro'edural
"atters. C)1%IDERI1/ THE I4P)RTA1CE
)0 THE CA%E% T) THE P-.*IC$ A1D I1
PEEPI1/ +ITH THE C)-RT=% D-TG T)
DETER4I1E +HETHER )R 1)T THE
)THER .RA1CHED% )0 /)FER14E1T
HAFE PEPT THE4%E*FE% +ITHI1 THE
*I4IT% )0 THE C)1%TIT-TI)1 A1D THE
*A+% A1D THAT THEG HAFE 1)T A.-%E
THE DI%CRETI)1 /IFE1 T) THE4$ THE
C)-RT HA% .R-%HED A%IDE
TECH1ICA*ITIE% )0 PR)CED-RE A1D
HA% TAPE1 C)/1IBA1CE )0 THE%E
PETITI)1%.7
T1"$" < 3o 5</2$""0"3t o3 t1" &/$t
o4 t1" &/$t"< /< to t1" 4/$G$"/!132
0&o$t/3!" o4 t1" 6/l5ty o4 RA 8+80.
T1)<' t1"$" < 3o 2oo5 <"3<" 3 ;"32
1y&"$Gt"!13!/l o3 t1" <t/3532 o4 t1"
&"tto3"$< 4o$ t1"y &o<" <<)"< #1!1
/$" <234!/3t to o)$ &"o&l" /35
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +. +.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
#1!1 5"<"$6" o)$ 4o$t1$21t
$"<ol)to3.
:. It is 'ontended that %e'tion
9KK of RA >1>C on tariff differentials
violates the Constitutional prohiition
re6uiring ever! law to have onl! one
su@e't whi'h should e e3pressed in its
title. +e do not 'on'ur with this
'ontention. As a poli'!$ the Court has
adopted a lieral 'onstru'tion of the one
title---one su@e't rule. +e have
'onsistentl! ruled that the title need not
"irror$ full! inde3 or 'atalogue all
'ontents and "inute details of a law. A
law having a single general su@e't
indi'ated in the title "a! 'ontain a
nu"er of provisions$ no "atter how
diverse the! "a! e$ so long as the! are
not in'onsistent with or foreign to the
general su@e't$ and "a! e 'onsidered in
furtheran'e of su'h su@e't ! providing
for the "ethod and "eans of 'arr!ing out
the general su@e't. +e hold that %e'tion
9 providing for tariff differential is
ger"ane to the su@e't of RA >1>C whi'h
is the deregulation of the downstrea" oil
industr!.
<. The 'ontention that there is
undue delegation of legislative power
when it authori?ed the President to
deter"ine when deregulation starts is
without "erit. The petitioners 'lai" that
the phrases 5as far as pra'ti'ale7$
5de'line of 'rude oil pri'es in the world
"ar#et7 and 5stailit! of the peso
e3'hange rate to the -% dollar7 are
a"ivalent$ un'lear and in'on'rete in
"eaning and 'ould not therefore provide
the 5deter"inate or deter"inale
standards7 whi'h 'an guide the President
in his de'ision to full! deregulate the oil
industr!. The power of Congress to
delegate the e3e'ution of laws has long
een settled ! this Court in 121E in the
'ase of C)4PA1IA /E1ERA* DE TA.AC)%
DE 0I*IPI1A F%. THE .)ARD )0 P-.*IC
-TI*ITG C)44I%%I)1ER% +HERE IT +A%
HE*D THAT:
5The true distin'tion is etween the
delegation of power to "a#e the law $
whi'h ne'essaril! involves a dis'retion as
to what it shall e$ and 'onferring
authorit! or dis'retion as to its e3e'ution$
to e e3er'ised under and in pursuan'e of
the law. The first 'annot e done( to the
latter$ no valid o@e'tion 'an e "ade.7
Two tests have een developed to
deter"ine whether the delegation of the
power to e3e'ute laws does not involve
the adi'ation of the power to "a#e law
itself. +e delineated the "etes and
ounds of these tests in EA%TER4
%HIPPI1/ *I1E% F%. P)EA$ thus:
There are two a''epted tests to deter"ine
whether or not there is a valid delegation
of legislative power $ vi?: the
'o"pleteness test and the suffi'ien'! of
standard test. -nder the first test$ the law
"ust e 'o"plete in all its ter"s and
'onditions when it leaves the legislative
su'h that when it rea'hes the delegate$
the onl! thing he will do is enfor'e it.
-nder the suffi'ient standard test$ there
"ust e ade6uate guidelines or li"itations
in the law to "ap out the oundaries of
the delegate=s authorit! and prevent the
delegation fro" running riot. .)TH TE%T%
ARE I1TE1DED T) PREFE1T A T)TA*
TRA1%0ERE1CE )0 *E/I%*ATIFE
A-TH)RITG T) THE DE*E/ATE$ +H) I%
1)T A**)+ED T) %TEP I1T) THE %H)E%
)0 THE *E/I%*AT-RE A1D EMERCI%E A
P)+ER E%%E1TIA**G *E/I%*ATIFE.7
T1" 6/l5ty o4 5"l"2/t32 l"2<l/t6"
&o#"$ < 3o# / H)"t /$"/ 3 o)$
!o3<tt)to3/l l/35<!/&" ;"!/)<"
<)!1 1/< ;"!o0" /3 3"6t/;lty 3
l21t o4 t1" 3!$"/<32 !o0&l"Aty o4
t1" t/<I o4 2o6"$30"3t. I3 4/!t' 3
HIRA:AYASHI VS. UNITED STATES'
t1" S)&$"0" Co)$t t1$o)21 ()<t!"
ISAGANI CRU? 1"l5 t1/t L"6"3 4 t1"
l/# 5o"< 3ot "A&$"<<ly &3&o3t t1"
<t/35/$5' THE COURTS WILL :END
:ACMWARD TO LOCATE THE SAME
ELSEWHERE IN ORDER TO SPARE THE
STATUTE7 IF IT CAN' FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY.N
9. E) 1o. :2; failed to follow
faithfull! the standards set ! RA >1>C
when it 'onsidered the e3traneous fa'tor
of depletion of the )P%0 0und. The
"isappli'ation of this e3tra fa'tor 'annot
e @ustified. The e3e'utive is ereft of an!
right to alter either ! addition or
sutra'tion the standards set ! RA >1>C
for it has no power to "a#e laws. To 'ede
to the e3e'utive the power to "a#e laws
would invite t!rann! and to transgress the
separation of powers. The e3er'ise of
delegated power is given a stri't s'rutin!
! 'ourts for the delegate is a "ere agent
whose a'tion 'annot infringe the ter"s of
the agen'!.
E. %e'tion 12 of Arti'le MII of the
Constitution provides:
5The state shall regulate or prohiit
"onopolies when the puli' interests so
re6uires. 1o 'o"inations in restraint of
trade or unfair 'o"petition shall e
allowed.7
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +8 +8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
A "onopol! is a privilege or pe'uliar
advantage vested in one or "ore persons
or 'o"panies$ 'onsisting of the e3'lusive
right or power to 'arr! on a parti'ular
usiness or trade$ "anufa'ture a
parti'ular arti'le or 'ontrol the sale or the
whole "ar#et stru'ture in whi'h one or
onl! a few fir"s do"inate the total sales
of a produ't or servi'e. )n the other
hand$ a 'o"ination in restraint of trade is
an agree"ent or understanding etween
two or "ore persons$ in the for" of
'ontra't$ trust$ pool$ holding 'o"pan!$ for
the purpose of undul! restri'ting
'o"petition$ "onopoli?ing trade and
'o""er'e in a 'ertain 'o""odit!$
'ontrolling its produ'tion$ distriution and
pri'e or otherwise interfering with
freedo" of trade without statutor!
authorit!. Co"ination in restraint of
trade refers to "eans while "onopol!
refers to the end.
Respondents aver that the <U tariff
differential is designed to en'ourage new
entrants to invest in refineries. The!
stress that the inventor! re6uire"ent is
"eant to guarant! 'ontinuous do"esti'
suppl! of petroleu" and to dis'ourage
fl!-!-night operators. The! also 'lai"
that the prohiition against predator!
pri'ing is intended to prote't prospe'tive
entrants.
The validit! of the assailed provisions of
RA >1>C has to e de'ided in the light of
the letter and spirit of %e'tion 12$ Art. MII
of the Constitution. +hile the Constitution
e"ra'ed free enterprise as an e'ono"i'
'reed$ it did not prohiit per se the
operation of "onopolies whi'h 'an$
however$ e regulated in the puli'
interest. This distin't free enterprise
s!ste" is di'tated ! the need to a'hieve
the goals of our national e'ono"! as
defined under %e'tion 1$ Art. MII of the
Constitution whi'h are: "ore e6uitale
distriution of opportunities$ in'o"e and
wealth( a sustained in'rease in the
a"ount of goods and servi'es produ'ed
! the nation for all$ espe'iall! the
underprivileged . It also 'alls for the %tate
to prote't 0ilipino enterprises against
unfair and trades pra'ti'es.
The provisions on <U tariff differential$
predator! pri'ing and inventor!
re6uire"ent lo'#s the entr! of other
pla!ers and give undue advantage to the
: oil 'o"panies resulting to "onopolies or
unfair 'o"petition. This is so e'ause it
would ta#e illions for new pla!ers to
'onstru't refineries$ and to have ig
inventories. This would effe'tivel!
prevent new pla!ers.
In the 'ase at ar$ it 'annot e denied
that our oil industr! is operated and
'ontrolled ! an oligopol! &do"inated ! a
handful of pla!ersA and a foreign
oligopol! at that. As the do"inant pla!ers$
%HE**$ CA*TEM H PETR)1 oast of
e3isting refineries of various 'apa'ities.
The tariff differential of <U wor#s to their
i""ense advantage. Get$ this is onl! one
edge on tariff differential. THE )THER
ED/E C-T% A1D C-T% DEEP I1 THE
HEART )0 THEIR C)4PETIT)R%. IT
ERECT% HI/H .ARRIER% T) 1E P*AGER%.
1ew pla!ers in order to e6uali?e "ust
uild their refineries worth illions of
pesos. Those without refineries had to
'o"pete with a higher 'ost of <U.The!
will e 'o"peting on an uneven field.
The provision on inventor! widens the
advantage of PETR)1$ %HE** A1D CA*TEM
against prospe'tive new pla!ers. The
three &:A 'ould easil! 'o"pl! with the
inventor! re6uire"ent in view of their
nu"erous storage fa'ilities. Prospe'tive
'o"petitors again find 'o"plian'e oft his
re6uire"ent diffi'ult e'ause of
prohiitive 'ost in 'onstru'ting new
storage fa'ilities. The net effe't would e
to effe'tivel! prohiit the entran'e of new
pla!ers.
1ow 'o"es the prohiition on predator!
pri'ing or 5selling or offering to sell an!
produ't at a pri'e unreasonal! elow the
industr! average 'ost so as to attra't
'usto"ers to the detri"ent of the
'o"petitors7. A''ording to H)FE1PA4P:
5The rationale for predator! pri'ing
is the sustaining of losses toda! that will
give a fir" "onopol! profits in the future.
The "onopol! profits will never
"ateriali?e$ however$ if the "ar#et is
flooded with new entrants as soon as the
su''essful predator atte"pts to raise its
pri'e. Predator! pri'ing will e profitale
onl! if the "ar#et 'ontains signifi'ant
arriers to new entr!.7
Coupled with the <U tariff differential and
the inventor! re6uire"ent$ the predator!
pri'ing is a signifi'ant arrier whi'h
dis'ourage new pla!ers to enter the oil
"ar#et there! pro"oting unfair
'o"petition$ "onopol! and restraint of
trade whi'h are prohiited ! the
Constitution.
;-d.*AC%)1 F%. %A1DI/A1.AGA1$
8anuar! ;C$ 1222
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +, +,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
:. Ta3i'a )perators vs. .)T$
%epte"er :C$l2>;
<. .autista vs. 8uinio$1;D %CRA :;2
9. Du"lao vs. C)4E*EC$ 29 %CRA :2;
E. Fillegas vs. Hiu$ >E %CRA ;DC
D. Ceni?a vs. C)4E*EC$ 29 %CRA DE:
>. -1ID) vs. C)4E*EC$ 1C< %CRA :>
2. 1une? vs. %andigana!an$ 111
%CRA <::&Read also the dissenting
opinion of 8usti'e 4a#asiar
1C. %ison vs. An'heta$ 1:C %CRA E9<
11. Citi?ens %uret! vs. Puno$ 112 %CRA
;1E
1;. Peralta vs. C)4E*EC$ >; %CRA :C
1:. Hawaiian-Phil. Co. vs. Aso'ia'ion$
191 %CRA :CE
1<. )r"o' %ugar Co. vs. )r"o' Cit!$
;; %CRA EC:
19. 0lores vs. C)4E*EC$ 1>< %CRA <><
CHAPTER IV G THE SEARCH
AND SEI?URE PROVISION
%e'tion ;. The right of the people to e
se'ure in their persons$ houses$ papers
and effe'ts against unreasonale sear'hes
and sei?ures of whatever nature and for
an! purpose shall e inviolale$ and no
sear'h warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue e3'ept upon proale 'ause to e
deter"ined personall! ! the @udge after
e3a"ination under oath or affir"ation of
the 'o"plainant and the witnesses he "a!
produ'e$ and parti'ularl! des'riing the
pla'e to e sear'hed and the persons or
things to e sei?ed.
1)TE: Appli'ale provisions of the Hu"an
%e'urit! A't,Anti-Terroris" *aw$ Repuli'
A't 1o. 2:D;$ Approved on 4ar'h E$ ;CCD
and effe'tive on 8ul! 19$ ;CCD &This *aw
shall e auto"ati'all! suspended one &1A
"onth efore and two &;A "onths after
the holding of an! ele'tionA
Se!# $%# Period of detention without
@udi'ial warrant of arrest.- The provisions
of Arti'le 1;9 of the Revised Penal Code$
notwithstanding$ an! poli'e or law
enfor'e"ent personnel$ #1o' 1/632
;""3 5)ly /)t1o$O"5 3 #$t32 ;y t1"
A3tGT"$$o$<0 Co)3!l has ta#en
'ustod! of a person 'harged with or
suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or the
'ri"e of 'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"
shall$ +ITH)-T I1C-RRI1/ A1G
CRI4I1A* *IA.I*ITG 0)R DE*AG I1 THE
DE*IFERG )0 DETAI1ED PER%)1% T) THE
PR)PER 8-DICIA* A-TH)RITIE%$ DE*IFER
%AID CHAR/ED )R %-%PECTED PER%)1
T) THE PR)PER 8-DICIA* A-TH)RITG
+ITHI1 A PERI)D )0 THREE &:A DAG%
'ounted fro" the "o"ent said 'harged or
suspe'ted person has een apprehended
or arrested$ detained$ and ta#en into
'ustod! ! the said poli'e$ or law
enfor'e"ent personnel: Provided$ That
the arrest of those suspe'ted of the 'ri"e
of terroris" or 'onspira'! to 'o""it
terroris" "ust result fro" the
surveillan'e under %e'tion D and
e3a"ination of an# deposits under
%e'tion ;D pf this A't.
The poli'e or law enfor'e"ent
personnel 'on'erned shall$ efore
detaining the person suspe'ted of the
'ri"e of terroris"$ present hi" or her
efore an! @udge at the latter=s residen'e
or offi'e nearest the pla'e where the
arrest too# pla'e at an! ti"e of the da! or
night. It shall e the dut! of the @udge$
a"ong other things$ to as'ertain the
identit! of the poli'e or law enfor'e"ent
personnel and the person or persons the!
have arrested and presented efore hi"
or her$ to in6uire of the" the reasons wh!
the! have arrested the person and
deter"ine ! 6uestioning and personal
oservation whether or not the su@e't
has een su@e'ted to an! ph!si'al$ "oral
or ps!'hologi'al torture ! who" and
wh!. The @udge shall then su"it a written
report of what he,she had oserved when
the su@e't was rought efore hi" to the
proper 'ourt that has @urisdi'tion over the
'ase of the person thus arrested.
The @udge shall forthwith su"it
his report within : 'alendar da!s fro" the
ti"e the suspe't was rought to his,her
residen'e or offi'e.
I""ediatel! after ta#ing 'ustod!
of a person 'harged with or suspe'ted of
the 'ri"e of terroris" or 'onspira'! to
'o""it terroris"$ the poli'e or law
enfor'e"ent personnel shall notif! in
writing the @udge of the 'ourt nearest the
pla'e of apprehension or arrest( provided$
That where the arrest is "ade during
%aturda!s$ %unda!s$ holida!s or after
offi'e hours$ the written noti'e shall e
served at the residen'e of the @udge
nearest the pla'e where the a''used was
arrested. The penalt! of 1C !ears and 1
da! to 1; !ears i"prison"ent shall e
i"posed upon the poli'e or law
enfor'e"ent personnel who fails to notif!
an! @udge as provided in the pre'eding
paragraph.
Se!tion $&# Period of Detention in
the event of an a'tual or i""inent
terrorist atta'#.- In the vent of an a'tual
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 20 20
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
or i""inent terrorist atta'#$$ suspe'ts
"a! not e detained for "ore than three
da!s without the written approval of a
"uni'ipal$ 'it!$ provin'ial or regional
offi'ial of a Hu"an Rights Co""ission$ or
@udge of the "uni'ipal$ regional trial
'ourt$ the %andigana!an or a @usti'e of
the Court of Appeals nearest the pla'e of
arrest. If the arrest is "ade during
%aturda!s$ %unda!s or holida!s$ or after
offi'e hours$ the arresting poli'e of law
enfor'e"ent personnel shall ring the
person thus arrested to the residen'e of
an! of the offi'ials "entioned aove that
is nearest the pla'e where the a''used
was arrested. The approval in writing of
an! of the said offi'ials shall e se'ured
! the poli'e or law enfor'e"ent
personnel 'on'erned within five da!s after
the date of the detention of the persons
'on'erned( Provided$ however$ That within
three da!s after the detention the
suspe'ts whose 'onne'tion with the terror
atta'# or threat is not estalished$ shall e
released i""ediatel!.
Se!tion '( provides that persons
who have een 'harged with terroris" or
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"---even if
the! have een granted ail e'ause
eviden'e of guilt is not strongT'an e:
Detain
ed under house arrest(
Restri'
ted fro" traveling( and,or
Prohii
ted fro" using an! 'ellular phones$
'o"puters$ or other "eans of
'o""uni'ations with people outside their
residen'e.
%e'tion :2. %ei?ure and %e6uestration.-
The deposits and their outstanding
alan'es$ pla'e"ents$ trust a''ounts$
assets$ and re'ords in an! an# or
finan'ial institution$ "one!s$ usinesses$
transportation and 'o""uni'ation
e6uip"ent$ supplies and other
i"ple"ents$ and propert! of whatever
#ind and nature elonging:
To an! person 'harged with
or suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"(
to a @udi'iall! de'lared and
outlawed terrorist organi?ation or group of
persons(
to a "e"er of su'h
@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawed
organi?ation$ asso'iation or group of
persons$
-shall e sei?ed$ se6uestered$ and fro?en
in order to prevent their use$ transfer or
'onve!an'e for purposes that are ini"i'al
to the safet! and se'urit! of the people or
in@urious to the interest of the %tate.
The a''used or suspe't "a! withdraw
su'h su"s as are reasonal! needed !
his fa"il! in'luding the servi'es of his
'ounsel and his fa"il!=s "edi'al needs
upon approval of the 'ourt. He or she "a!
also use an! of his propert! that is under
sei?ure or se6uestration or fro?en e'ause
of his,her indi't"ent as a terrorist upon
per"ission of the 'ourt for an! legiti"ate
reason.
S"!to3 90. The sei?ed$ se6uestered and
fro?en an# depositsVshall e dee"ed
propert! held in trust ! the an# or
finan'ial institution and that their use or
disposition while the 'ase is pending shall
e su@e't to the approval of the 'ourt
efore whi'h the 'ase or 'ases are
pending.
S"!to3 9+. If the person suspe'ted as
terrorist is a'6uitted after arraign"ent or
his 'ase dis"issed efore his arraign"ent
! a 'o"petent 'ourt$ the sei?ureVshall
e lifted ! the investigating od! or the
'o"petent 'ourt and restored to hi"
without dela!. The filing of an appeal or
"otion for re'onsideration shall not sta!
the release of said funds fro" sei?ure$
se6uestration and free?ing.
If 'onvi'ted$ said sei?ed$
se6uestered and fro?en assets shall
auto"ati'all! forfeited in favor of the
govern"ent.
Re6uisites of a valid sear'h warrant
Read:
a. Essentials of a valid sear'h
warrant$1<9 %CRA D:2
. Falidit! of a sear'h warrant and the
ad"issiilit! of eviden'e otained in
violation thereof.
'. The pla'e to e sear'hed as
indi'ated in the warrant is 'ontrolling
*2:*L2 /S. CA, &#$ SC.A
-''

1arvasa$ C8
In appl!ing for a sear'h warrant$ the
poli'e offi'ers had in their "ind the first
four &<A separate apart"ent units at the
rear of A.I/AI* FARIETG %T)RE in
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 2+ 2+
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
Nue?on Cit! to e the su@e't of their
sear'h. The sa"e was not$ however$ what
the 8udge who issued the warrant had in
"ind$ A1D +A% 1)T +HAT +A%
-*TI4ATE*G DE%CRI.ED I1 THE %EARCH
+ARRA1T. As su'h$ an! eviden'e otained
fro" the pla'e sear'hed whi'h is different
fro" that indi'ated in the sear'h warrant
is inad"issile in eviden'e for an!
purpose and in an! pro'eeding.
This is so e'ause it is neither li'it nor fair
to allow poli'e offi'ers to sear'h a pla'e
different fro" that stated in the warrant
on the 'lai" that the pla'e a'tuall!
sear'hed---although not that spe'ified in
the sear'h warrant---is e3a'tl! what the!
had in view when the! applied for the
warrant and had de"ar'ated in their
supporting eviden'e. +HAT I% 4ATERIA*
I1 DETER4I1I1/ THE FA*IDITG )0 A
%EARCH I% THE P*ACE %TATED I1 THE
+ARRA1T IT%E*0$ 1)T +HAT THE
APP*ICA1T% HAD I1 THEIR TH)-/HT%$
)R HAD REPRE%E1TED I1 THE PR))0%
THEG %-.4ITTED T) THE C)-RT
I%%-I1/ THE +ARRA1T. As su'h$ it was
not @ust a 'ase of 5ovious t!pographi'al
error7$ ut a 'lear 'ase of a sear'h of a
pla'e different fro" that 'learl! and
without a"iguit! identified in the sear'h
warrant.
1)TE: Fer! I"portant: +here a sear'h
warrant is issued ! one 'ourt and the
'ri"inal a'tion ase don the results of the
sear'h is afterwards 'o""en'ed in
another 'ourt$ IT I% 1)T THE R-*E THAT
A 4)TI)1 T) N-A%H THE +ARRA1T &or
to retrieve the things sei?edA 4AG .E
0I*ED )1*G I1 THE I%%-I1/ C)-RT---
%-CH A 4)TI)1 4AG .E 0I*ED 0)R THE
0IR%T TI4E I1 EITHER THE I%%-I1/
C)-RT )R THAT I1 +HICH THE CRI4I1A*
PR)CEEDI1/ I% PE1DI1/.
d. Falidit! of a warrantless sear'h and
sei?ure as a result of an infor"er=s tip.
1ote the two &;A 'onfli'ting de'isions of
the %upre"e Court.
PEOPLE VS. ARUTA' 288 SCRA -2-
)n De'e"er 1:$ 12>>$ P,*t. Aello of the
)longapo P1P was tipped off ! an
infor"er that Aling Rosa would e arriving
fro" .aguio Cit! the following da! with a
large volu"e of "ari@uana. As a result of
the tip$ the poli'e"en waited for a Fi'tor!
.us fro" .aguio Cit! near the P1.
)longapo$ near Ri?al Ave. +hen the
a''used got off$ she was pointed to ! the
infor"er. %he was 'arr!ing a traveling ag
at that ti"e. %he was not a'ting
suspi'iousl!. %he was arrested without a
warrant.
The ag allegedl! 'ontained >.9 #ilos of
"ari@uana. After trial$ she was 'onvi'ted
and i"posed a penalt! of life
i"prison"ent.
Issue:
+hether or not the "ari@uana allegedl!
ta#en fro" the a''used is ad"issile in
eviden'e.
Held:
+arrantless sear'h is allowed in
the following instan'es:
1. 'usto"s sear'hes(
;. sear'hes of "oving vehi'le(
:. sei?ure of eviden'e in plain
view(
<. 'onsented sear'hes(
9. sear'h in'idental to a lawful
arrest( and
E. stop and fris# "easures.
The aove e3'eptions to the re6uire"ent
of a sear'h warrant$ however$ should not
e'o"e unridled li'enses for law
enfor'e"ent offi'ers to tra"ple upon the
'onditionall! guaranteed and "ore
funda"ental right of persons against
unreasonale sear'h and sei?ures. The
essential re6uisite of proale 'ause "ust
still e satisfied efore a warrantless
sear'h and sei?ure 'an e lawfull!
'ondu'ted. In order that the infor"ation
re'eived ! the poli'e offi'ers "a! e
suffi'ient to e the asis of proale
'ause$ it "ust e ased on reasonale
ground of suspi'ion or elief a 'ri"e has
een 'o""itted or is aout to e
'o""itted.
The "ari@uana otained as a result of a
warrantless sear'h is inad"issile as
eviden'e for the following reasons:
a. the poli'e"en had suffi'ient
ti"e to appl! for a sear'h warrant ut
the! failed to do so(
. the a''used was not a'ting
suspi'iousl!(
'. the a''used=s identit! was
previousl! as'ertained so appl!ing for a
warrant should have een eas!(
d. the a''used in this 'ase was
sear'hed while inno'entl! 'rossing a
street
Conse6uentl!$ there was no legal asis for
the poli'e to effe't a warrantless sear'h of
the a''used=s ag$ there eing no
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 22 22
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
proale 'ause and the a''used=s not
having een legall! arrested. The arrest
was "ade onl! after the a''used was
pointed to ! the infor"ant at a ti"e
when she was not doing an!thing
suspi'ious. The arresting offi'ers do not
have personal #nowledge that the a''used
was 'o""itting a 'ri"e at that ti"e.
%in'e there was no valid
warrantless arrest$ it logi'all! follows that
the suse6uent sear'h is si"ilarl! illegal$
it eing not in'idental to a lawful arrest.
This is so e'ause if a sear'h is first
underta#en$ and an arrest effe'ted ased
on the eviden'e produ'ed ! the sear'h$
oth su'h sear'h and arrest would e
unlawful$ for eing 'ontrar! to law.
This 'ase is si"ilar tot he 'ase of PE)P*E
F%. A4I11-DI1$ and PE)P*E F%.
E1CI1ADA.
PEOPLE VS. MONTILLA' 289 SCRA .0*
)n 8une 12$ 122<$ at aout ; p.".$
%P)1 Talingting and %P)1 Clarin of the
Das"arinas$ Cavite P1P were infor"ed !
an I10)R4ER that a drug 'ourier would
e arriving in .aranga! %alitran$
Das"arinas$ Cavite$ fro" .aguio Cit!$
with an undeter"ined a"ount of
"ari@uana. The infor"er li#ewise infor"ed
the" that he 'ould re'ogni?e said person.
At aout < in the "orning of 8une
;C$ 122<$ the appellant was arrested !
the aove-na"ed poli'e offi'ers while
alighting fro" a passenger @eepne! near
a waiting shed in %alitran$ Das"arinas$
Cavite$ upon eing pointed to ! the
infor"er. The poli'e"en re'overed ;>
#ilos of dried "ari@uana leaves. The arrest
was without warrant.
The trial 'ourt 'onvi'ted the
appellant for transporting "ari@uana ased
on the testi"onies of the Aove-na"ed
poli'e offi'ers without presenting the
alleged infor"er.
Issue:
+as the warrantless arrest validJ
Held:
The a''used 'lai"s that the
warrantless sear'h and sei?ure is illegal
e'ause the alleged infor"ation was
re'eived ! the poli'e on 8une 12$ 122<
and therefore$ the! 'ould have applied for
a sear'h warrant. The said 'ontention is
without "erit 'onsidering that the
infor"ation given ! the infor"er is too
s#et'h! and not detailed enough for the
otention of the 'orresponding arrest or
sear'h warrant. +hile there is indi'ation
that the infor"er #nows the 'ourier$ the
re'ords do not show that he #new his
na"e. )n are infor"ation$ the poli'e
'ould not have se'ured a warrant fro" a
@udge.
0urther"ore$ warrantless sear'h is
allowed in the following instan'es:
1. 'usto"s
sear'hes(
;. sear'hes of
"oving vehi'le(
:. sei?ure of
eviden'e in plain view(
<. 'onsented
sear'hes(
9. sear'h
in'idental to a lawful arrest( and
E. stop and fris#
"easures.
%in'e the a''used was arrested for
transporting "ari@uana$ the suse6uent
sear'h on his person is @ustified. An
arresting offi'er has the right to validl!
sear'h and sei?e fro" the offender &1A
dangerous weapons( and &;A those that
"a! e used as proof of the 'o""ission
of the offense.
In the 'ase at ar$ upon eing pointed to
! the infor"er as the drug 'ourier$ the
poli'e"en re6uested the a''used to open
and show the" the 'ontents of his ag
and the 'artoon he was 'arr!ing and he
voluntaril! opened the sa"e and upon
'ursor! inspe'tion$ it was found out that it
'ontains "ari@uana. Hen'e the arrest.
The a''used insists that it is nor"al for a
person traveling with a ag and 'artoon
whi'h should not eli'it the slightest
suspi'ion that he was 'o""itting a 'ri"e.
In short$ there was no proale 'ause for
this poli'e"en to thin# that he was
'o""itting a 'ri"e.
The said 'ontention was 'onsidered
without "erit ! the %upre"e Court
'onsidering the fa't that he 'onsented to
the sear'h as well as the fa't that the
infor"er was a reliale one who had
supplied si"ilar infor"ation to the poli'e
in the past whi'h proved positive.
&1)TE: The %C held that the non-
presentation of the infor"er does not
affe't the 'ase for the prose'ution
e'ause he is not even the est witness.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 2* 2*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
He is "erel! a 'orroorative witness to
the arresting offi'ers. A
8-%TICE PA1/A1I.A1:
To sa! that 5reliale tips7 fro" infor"ers
'onstitute proale 'ause for a
warrantless arrest or sear'h I% A
DA1/ER)-% PRECEDE1T A1D P*ACE% I1
/REAT 8E)PARDG THE D)CTRI1E% *AID
D)+1 I1 4A1G DECI%I)1% 4ADE .G
THI% C)-RT. &PE)P*E F%. .-R/)%$ 1<<
%CRA 1( PE)P*E F%. A4I11-DI1$ 1E:
%CRA <C;( PE)P*E F%. E1CI1ADA$
)'toer ;$ 122D( PE)P*E F%. 4E1/)TE$
;;C %CRAA.
The 'ase is si"ilar to the 'ase of People
vs. En'i"ada where the appellant was
sear'hed without a warrant while
dise"ar#ing fro" a ship on the strength
of a tip fro" an infor"er re'eived ! the
poli'e the previous afternoon that the
appellant would e transporting prohiited
drugs. The sear'h !ielded a plasti'
pa'#age 'ontaining "ari@uana. )n Appeal$
the %C reversed the de'ision of 'onvi'tion
and held that En'inada did not "anifest
an! suspi'ious ehavior that would
ne'essaril! and reasonal! invite the
attention of the poli'e.
ELI LUI' ET AL. VS. MATILLANO' M/y ELI LUI' ET AL. VS. MATILLANO' M/y
2.' 2009 2.' 2009
Right against unreasonale sear'hes and
sei?ures( 4ission )rder does not authori?e
an illegal sear'h. +aiver of the right
against an unreasonale sear'h and
sei?ure.
In sear'h of the allegedl! "issing
a"ount of P<9$CCC.CC owned ! the
e"plo!er$ the residen'e of a relative of
the suspe't was for'il! open ! the
authorities ! #i'#ing the #it'hen door to
gain entr! into the house. Thereafter$ the!
'onfis'ated different personal properties
therein whi'h were allegedl! part of those
stolen fro" the e"plo!er. The! were in
possession of a "ission order ut later on
'lai"ed that the owner of the house gave
his 'onsent to the warrantless sear'h. Are
the things ad"issile in eviden'eJ Can
the! e sued for da"ages as a result of
the said warrantless sear'h and sei?ureJ
Held:
The right against unreasonale
sear'hes and sei?ures is a personal right
whi'h "a! e waived e3pressl! or
i"pliedl!. .-T A +AIFER .G I4P*ICATI)1
CA11)T .E PRE%-4ED. There "ust e
'lear and 'onvin'ing eviden'e of an a'tual
intention to relin6uish the right. There
"ust e proof of the following:
a. that the right e3ists(
. that the person involved
had #nowledge$ either 'onstru'tive or
a'tual$ of the e3isten'e of said right(
'. that the said person had an
a'tual intention to relin6uish the right.
0inall!$ the waiver "ust e "ade
voluntaril!$ #nowingl! and intelligentl! in
order that the said is to e valid.
The sear'h was therefore held
illegal and the "e"ers of the sear'hing
part! held liale for da"ages in
a''ordan'e with the do'trine laid down in
*i" vs. Pon'e de *eon and 4HP /ar"ents
vs. CA.
e. /eneral or roving warrants
Read:
1. %tonehill vs. Dio#no$8une
12$12ED
Con'ep'ion$ C.8.
The petitioners are 6uestioning the
validit! of a total of <; sear'h warrants
issued on different dates against the" and
the 'orporations in whi'h the! are offi'ers$
dire'ting the pea'e offi'er to sear'h the
persons aove-na"ed and,or the
pre"ises of their offi'es$ warehouses and
to sei?e and ta#e possession of the
following personal propert!$ to wit:
I.oo#s of a''ounts$ finan'ial re'ords$
vou'hers$ 'orresponden'e$ re'eipts$
ledgers$ @ournals$ t!pewriters and other
do'u"ents or papers showing all usiness
transa'tions in'luding disurse"ent
re'eipts$ alan'e sheets and profit and
loss state"entsI
sin'e the! are the su@e't of the
offense of violating the CE1TRA* .A1P
*A+%$ TARI00 A1D C-%T)4% *A+%$
I1TER1A* REFE1-E C)DE A1D THE
REFI%ED PE1A* C)DE.
The petitioners 'lai" that the
sear'h warrants are void eing violative of
the Constitutional provision on sear'h and
sei?ure on the ground that:
a. The sear'h warrants did not parti'ularl!
des'rie the do'u"ents$ oo#s and things
to e sei?ed(
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 29 29
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
. 'ash "one! not "entioned in the
warrant were a'tuall! sei?ed(
'. The warrants were issued to fish
eviden'e in the deportation 'ases against
the"(
d. the sear'hes and sei?ures were "ade in
an illegal "anner(
e. the things sei?ed were not delivered to
the 'ourt to e disposed of in a "anner
provided for ! law.
I<<)"D

+ere the sear'hes and sei?ures
"ade in the offi'es and residen'es of the
petitioners validJ
a. As to the sear'hes "ade on
their offi'es$ the! 'ould not 6uestion the
sa"e in their personal 'apa'ities e'ause
the 'orporations have a personalit!
separate and distin't with its offi'ers. An
o@e'tion to an unlawful sear'h and
sei?ure I% P-RE*G PER%)1A* A1D
CA11)T .E AFAI*ED )0 .G THIRD
PARTIE%. C)1%EN-E1T*G$ THE
PETITI)1ER% 4AG 1)T FA*ID*G ).8ECT
T) THE -%E I1 EFIDE1CE A/AI1%T THE4
)0 THE D)C-4E1T%$ PAPER% A1D
THI1/% %EIBED 0R)4 THE )00ICE% A1D
PRE4I%E% )0 THE C)RP)RATI)1%$ T)
+H)4 THE %EIBED E00ECT% .E*)1/$
A1D 4AG 1)T .E I1F)PED .G THE
C)RP)RATE )00ICER% I1 PR)CEEDI1/%
A/AI1%T THE4 I1 THEIR I1DIFID-A*
CAPACITG.
. As to the do'u"ents sei?ed in
the residen'es of the petitioners$ the
sa"e "a! not e used in eviden'e against
the" e'ause the warrants issued were in
the nature of a general warrant for failure
to 'o"pl! with the 'onstitutional
re6uire"ent that:
1. that no warrant shall issue ut upon
proale 'ause$ to e deter"ined ! the
@udge in the "anner set forth in said
provision( and
;. that the warrant shall parti'ularl!
des'rie the things to e sei?ed.
1one of these re6uire"ents has
een 'o"plied with in the 'ontested
warrants. The! were issued upon
appli'ations stating that the natural and
@uridi'al persons therein na"ed had
'o""itted a violation of Central an#
*aws$ Tariff and Custo"s *aws$ Internal
revenue Code and Revised Penal Code. I1
)THER +)RD%$ 1) %PECI0IC )00E1%E
HAD .EE1 A**E/ED I1 %AID
APP*ICATI)1%. THE AFER4E1T%
THERE)0 +ITH RE%PECT T) THE
)00E1%E C)44ITTED +ERE A:STRACT.
AS A CONSEEUENCE' IT WAS
IMPOSSI:LE FOR THE (UDGE WHO
ISSUED THE WARRANTS TO HAVE
FOUND THE ECISTENCE OF PRO:A:LE
CAUSE' FOR THE SAME PRESUPPOSES
THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPETENT
PROOF THAT THE PARTY AGAINST
WHOM IT IS SOUGHT HAS
PERFORMED PARTICULAR ACTS' OR
COMMITTED SPECIFIC OMISSIONS'
VIOLATING A GIVEN PROVISION OF
OUR CRIMINAL LAWS.
;. .a'he vs. Rui?$ :D %CRA >;:
:. %e'retar! vs. 4ar'os$ DE %CRA
:C1
<. Castro vs. Paalan$ April :C$l2DE
9. Asian %uret! vs. Herrera$ 9<
%CRA :1; &A sear'h warrant for estafa$
falsifi'ation$ ta3 evasion and insuran'e
fraud is a general warrant and therefore
not validA
E. Colle'tor vs. Fillalu?$ 8une
1>$12DE
D. Fidu!a vs. Ferdiago$ D: %CRA
99:
>. Di?on vs. Castro$ April 1;$ 12>9
2. People vs. Feloso$ <> Phil. 1E2
1C. TA4.A%E1 F%. PE)P*E$ 8ul!
1<$ 1229( PE)P*E F%. CA$ ;1E %CRA 1C1.
LA SCATTERGSHOT WARRANT is a
sear'h warrant issued for "ore than one
spe'ifi' offense li#e one for estafa$
roer!$ theft and 6ualified theft7A
f. Define proale 'ause. +ho
deter"ines proale 'auseJ
a. R).ERT% F%. CA$ ;9< %CRA :CD
. DE *)% %A1T)% F%. 4)1TE%A$
;<D %CRA >9
VICENTE LIM'SR. AND MAYOR
SUSANA LIM
VS.HON. N. FELIC (G.R. NO. ,,089G
8.%
E1 .A1C
/-TIERREB$ 8R. 8.
0a'ts:
--------
Petitioners are suspe'ts of the
sla!ing of 'ongress"an 4oises Espinosa$
%r. and three of his se'urit! es'orts and
the wounding of another. The! were
initiall! 'harged$ with three others$ with
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 28 28
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
the 'ri"e of "ultiple "urder with
frustrated "urder. After 'ondu'ting a
preli"inar! investigation$ a warrant of
arrest was issued on 8ul! :1$ 12>2. .ail
was fi3ed at P;CC$CCC.
)n %epte"er ;;$ 12>2$ 0is'al
Alfane$ designated to review the 'ase$
issued a Resolution affir"ing the finding of
a pri"a fa'ie 'ase against the petitioners
ut ruled that a 'ase of 4urder for ea'h of
the #illing of the four vi'ti"s and a
ph!si'al in@uries 'ase for infli'ting gunshot
wound on the survivor e filled instead
against the suspe'ts. Thereafter$ four
separate infor"ations to that effe't were
filed with the RTC of 4asate with no ail
re'o""ended.
)n 1ove"er ;1$ 12>2$ a "otion
for 'hange of venue$ filed ! the
petitioners was granted ! the %C. It
ordered that the 'ase "a! e transferred
fro" the RTC of 4asate to the RTC of
4a#ati.
Petitioners then "oved that
another hearing a 'ondu'ted to
deter"ine if there reall! e3ists a pri"a
fa'ie 'ase against the" in the light of
do'u"ents showing re'antations of so"e
witnesses in the preli"inar! investigation.
The! li#ewise filed a "otion to order the
trans"ittal of initial re'ords of the
preli"inar! investigation 'ondu'ted ! the
"uni'ipal @udge of .arsaga of 4asate.
These "otions were however denied !
the 'ourt e'ause the prose'ution had
de'lared the e3isten'e of proale 'ause$
infor"ations were 'o"plete in for" in
sustan'e $ and there was no defe't on its
fa'e. Hen'e it found it @ust and proper to
rel! on the prose'utors 'ertifi'ation in
ea'h infor"ation.
ISSUED
GGGGGGGGGG
+hether or not a @udge "a! issue
a warrant of arrest without ail ! si"pl!
rel!ing on the prose'utions 'ertifi'ation
and re'o""endation that a proale
'ause e3istsJ
Held:
-----
1. The @udge 'o""itted a grave
ause of dis'retion.
In the 'ase of Pla'er vs. Fillanueva$
the s' ruled that a @udge "a! rel! upon
the fis'alOs 'ertifi'ation of the e3isten'e of
a proale 'ause and on the asis thereof$
issue a warrant of arrest. However$ the
'ertifi'ation does not ind the @udge to
'o"e out with the warrant of arrest. This
de'ision interpreted the Isear'h and
sei?ureI provision of the 12D:
Constitution. -nder this provision$ the
@udge "ust satisf! hi"self of the
e3isten'e of proale 'ause efore issuing
a warrant of order of arrest. If on the fa'e
of infor"ation$ the @udge finds no
proale 'ause$ he "a! disregard the
fis'alOs 'ertifi'ation and re6uire the
su"ission of the affidavits of witness to
aid hi" at arriving at a 'on'lusion as to
the e3isten'e of a proale 'ause. This
has een the rule sin'e -.% vs. )'a"po
and A"arga vs. Aas.
;. In the 'ase of %oliven vs.
4a#asiar$ de'ided under the 12>D
Constitution$ the Court noted that the
addition of the word personall! after the
word deter"ined and the deletion of the
grant of authorit! ! the 12D:
Constitution to issue warrants to other
respondent offi'ers as to "a! e
authori?ed ! law does not re6uire the
@udge to personall! e3a"ine the
'o"plainant and his witness in his
deter"ination of proale 'ause for the
issuan'e of a warrant of arrest.+hat the
Constitution unders'ores is the e3'lusive
and personal responsiilit! of the issuing
@udge to satisf! hi"self of the e3isten'e of
proale 'ause. 0ollowing estalished
do'trine and pro'edures$ he shall:
&1A personall! evaluate the
reports and the supporting do'u"ents
su"itted ! the fis'al regarding the
e3isten'e of proale 'ause and$ on the
asis thereof$ issue a warrant of arrest(
&;A If on the asis thereof he
finds no proale 'ause$ he "a! disregard
the fis'alOs report and re6uire the
su"ission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses to aid hi" in arriving at a
'on'lusion as to the e3isten'e of proale
'ause.
:. The 'ase of People vs.
Honorale Enri6ue .. Inting reiterates the
following do'trines:
&1A The deter"ination of
proale 'ause is a fun'tion of the @udge.
It is not for the Provin'ial 0is'al or
Prose'utor nor for the Ele'tion %upervisor
to as'ertain. )nl! the @udge alone "a#es
this dete"ination.
&;A The preli"inar! in6uir!
"ade ! the prose'utor does not ind the
@udge. It "erel! assist hi" to "a#e the
deter"ination of proale 'ause. The
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 2- 2-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
@udge does not have to follow what the
prose'utorOs present to hi". .! itself$ the
prose'utorOs 'ertifi'ation of proale
'ause is ineffe'tual. It is the report$ the
affidavits$ the trans'ripts of stenographi'
notes$ and all other supporting do'u"ents
ehind the prose'utorOs 'ertifi'ation whi'h
are "aterial in assisting the @udge to
"a#e his deter"ination.
&:A Preli"inar! in6uir! should
e distinguished fro" the preli"inar!
investigation proper. +hile the for"er
see#s to deter"ine proale 'ause for the
issuan'e of warrant of arrest$ the latter
as'ertains whether the offender should e
held for trial or e released.
<. <. In the 'ase of Castillo vs.
Fillalu?$ the 'ourt ruled that @udges of RTC
no longer have authorit! to 'ondu't
preli"inar! investigations: This authorit!
was re"oved fro" the" ! the 12>9
Rules on Cri"inal Pro'edure$ effe'tive on
8anuar! 1$ 12>9.
9. In the present 'ase$ the
respondent @udge relies solel! on the
'ertifi'ation of the prose'utor. Considering
that all the re'ords of the investigation are
in 4asate$ he has not personall!
deter"ined the e3isten'e of proale
'ause. The deter"ination was "ade !
the provin'ial prose'utor. The
'onstitutional re6uire"ent had not een
satisfied.
The re'ords of the preli"inar!
investigation 'ondu'ted ! the 4uni'ipal
Court of 4asate and reviewed ! the
respondent 0is'al were still in 4asate
when the respondent 0is'al issued the
warrant of arrest against the petitioners.
There was no asis for the respondent
@udge to "a#e his personal deter"ination
regarding the e3isten'e of proale 'ause
fro" the issuan'e of warrant of arrest as
"andated ! the Constitution. He 'ould
not have possil! #nown what has
transpired in 4asate as he had nothing
ut a 'ertifi'ation. Although the @udge
does not have to personall! e3a"ine the
'o"plainant and his witnesses &for the
prose'utor 'an perfor" the sa"e
fun'tions as 'o""issioner for ta#ing of
eviden'eA there should e a report and
ne'essar! do'u"ents supporting the
0is'alOs are 'ertifi'ation. All of these
should e efore the @udge.
1. A"arga vs. Aas$ 2> Phil. D:2
1-a. ;Cth Centur! 0o3 vs. CA$ 1E<
%CRA E99
1-. Nuintero vs. 1.I$ 1E; %CRA
<ED
1-'. The Presidential Anti-Dollar
%alting Tas# 0or'e vs. CA$ /R 1o. >:9D>$
4ar'h 1E$ 12>2
SOLIVEN VS. MAMASIAR' +-. SCRA
*,*
The word L&"$<o3/lly7 after the
word deter"ined does not ne'essaril!
"ean that the @udge should e3a"ine the
'o"plainant and his witnesses personall!
efore issuing the sear'h warrant or
warrant of arrest ut the e3'lusive
responsiilit! on the part of said @udge to
satisf! hi"self of the e3isten'e of
proale 'ause. As su'h$ there is no need
to e3a"ine the 'o"plainant and his
witnesses fa'e to fa'e. It is suffi'ient if the
@udge is 'onvin'ed of the e3isten'e of
proale 'ause upon reading the affidavits
or deposition of the 'o"plainant and his
witnesses.
1-e. Pendon vs. CA$ 1ov.
1E$ 122C
1-f. P. vs. Inting$ 8ul! ;9$
122C
1-g. -"il vs. Ra"os$ et al.$
8ul! 2$ 122C with the Resolution of the
4otion for Re'onsideration in 1ove"er$
1221
1-h. Paderanga vs. Drilon$
April 12$ 1221
;. Depart"ent of Health vs. %! Chi
%iong$ In'.$ /R 1o. >9;>2$
0eruar! ;C$ 12>2
;-a. P. vs. Fillanueva$ 11C %CRA
<E9
;-. Pla'er vs. Fillanueva$ 1;E
%CRA <E: &)nl! a @udge has the power to
deter"ine proale insofar as the
issuan'e of a warrant of arrest is
'on'ernedA
:. Tolentino vs. Fillalu?$8ul!
;D$12>D
<. Cru? vs. /atan$ D< %CRA ;;E
9. )laes vs. P.$ 199 %CRA <>E
D. /eroni"o vs. Ra"os$ 1:E %CRA
<:9
..(UAN PONCE ENRILE VS. (UDGE
(AIME SALA?AR' ET AL.' G.R.NO.
,2+-*' ()3" 8' +,,0
Due pro'ess( right to ail( warrant of
arrest
&1ote: This "ight e useful also in !our
Cri"inal *awA
1arvasa$ 8.

)n 0eruar! ;D$ 122C$ %enator 8uan
Pon'e Enrile was arrested ! law
enfor'e"ent offi'ers led ! 1.I Dire'tor
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 2. 2.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
Alfredo *i" on the strength of a warrant
of arrest issued ! the respondent @udge$
H)1. 8AI4E %A*ABAR$ Regional trial
Court$ .ran'h 1C:$ Nue?on Cit! in
Cri"inal Case 1o. 2C-1C2<1. The warrant
was issued on an infor"ation signed and
filed earlier in the da! ! %enior %tate
Prose'utor A-RE*I) TRA4PE 'harging
%enator Enrile$ the spouses Ree''o and
Erlinda Panlilio$ and /regorio Honasan
with the 'ri"e of reellion with "urder
and "ultiple frustrated "urder allegedl!
'o""itted during the period of the failed
'oup atte"pt fro" 1ove"er ;2 to
De'e"er 1C$ 122C. %enator Enrile was
ta#en to and held overnight at the 1.I
Head6uarters on Taft Ave.$ 4anila$
+ITH)-T .AI*$ 1)1E HAFI1/ .EE1
REC)44E1DED I1 THE I10)R4ATI)1
A1D 1)1E 0IMED I1 THE +ARRA1T )0
ARRE%T.
)n 0eruar! ;>$ 122C$ petitioner
through 'ounsel filed a petition for Haeas
Corpus alleging that he was deprived of
his 'onstitutional rights in eing$ or having
een:
a. held to answer for a 'ri"inal
offense whi'h does not e3ist in the statute
oo#s(
. 'harged with a 'ri"inal offense
in an infor"ation for whi'h no 'o"plaint
was initiall! filed or preli"inar!
investigation was 'ondu'ted$ hen'e$ he
was denied due pro'ess(
'. denied the right to ail( and
d. arrested or detained on the
strength of warrant issued without the
@udge who issued it first having personall!
deter"ined the e3isten'e of proale
'ause.
HE*D:
The partiesO oral and written argu"ents
presented the following options:
1. Aandon the Hernande? Do'trine
and adopt the dissenting opinion of 8usti'e
4onte"a!or that Ireellion 'annot asor
"ore serious 'ri"esI(
;. Hold Hernande? Do'trine appli'ale
onl! to offenses 'o""itted in furtheran'e$
or as ne'essar! "eans for the
'o""ission$ of reellion$ .-T 1)T T)
ACT% C)44ITTED I1 THE C)-R%E )0 A
RE.E**I)1 +HICH A*%) C)1%TIT-TE
C)44)1 CRI4E% )0 /RAFE )R *E%%
/RAFE CHARACTER(
:. 4aintain Hernande? Do'trine as
appl!ing to "a#e reellion asor all other
offenses 'o""itted in its 'ourse$ whether
or not ne'essar! to its 'o""ission or in
furtheran'e thereof.
1. )n the first option$ 11 @usti'es voted
A/AI1%T aandoning Hernande?. Two
"e"ers felt that the do'trine should e
re-e3a"ined. In view of the "a@orit!$ THE
R-*I1/ RE4AI1% /))D *A+$ IT%
%-.%TA1TIFE A1D *E/A* .A%E% HAFE
+ITH%T))D A** %-.%EN-E1T
CHA**E1/E% A1D 1) 1E+ )1E% ARE
PRE%E1TED HERE PER%-A%IFE E1)-/H
T) +ARRA1T A C)4P*ETE REFER%A*.
This is so e'ause of the fa't that the
in'u"ent President &e3er'ising legislative
powers under the 12>E 0reedo"
ConstitutionA repealed PD 1o. 2<; whi'h
added a new provision of the Revised
Penal Code$ parti'ularl! Art. 1<;-A whi'h
sought to nullif! if not repealed the
Hernande? Do'trine. In thus a'ting$ the
President in effe't ! legislative fiat
reinstated the Hernande? as a inding
do'trine with the effe't of law. The Court
'an do no less than a''ord it the sa"e
re'ognition$ asent an! suffi'ientl!
powerful reason against so doing.
;. )n the se'ond option$ the %upre"e
Court was unani"ous in voting to re@e't
the sa"e though four @usti'es elieve that
the argu"ents in support thereof is not
entirel! devoid of "erit.
:. +ith the re@e'tion of the first two
options$ the Hernande? Do'trine re"ains
a inding do'trine operating to prohiit
the 'o"ple3ing of reellion with an! other
offense 'o""itted on the o''asion
thereof$ either as a "eans ne'essar! to its
'o""ission or as unintended effe't of an
a'tivit! that 'onstitutes reellion.
)n the issues raised ! the petitioner:

a. .! a vote of 11-:$ the Court ruled that
the infor"ation filed against the petitioner
does in fa't 'harge an offense despite the
o@e'tionale phrasing that would 'o"ple3
reellion with "urder and "ultiple
frustrated "urder$ that indi't"ent is to e
read as 'harging %I4P*E RE.E**I)1. The
petitionerOs 'ontention that he was
'harged with a 'ri"e that does not e3ist
in the statute oo#s$ +HI*E TECH1ICA**G
C)RRECT %) 0AR A% THE C)-RT R-*ED
THAT RE.E**I)1 4AG 1)T .E
C)4P*EMED +ITH )THER )00E1%E%
C)44ITTED )1 THE )CCA%I)1 THERE)0$
4-%T THERE0)RE .E DI%4I%%ED A% A
4ERE 0*I/HT )0 RHET)RIC. Read in the
'onte3t of Hernande?$ the infor"ation
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 28 28
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
does indeed 'harge the petitioner with a
'ri"e defined and punished ! the
Revised Penal Code: %I4P*E RE.E**I)1.
. +as the petitioner 'harged without a
'o"plaint having een initiall! filed and,or
preli"inar! investigation 'ondu'tedJ The
re'ord shows that a 'o"plaint for si"ple
reellion against petitioner was filed !
the 1.I Dire'tor and that ased on the
strength of said 'o"plaint a preli"inar!
investigation was 'ondu'ted ! the
respondent prose'utors 'ul"inating in the
filing of the 6uestioned infor"ation.
THERE I% 1)THI1/ I1HERE1T*G
IRRE/-*AR )R C)1TRARG T) *A+ I1
0I*I1/ A/AI1%T A RE%P)1DE1T A1
I1D-CT4E1T 0)R A1 )00E1%E
DI00ERE1T 0R)4 +HAT I% CHAR/ED I1
THE I1ITIAT)RG C)4P*AI1T$ I0
+ARRA1TED .G THE EFIDE1CE
DEFE*)PED D-RI1/ THE PRE*I4I1ARG
I1FE%TI/ATI)1.
'. The petitioner 'lai"s that the warrant
issued is void e'ause it was issued arel!
one hour and twent! "inutes after the
'ase was raffled to the respondent @udge
whi'h 'ould hardl! gave hi" suffi'ient
ti"e to personall! go over the volu"inous
re'ords of the preli"inar! investigation.
Also$ the petitioner 'lai"s that the
respondent @udge issued the warrant for
his arrest without first personall!
deter"ining the e3isten'e of proale
'ause ! e3a"ining under oath or
affir"ation the 'o"plainant and his
witnesses$ in violation of Art. III$ %e'tion
;$ of the Constitution. This Court has
alread! ruled that it is not unavoidale
dut! of the @udge to "a#e su'h a personal
e3a"ination$ it eing suffi'ient that he
follows estalished pro'edure !
PER%)1A**G EFA*-ATI1/ THE REP)RT
A1D THE %-PP)RTI1/ D)C-4E1T
%-.4ITTED .G THE PR)%EC-T)R.
4ERE.G .ECA-%E %AID RE%P)1DE1T
8-D/E HAD +HAT %)4E 4I/HT
C)1%IDER )1*G A RE*ATIFE*G .RIE0
PERI)D +ITHI1 +HICH T) C)4P*G +ITH
THAT D-TG $ /IFE% 1) REA%)1 T)
A%%-4E THAT HE HAD 1)T$ )R C)-*D
1)T HAFE$ %) C)4P*IED( 1)R D)E%
THAT %I1/*E CIRC-4%TA1CE %-00ICE
T) )FERC)4E THE *E/A* PRE%-4PTI)1
THAT )00ICIA* D-TG HA% .EE1
RE/-*AR*G PER0)R4ED.
d. Petitioner also 'lai"s that he is denied
of his 'onstitutional right to ail. In the
light of the CourtOs affir"ation of
Hernande? as appli'ale to petitionerOs
'ase$ and of the logi'al and ne'essar!
'orollar! that the infor"ation against hi"
should e 'onsidered as 'harging onl! the
'ri"e of si"ple reellion whi'h is ailale
efore 'onvi'tion$ THAT 4-%T 1)+ .E
ACCEPTED A% A C)RRECT PR)P)%ITI)1.
1)TE%:
This "ight e useful also in !our
Re"edial *aw.
+as a petition for Haeas Corpus
efore the %upre"e Court the appropriate
vehi'le for asserting a right to ail or
vindi'ating its denialJ
The %upre"e Court held that the
'ri"inal 'ase efore the respondent @udge
is the nor"al venue for invo#ing the
petitionerOs right to have provisional
liert! pending trial and @udg"ent. The
'orre't 'ourse was for the petitioner to
invo#e that @urisdi'tion ! filing a petition
to e ad"itted to ail$ 'lai"ing a right to
ail per se or ! reason of the wea#ness
of the eviden'e against hi". )1*G A0TER
THAT RE4EDG +A% DE1IED .G THE TRIA*
C)-RT %H)-*D THE REFIE+
8-RI%DICTI)1 )0 THE %-PRE4E C)-RT
.E I1F)PED$ A1D EFE1 THE1$ 1)T
+ITH)-T 0IR%T APP*GI1/ T) THE C)-RT
)0 APPEA*% I0 APPR)PRIATE RE*IE0 +A%
A*%) AFAI*A.*E THERE.
Even assu"ing that the petitionerOs
pre"ise that the infor"ation 'harges a
non-e3istent 'ri"e would not e3'use or
@ustif! his i"proper 'hoi'e of re"edies.
-nder either h!pothesis$ the ovious
re'ourse would have een a "otion to
6uash rought in the 'ri"inal a'tion
efore the respondent @udge.
g. +arrantless sear'hes and sei?ures--
when valid
or not. Is I)peration Pap#apI
validJ
Read:
PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE' G.R. No.
8.08,' ()3"' +,,2' 2+0 SCRA +.9
+arrantless sear'h and
sei?ure
Cru?$ 8.
0a'tsW
------
1. )n August >$ 12>D$ the +estern Poli'e
Distri't re'eived a telephone 'all fro" an
infor"er that there were three suspi'ious-
loo#ing persons at the 'orner of 8uan *una
and 1orth .a! .lvd.$ in Tondo$ 4anila(
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 2, 2,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;. +hen the surveilan'e tea" arrived
therein$ the! saw the a''used Iloo#ing
fro" side to sideI and Iholding his
ado"enI. The! appro'hed these persons
and identified the"selves as poli'e"ent
that is wh! the! tried to ran awa! e'ause
of the other law"en$ the! were unale to
es'ape(
:. After their arrest$ a .:> 'al. %"ith and
+essor revolver was 'onfis'ated fro" the
a''used and several da!s later$ an
infor"ation for violation of PD 1>EE was
filed against hi"(
<. After trial$ 4engote was 'onvi'ted of
having violated PD 1>EE and was
senten'ed to suffer re3lusion perpetua
ased on the alleged gun as the prin'ipal
eviden'e. Hen'e this auto"ati' appeal.
Issue:
------
+as there a valid warrantless
sear'h and sei?ureJ
Held:
-----
There is no 6uestion that eviden'e
otained as a result of an illegal sear'h or
sei?ure is inad"issile in an! pro'eeding
for an! purpose. That is the asolute
prohiition of Arti'le III$ %e'tion : K;L$ of
the Constitution. This is the 'elerated
e3'lusionar! rule ased on the @ustifi'ation
given ! 8usti'e *earned Hand that Ionl!
in 'ase the prose'ution$ whi'h itself
'ontrols the sei?ing offi'ials$ #nows that it
'annot profit ! their wrong will the
wrong e repressed.I
%e'tion 9$ Arti'le 11: of the Rules
of Court provides:
%e'. 9. Arrest without warrant(
when lawful.- A pea'e offi'er or private
person "a!$ without warrant$ arrest a
person:
&aA +hen$ in his presen'e$ the
person to e arrested has 'o""itted$ is
a'tuall! 'o""itting$ or is atte"pting to
'o""it an offense(
&A +hen an offense has in fa't
@ust een 'o""itted$ and he has
personal #nowledge of fa'ts indi'ating
that the person to e arrested has
'o""itted it( and
&'A +hen the person to e arrested
is a prisoner who has es'aped fro" a
penal estalish"ent or pla'e where he is
serving final @udg"ent or te"poraril!
'onfined while his 'ase is pending$ or has
es'aped while eing transferred fro" one
'onfine"ent to another.
3 3 3
+e have 'arefull! e3a"ined the
wording of this Rule and 'annot see how
we we 'an agree with the prose'ution.
Par. &'A of %e'tion 9 is oviousl!
inappli'ale as 4engote was not an
es'apee fro" a penal institution when he
was arrested. +e therefore 'onfine
ourselves to deter"ining the lawfulness
of his arrest under either Par. &aA or Par.
&A of this %e'tion.
Par. &aA re6uires that the person e
arrested &1A after he has 'o""itted or
while he is a'tuall! 'o""itting or is at
least atte"pting to 'o""it an offense$ &;A
in the presen'e of the arresting offi'er.
These re6uire"ents have not een
estalished in the 'ase at ar. At the ti"e
of the arrest in 6uestion$ the a''used-
appellant was "erel! Iloo#ing fro" side to
sideI and Iholding his ado"en$I
a''ording to the arresting offi'ers
the"selves. There was apparentl! no
offense that had @ust een 'o""itted or
was eing a'tuall! 'o""itted or at least
eing atte"pted ! 4engote in thie
presen'e.
The %oli'itor /eneral su"its that
the a'tual e3isten'e of an offense was
not ne'essar! as long as 4engoteOs a'ts
'reated a reasonale suspi'ion on the
part of the arresting offi'ers and indu'ed
in the" the elief that an offense had
een 'o""itted and that a''used-
appellant had 'o""itted itI. The 6uestion
is$ +hat offenseJ +hat offense 'ould
possil! have een suggested ! a person
Iloo#ing fro" side to sideI and Iholding
his ado"enI and in apla'e not e3a'tl!
forsa#en.
These are 'ertainl! not sinister
a'ts. And the setting of the arrest "ade
the" less so$ if at all. It "ight have een
different if 4engote had een
apprehended at an unhol! hour and in a
pla'e where he had no reason to e$ li#e
a dar#ened alle! at : oO'lo'# in the
"orning. .ut he was arrested at 11::C in
the "orning and in a 'rowded street
shortl! after alighting fro" a passenger
@eep with his 'o"panion.He was not
s#ul#ing in the shadows ut wal#ing in the
'lear light of da!. There was nothing
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *0 *0
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
'landestine aout his eing on that street
at that us! hour in the la?e of the
noonda! sun.
)n the other hand$ there 'ould
have een a nu"er of reasons$ all of
the" innoent$ wh! hise!es were darting
fro" side to sideand he was holding his
ado"en. If the! e3'ited suspi'ion in the
"inds of the arresting offi'ers$ as the
prose'ution suggests$ it has nevertheless
not een shown what their suspi'ion was
all aout.
3 3 3
The 'ase efore us is different
e'ause there was nothing to support the
arresting offi'ersO suspi'ion other than
4engoteOs darting e!es and his hand on
his ado"en. .! no stret'h of the
i"agination 'ould it have een inferred
fro" these a'ts that an offense had @ust
een 'o""itted$ or was a'tuall! eing
'o""itted$ or was at least eing
atte"pted in their presen'e.
This is si"ilar to *2:*L2 vs.
A!!@;U@D@;, $1, SC.A -'& where the
Court held that a warrantless arrest of
the a''used was un'onstitutional. This
was effe'ted while he was 'o"ing down
the vessel$ to all appearan'es no less
inno'ent than the other dise"ar#ing
passengers. He had not 'o""itted nor
was a'tuall! 'o""itting or atte"pting to
'o""it an offense in the presen'e of the
arresting offi'ers. He was not even a'ting
suspi'iousl!. In short$ there was no
proale 'ause that$ as the prose'ution
in'orre'tl! suggested$ dispensed with the
'onstitutional re6uire"ent of a warrant.
Par. &A is no less appli'ale
e'ause its no less stringent
re6uire"ents have also not een satisfied.
Theprose'ution has not shown that at the
ti"e of 4engoteOs arrest an offense had
in fa't een 'o""itted and that the
arresting offi'ers had personal #nowldge
of fa'ts indi'ating that 4engote had
'o""itted it. All the! had was hearsa!
infor"ation fro" the telephone 'aller$ and
aout a 'ri"e that had !et to e"
'o""itted.
3 3 3
In the land"ar# 'ase of *eople
vs. Burgos, $-- SC.A $, this Court
de'lared:
-nder %e'tion E&aA of Rule 11:$
the offi'er arresting a person who has @ust
'o""itted$ is 'o""itting$ or is aout to
'o""it an offense "ust have
personal#nowledge of that fa't. The
offense "ust also e 'o""itted in his
presen'e or within his view. (SA=: vs.
C9@2G :G *:L@C2, 0' *hil. 0%#(.
3 3 3
In arrests without a warrant under
%e'tion E&A$ however$ it is not enough
that there is reasonale ground to elieve
that the person to e arrested has
'o""itted a 'ri"e. A 'ri"e "ust in fa't
or a3tually have een 'o""itted first.
That a 'ri"e has a'tuall! een 'o""itted
is an essential pre'ondition. It is not
enough to suspe't that a 'ri"e "a! have
een 'o""itted. The fa't of the
'o""ission of the offense "ust e
undisputed. The test of reasonale ground
applies onl! to the identit! of the
perpetrator..
This do'trine was affir"ed in Alih
vs. Castro$ 191 %CRA ;D2$ thus:
If the arrest was "ade under Rule
11:$ %e'tion 9$ of the Rules of Court in
'onne'tion with a 'ri"e aout to e
'o""itted$ eing 'o""itted$ or @ust
'o""itted$ what was that 'ri"eJ There is
no allegation in the re'ord of su'h a
falsifi'ation. Parentheti'all!$ it "a! e
oserved that under the Revised Rule
11:$ %e'tion 9&A$ the offi3er making the
arrest must have personal kno<ledge of
the ground therefor as stressed in the
re3ent 3ase of *eople vs. Burgos.
It would e a sad da!$ indeed$ if
an! person 'ould e su""aril! arrested
and sear'hed @ust e'ause he is holding
his ado"en$ even if it e possil!
e'ause of a sto"a'h-a'he$ or if a pea'e
offi'er 'ould 'la"p hand'uffs on an!
person with a shift! loo# on suspi'ion that
he "a! have 'o""itted a 'ri"inal a't is
a'tuall! 'o""itting or atte"pting it.
This si"pl! 'annot e done in a free
so'iet!. This is not a poli'e state where
order is e3alted over liert! or$ worse$
personal "ali'e on the part ofthe
arresting offi'er "a! e @ustified in the
na"e of se'urit!.
3 3 3
The 'ourt feels that if the pea'e
offi'ers had een "ore "indful of the
provisions of the .ill of Rights$ the
prose'ution of the a''used-appellant
"ight have su''eeded. As it happened$
the! allowed their over ?ealousness to
get the etter of the"$ resulting in their
disregard of the re6uire"ents of a valid
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *+ *+
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
sear'h and sei?ure that rendered
inad"issile the eviden'e the! had
invalidl! sei?ed.
This should e a lesson to other
pea'e offi'ers. Their i"pulsiveness "a!
e the ver! 'ause of the a'6uittal of
persons who deserve to e 'onvi'ted$
es'aping the 'lut'hes of the law$
e'ause$ ironi'all! enough$ it has not
een oserved ! those who are
supposed to enfor'e it.
W1"3 ll"2/l /$$"<t < 5""0"5 #/6"5.
+arrantless arrest( no personal
#nowledge of the arresting offi'er
PEOPLE VS. GALVE?' *88 SCRA 29-
4endo?a$ 8.
T1" &ol!"0/3 /$$"<t"5 t1"
/!!)<"5G/&&"ll/3t o3 t1" ;/<< <ol"ly
o4 #1/t R"y3/l5o C/<t$o 1/5 tol5 10
/35 3ot ;"!/)<" 1" </# t1" /!!)<"5G
/&&"ll/3t !o00t t1" !$0" !1/$2"5
/2/3<t 10. I35""5' t1" &$o<"!)to3
/50tt"5 t1/t t1"$" #/< 3o #/$$/3t
o4 /$$"<t <<)"5 /2/3<t /!!)<"5G
/&&"ll/3t #1"3 t1" l/tt"$ #/< t/I"3
3to !)<to5y. Co3<5"$32 t1/t t1"
/!!)<"5G/&&"ll/3t #/< 3ot
!o00tt32 / !$0" /t t1" t0" 1"
#/< /$$"<t"5 3o$ 55 t1" /$$"<t32
o44!"$ 1/6" /3y &"$<o3/l I3o#l"52"
o4 4/!t< 35!/t32 t1/t /!!)<"5G
/&&"ll/3t !o00tt"5 / !$0"' 1<
/$$"<t #t1o)t / #/$$/3t !/33ot ;"
B)<t4"5.
However$ ! entering a plea of not
guilt! during the arraign"ent$ the
a''used-appellant waived his right to raise
the issue of illegalit! of his arrest. IT I%
1)+ %ETT*ED THAT ).8ECTI)1 T) A
+ARRA1T )0 ARRE%T )R THE
PR)CED-RE .G +HICH A C)-RT
ACN-IRE% 8-RI%DICTI)1 )FER THE
PER%)1 )0 A1 ACC-%ED 4-%T .E 4ADE
.E0)RE HE E1TER% HI% P*EA$
)THER+I%E$ THE ).8ECTI)1 I% DEE4ED
+AIFED. THE 0ACT THAT THE ARRE%T
+A% I**E/A* D)E% 1)T RE1DER THE
%-.%EN-E1T PR)CEEDI1/% F)ID A1D
DEPRIFE THE %TATE )0 IT% RI/HT T)
C)1FICT THE /-I*TG +HE1 A** THE
0ACT% P)I1T T) THE C-*PA.I*ITG )0
THE ACC-%ED.
g-1. W/$$/3tl"<< S"/$!1 /35
<"O)$" ;y / &$6/t" &"$<o3. &Falid
sin'e the 'onstitutional provision is not
appli'ale to hi"( when it is not validA
Read:
+. PEOPLE VS.
MENDO?A' *0+ SCRA --
W/$$/3tl"<< <"/$!1"< /35 <"O)$"< ;y
&$6/t" 3565)/l<
;. %I*AHI% I1TER1ATI)1A* H)TE*$ I1C.
F%. R)/E*I) %)*-TA$ ET A*.$ <>; %CRA
EEC
C/$&oGMo$/l"<' (.
The petitioner suspe'ts that the
respondents who are offi'ers of the %ilahis
International Hotel -nion were using the
-nion )ffi'e lo'ated inside the hotel in the
sale or use of "ari@uana$ dollar
s"uggling$ and prostitution. The! arrived
at the said 'on'lusion through
surveillan'e.
In the "orning of 8anuar! 11$
12>>$ while the respondent union offi'er
was opening the -nion )ffi'e$ se'urit!
offi'ers of the plaintiff entered the union
offi'e despite o@e'tions thereto !
for'il! opening the sa"e. )n'e inside
the union offi'e the! started to "a#e
sear'hes whi'h resulted in the 'onfis'ation
of a plasti' ag of "ari@uana. An
infor"ation for violation of the dangerous
drugs a't was filed against the respondent
efore the RTC of 4anila whi'h a'6uitted
the" on the ground that the sear'h
'ondu'ted was illegal sin'e it was
warrantless and without 'onsent ! the
respondents.
After their a'6uittal$ the
respondents filed a 'ase for 4ali'ious
Prose'ution against the petitioner for
violation of Art. :; of the Civil Code. After
trial$ the Regional Trial Court held that
petitioners are liale for da"ages as a
result of an illegal sear'h. The sa"e was
affir"ed ! the Court of Appeals.
Issue:
+hether the warrantless sear'h
'ondu'ted ! the petitioners &private
individual and 'orporationA on the union
offi'e of the private respondents is valid.
Held:
The sear'h is not valid and the!
are 'ivill! liale under Art. :; of the Civil
Code. The fa't that the union offi'e is part
of the hotel owned ! the petitioners does
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *2 *2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
not @ustif! the warrantless sear'h. The
alleged reports that the said union offi'e is
eing used ! the union offi'ers for illegal
a'tivities does not @ustif! their a'ts of
arging into the said offi'e without the
'onsent of the union offi'ers and without a
sear'h warrant. If indeed there was
surveillan'e "ade$ then the! should have
applied for a sear'h warrant.
The ruling in People vs. Andre 4arti
is not appli'ale here e'ause in 4arti$ a
'ri"inal 'ase$ the issue was whether an
a't of a private individual$ allegedl! in
violation of one=s 'onstitutional rights "a!
e invo#ed against the %tate. In other
words$ the issue in 4arti is whether the
eviden'e otained ! a private person
a'ting in his private 'apa'it! without the
parti'ipation of the %tate$ is ad"issile.
*. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
ANDRE MARTI
G.R. NO. 8+8-+' (/3)/$y +8' +,,+
+arrantless %ear'h and sei?ure
! a private person
.idin$ 8.
0ACT%:
Andre 4arti and his 'o""on-law
wife$ %hirle! Re!es went to 4anila
Pa'#aging and E3port 0orwarders to send
four &<A pa'#ages to Buri'h$ %wit?erland.
Anita Re!es$ owner of the pla'e &no
relation to %hirle!A$ re'eived said goods
and as#ed if she 'ould e3a"ine and
inspe't it. 4arti refused. However later$
following standard operating pro'edure$
8o Re!es$ 'o-owner and husand of Anita
opened the o3es for final inspe'tion$
efore delivering it to the .ureau of
Custo"s and,or .ureau of Posts.
-pon opening$ a pe'uliar odor
e"anated fro" the o3 that was
supposed to 'ontain gloves. -pon further
perusal$ he felt and saw a dried leaves
inside the o3. 8o Re!es then rought
sa"ples to the 1.I$ he told the" that the
o3es to e shipped were still in his offi'e.
In the presen'e of the 1.I agents$ Re!es
opened the o3 and dis'overed that the
odor 'a"e fro" the fa't that the dried
leaves were a'tuall! those of the
"ari@uana flowering tops.
Two other o3es$"ar#ed as
'ontaining oo#s and taa'alera 'igars(
also revealed ri'#s or 'ase-li#e "ari@uana
leaves and dried "ari@uana leaves
respe'tivel!.
4arti was later invited ! the 1.I
to shed light on the atte"pted ship"ent
of the dried leaves. Thereafter an
infor"ation was filed against the appellant
for violating RA E<;9 or the Dangerous
Drugs A't. The %pe'ial Cri"inal Court of
4anila 'onvi'ted a''used 4arti of violating
se'.;1&A of said RA.
ISSUESD
GGGGGGGGGGGG
1. Did the sear'h 'ondu'ted ! a
private person$ violate a''usedOs right
against unreasonale sear'hes sei?ures
and invo'ale against the stateJ
;. +as the eviden'e pro'ured
fro" the sear'h ad"issileJ
H"l5D
GGGGGGGG
1. 1o$ 'onstitutional prote'tion on sear'h
and sei?ure is i"posale onl! against the
state and not to private persons.
%in'e Art. III$; of the 12>D
'onstitution is al"ost verati" fro" the
-nited %tates 'onstitution$ the %C "a!
'onsider -% 0ed. %C 'ases as li#ewise
do'trinal in this @urisdi'tion. Hen'e$ in -%
'ases$ the 'onstitutional provision against
unreaso"ale sear'hes and sei?ure was
intended as a restraint upon the a'tivities
of the sovereign authorit! and 1)T
intended against private persons. If a
sear'h was initiated ! a private person
the provision does not appl! sin'e it onl!
pros'ries govern"ent a'tion. This view is
supported ! the delierations ! the
12>E Constitutional Co""ission.
In short$ the prote'tion against
unreasonale sear'hes and sei?ures
'annot e e3tended to a'ts 'o"itted !
private individuals so as to ring it within
the a"it of alleged unlawful intrusion.
Case at ar will show that it was
8o Re!esX initiative that perpetrated the
sear'h. He opened the pa'#ages and too#
the sa"ples to 1.I. All the 1.I agents did
was to oserve and loo# in plain sight.
This did not 'onvert it to a sear'h as
'onte"plated ! the 'onstitution.
;. Ges$ sin'e the sear'h was valid$ the
eviden'e fro" therein is ad"issile
eviden'e.
Art.III K;L$ on the ad"issiilit! of
eviden'e in violation of the right against
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ** **
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
unreasonale sear'hes and sei?ures$
li#ewise applies onl! to the govern"ent
and its agen'ies and not to private
persons.
&-.%. 'ases 'ited: .urdeau v.
4'Dowell &;9E us <E9 K12;1L$ state v.
.r!an &<9D p ;d EE1 K12E>L$ +al#er v.
state &<;2 s.w ;d 1;1 K12E2LA$ .arnes v.
us &:D: 0 ;d 91D K12EDLA$ Chadwi'# v.
state &:;2 sw ;d 1:9A.
VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND
SEI?URED
1. %ear'h "ade in'idental to a
valid arrest
a. 4oreno vs. Ago Chi$ 1;
Phil. <:2
. PE)P*E F%. A1/ CH-1
PIT$ ;91 %CRA EEC
'. PE)P*E F%. *-A$ ;9E
%CRA 9:2
d. PE)P*E F%. 0igueroa$
;<> %CRA ED2
e. 1)*A%C) F%. PA1)$
1:2 %CRA 9<1 &A sear'h in'idental to a
valid arrest "ust e done at the pla'e
where the a''used is arrested. As su'h$ if
a''used was arrested while inside a
@eepne!$ there is no valid sear'h in'idental
to a valid arrest if she will e rought to
her residen'e and thereafter sear'h the
said pla'eA
f. E%PA1) F%. CA$ ;>>
%CRA 9>> &If the a''used was arrested in
the street during a u!-ust operation$
the sear'h of his house near! is not a
valid sear'h in'idental to a valid arrestA
PEOPLE VS. GO' *89 SCRA **8 PEOPLE VS. GO' *89 SCRA **8
+here the gun tu'#ed in a person=s
waist is plainl! visile to the poli'e$ no
sear'h warrant is ne'essar! and in the
asen'e of an! li'ense for said firear"$ he
"a! e arrested at on'e as he is in effe't
'o""itting a 'ri"e in the presen'e of the
poli'e offi'ers. 1o warrant is ne'essar! in
su'h a situation$ it eing one of the
re'ogni?ed e3'eptions under the Rules.
As a 'onse6uen'e of the a''used=s
valid warrantless arrest inside the
night'lu$ he "a! e lawfull! sear'hed for
dangerous weapons or an!thing whi'h
"a! e used as proof of the 'o""ission
of an offense$ without a sear'h warrant in
a''ordan'e with %e'tion 1;$ Rule 1;E.
This is a valid sear'h in'idental to a lawful
arrest.
In fa't$ the suse6uent dis'over!
in his 'ar whi'h was par#ed in a distant
pla'e fro" where the illegal possession of
firear" was 'o""itted Kafter he
re6uested that he will ring his 'ar to the
Poli'e %tation after his warrantless
arrestA $ of a drug paraphernalia and
shau$ CA11)T .E %AID T) HAFE .EE1
4ADE D-RI1/ A1 I**E/A* %EARCH. As
su'h$ the ite"s do not fall under the
e3'lusionar! rule and the unli'ensed
firear"s$ drug paraphernalia and the
shau$ 'an e used as eviden'e against
the a''used.
;. %ear'h of "oving vehi'les
a. Carrol vs. -%$ ;ED -%
1:;
. PE)P*E F%. *) H)
+I1/$ et al.
&/. R. 1o. >>C1DA 8anuar! ;1$ 1221
'. 4-%TA1/ *-4.ER F%.
CA$ ;9D %CRA <:C
d. PE)P*E F%. C0I$ 1C1
%CRA >E
e. PE)P*E F%.
4A*4%TEDT12> %CRA <C1
4. PEOPLE VS. LO HO
WING' +,* SCRA +22
FACTSD
GGGGGGGGGGG
In 8ul! 12>D$ the %pe'ial
)perations /roup of the CI% re'eived a tip
fro" one of its infor"ers aout an
organi?ed group engaged in i"portation of
illegal drugs and s"uggling of 'ontraand
ite"s. To infiltrate the 'ri"e s!ndi'ate$
the! re'ruited 'onfidential "en and Ideep
penetration agentsI under )P*A1
%HAR)1 >>D. )ne su'h agent was
Re!naldo Tia &the di'harged,a''usedA. As
an agent$ he su"itted regular reports of
under'over a'tivities of suspe'ted
s!ndi'ates. CAPTAI1 PA*4ERA$ head of
oplan sharon >>D$ in turned infor"ed the
Dan
gerous Drugs .oard of TiaOs a'tivities.
Tia was introdu'ed to his 'o-
a''used *i" Cheng Huat ! another agent
na"ed /eorge. *i" wanted a "ale
travelling 'o"panion for his usiness trips
aroad. Tia offered his servi'es and was
hired ! *i". *ater$ Tia was introdu'ed to
Peter *o &alias of a''used,appellant *o Ho
+ingA$ the later turning out to e TiaOs
intended 'o"panion.
Appellant *o Ho +ing and Tia left
for Hong#ong on )'toer <$ 12>D. Tia
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *9 *9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
telephoned Capt. Pal"era that the! would
return to the Philippines on )'toer E.
0ro" Hong#ong$ the two pro'eeded to
/uang?hou in "ainland China. There$
appeallant *o Ho +ing ought si3 &EA 'ans
of tea.Tia saw these E ags when the!
were opened for e3a"ination. That
evening$ the! went to *o Ho +ingOs roo"
and he saw two other "en with hi". )ne
was fi3ing the tea ags$ while the other
was urning a sustan'e on a pie'e of
alu"inu" foil using a lighter. Appellant *o
Ho +ing @oined the se'ond "an and
sniffed the s"o#e e"itted ! the urning
sustan'e. +hen Tia as#ed *o Ho +ing
what 'argo the! would ring to 4anila$
the latter replied that the! would e
ringing Chinese drugs.
The ne3t da! en route to 4anila$
'usto"s e3a"iners inspe'ted the ags
'ontaining the tin 'ans of tea. %in'e the
ags were not 'losel! e3a"ined$ appellant
*o Ho +ing and Tia were 'leared. In
4anila$ The! were "et ! *i" Cheng
Huat. Appelant *o Ho +ing and Tia
oarded a ta3i fro" the airport and loaded
their luggage in the ta3iOs 'o"part"ent.
*i" Cheng Huat followed the" in another
ta3i.
4ea"while$ a tea" 'o"posed !
Capt. Pal"era positioned the"selves in
strategi' areas around the airport. The
CI% "en who first saw *o Ho and Tia
followed the". Along I"elda Avenue$ the
CI% 'ar overtoo# the ta3i ridden ! *o Ho
+ing and Tia $ for'ing the ta3i driver to
stop his vehi'le. The CI% tea" as#ed the
ta3i driver to open the aggage
'o"part"ent. The CI% tea" as#ed
per"ission to sear'h their luggage.
A tin 'an of tea was ta#en out of
the 'o"part"ent. %gt. Ca!a!a of the
CI% pried the lid open and pressed it in
the "iddle to pull out the 'ontents.
Cr!stalline white powder res"ling
'rushed alu" 'a"e out. %uspe'ting the
'r!stalline powder to e a dangerous
drug$ he had the three travelling ags
opened for inspe'tion. All the ags
threshed out a total of si3 tin 'ans. Tia
and appellant were ta#en to the CI%
head6uarters for 6uestioning. 4eanwhile$
the se'ond ta3i 'arr!ing *i" Cheng Huat
sped in atte"pt to es'ape. However$ the!
were later 'aptured.
%a"ples fro" the ag tested
positive for "eta"pheta"ine. The three
suspe'ts were indi'ted for violating Art.
III$ se'.19 of the Dangerous Drug A't.
Appellant *o Ho +ing and *i" Cheng Huat
were senten'ed to suffer life i"prison"ent
and to pa! a fine of P;9$CCC ea'h.
Re!naldo Tia was dis'harged as a state
witness. The trial 'ourt gave full 'reden'e
to the testi"onies of govern"ent agents
sin'e the presu"ption of regularit! in the
perfor"an'e of offi'ial duties were in their
favor.
I%%-E%:
----------
1. +as the warrantless sear'h
validJ
;. Are the effe'ts ta#en ad"issile
as eviden'eJ
HE*D:
-----
1. This is a 'ase of sear'h on a
"oving vehi'le whi'h is one of the well-
#nown e3'eptions to the valid warrantless
sear'h and sei?ure. To stilol get a sear'h
warrant fro" a @udge would allow the
a''used go s'ot-free.
;. %in'e the sear'h and sei?ure are
valid$ the eviden'e otained is ad"issile
as eviden'e in an! pro'eeding.
:. %ei?ure of goods 'on'ealed to
avoid duties,ta3es &FalidA
a. Papa vs. 4ago$ ;; %CRA
>9D
. Pa'is vs. Pa"aran$ 9E
%CRA 1E
'. HIB)1 F%. CA$ ;E9
%CRA 91D
d. PE)P*E F%. N-E$ ;E9
%CRA D;1
<. %ei?e of eviden'e in plain view
a. Harris vs. -%$ :2C -% ;:<
. PE)P*E F%. DA4A%)$ ;1; %CRA
9<D
'. PE)P*E F%. FE*)%)$ ;9; %CRA
1:9
d. PE)P*E F%. *E%A1/I1$ ;9;
%CRA ;1:
9. +hen there is waiver of right or
gives his 'onsent(
a. De /ar'ia vs. *o'sin$ E9 Phil.
E>2
. *ope? vs. Co""issioner$ E9
%CRA ::E
'. PEOPLE VS. DAMASO' 2+2
SCRA &In order that there is a valid
waiver to a warrantless sear'h$ the waiver
or 'onsent should e given ! the person
affe'ted$ not @ust an!od!. E3a"ple: The
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *8 *8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
landlad! 'ould not give a valid 'onsent to
the sear'h of a roo" o''upied ! a
tenant. %aid tenant hi"self should give
the 'onsent in order to e valid. The
do'trine in *ope? vs. Co""issioner to the
effe't that it 'ould e given ! an!
o''upant of a hotel roo" eing rented !
the respondent is dee"ed aandonedA
d. VEROY VS. LAYAGUE' 2+0
SCRA ,.. &If the owner of the house
allowed the poli'e"en to enter his house
e'ause the! are sear'hing for reel
soldiers ut when inside the house$ the!
instead sei?ed an unli'ensed firear"$
there is no 'onsent to a warrantless
sear'hA
E. %T)P A1D 0RI%P.
a. People vs. 4engote$
8une$ 122;
. PE)P*E F%. P)%ADA%$
1>> %CRA ;>>
'. 4A1A*I*I F%. PE)P*E$
)'toer 2$ 122D. &The poli'e"en saw
several suspi'ious loo#ing "en at dawn
who ran when the! went near the". As
the poli'e"en ran after the"$ an
unli'ensed firear" was 'onfis'ated. The
sear'h is validA
d. 4A*ACAT F%. CA$ ;>:
%CRA 192. &4ere suspi'ions not suffi'ient
to validate warrantless arrestA
-. EDDIE GUA?ON' ET AL. VS. MA(.
GEN. RENATO DE VILLA' ET AL.' GR
NO. 80808' (/3)/$y *0' +,,0
+arrantless sear'hes(
I?oningsI and Isaturation drivesI
%e'tion 1D$ Art. FII of the Constitution
/utierre?$ 8r.$ 8.
0a'ts:
T1< < / &"tto3 4o$ P$o1;to3
#t1 &$"l03/$y 3B)3!to3 to &$o1;t
0lt/$y /35 &ol!" o44!"$< 4$o0
!o35)!t32 PA$"/l t/$2"t Oo332<P o$
P</t)$/to3 5$6"P 3 M"t$o M/3l/
&/$t!)l/$ly 3 &l/!"< #1"$" t1"y
<)<&"!t t1/t t1" <);6"$<6"< /$"
1532. T1" 9+ &"tto3"$< !l/0 t1/t
t1" </t)$/to3 5$6"< !o35)!t"5 ;y
t1" 0lt/$y < 3 6ol/to3 o4 t1"$
1)0/3 $21t< ;"!/)<" #t1 3o <&"!4!
t/$2"t 1o)<" 3 035' 3 t1" 5"/5 o4
t1" 321t o$ "/$ly 0o$332 1o)$<'
&ol!" /35 0lt/$y o44!"$< #t1o)t
/3y <"/$!1 #/$$/3t !o$5o3 /3 /$"/ o4
0o$" t1/3 o3" $"<5"3!" /35
<o0"t0"< t1" #1ol" ;/$/32/y. Mo<t
o4 t1"0 /$" 3 !6l/3 !lot1"< /35
#Qo 3/0"&l/t"< o$ 5"3t4!/to3
!/$5<7 t1/t t1" $/5"$< $)5"ly $o)<"
$"<5"3t< 4$o0 t1"$ <l""& ;y ;/3232
o3 t1" #/ll< /35 #35o#< o4 t1"$
1o0"<' <1o)t32' I!I32 t1"$ 5oo$<
o&"3 (5"<t$oy32 <o0"% /35 o$5"$32
t1" $"<5"3t< to !o0" o)t7 t1"
$"<5"3t< /$" 1"$5"5 lI" !o#< /t t1"
&o3t o4 121 &o#"$"5 2)3<' o$5"$"5
to <t$& 5o#3 to t1"$ ;$"4< /35
"A/03"5 4o$ t/ttoo 0/$I<7 t1/t #1l"
"A/03/to3 o4 t1" ;o5"< o4 t1" 0"3
/$" ;"32 !o35)!t"5' t1" ot1"$
0lt/$y 0"3 !o35)!t <"/$!1 /35
<"O)$"< to "/!1 /35 "6"$y 1o)<"
#t1o)t !6l/3 #t3"<<"< 4$o0 t1"
3"21;o$<7 <o0" 6!t0< !o0&l/3"5
t1/t t1"$ 0o3"y /35 ot1"$ 6/l)/;l"<
#"$" lo<t /< / $"<)lt o4 t1"<" ll"2/l
o&"$/to3<.
The respondents 'lai" that the! have
legal authorit! to 'ondu't saturation
drives under Art. FII$ %e'. 1D of the
Constitution whi'h provides:
The respondents would want to @ustif!
said "ilitar! operation on the following
'onstitutional provisions:
The President shall e the
Co""ander-in-Chief of all the ar"ed
for'es of the Philippines and whenever it
e'o"es ne'essar!$ he "a! 'all out su'h
ar"ed for'es to prevent or suppress
lawless violen'e$ invasion or reellion 3 3
3
3 3 3 3
The President shall have 'ontrol of all the
e3e'utive depart"ents$ ureaus and
offi'es. He shall ensure that the laws are
faithfull! e3e'uted.
Held:
There 'an e no 6uestion that under
ordinar! 'ir'u"stan'es$ the poli'e a'tion
of the nature des'ried ! the petitioners
would e illegal and latantl! violative of
the .ill of Rights. If the "ilitar! wants to
flush out suversive and 'ri"inal
ele"ents$ the sa"e "ust e 'onsistent
with the 'onstitutional and statutor! rights
of the people. However$ nowhere in the
Constitution 'an we see a provision whi'h
prohiits the Chief E3e'utive fro"
ordering the "ilitar! to stop unaated
'ri"inalit!$ rising lawlessness and
alar"ing 'o""unist a'tivities. However$
all poli'e a'tions are governed ! the
li"itations of the .ill of Rights. The
govern"ent 'annot adopt the sa"e
reprehensile "ethods of authoritarian
s!ste"s oth of the right and of the left.
This is so e'ause Art. III$ %e'tion : of
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *- *-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
the Constitution is ver! 'lear as e3plained
in Roan vs. /on?ales$ 1<9 %CRA E>D and
Centur! 0o3 vs. Court of Appeals$ 1E<
%CRA E99. Also$ it "ust e pointed out
that poli'e a'tions should not e
'hara'teri?ed ! "ethods that offend
oneOs sense of @usti'e &Ro'hin vs.
California$ :<; -% 1E9A.
The Court elieves it highl! proale
that so"e violations were a'tuall!
'o""itted. .ut the re"ed! is not to stop
all poli'e a'tions$ in'luding the essential
and legiti"ate ones. A show of for'e is
so"eti"es ne'essar! as long as the
rights of people are prote'ted and not
violated. However$ the re"ed! of the
petitioners is not an original a'tion for
prohiition sin'e not one vi'ti" 'o"plains
and not one violator is properl! 'harged.
It is asi'all! for the e3e'utive
depart"ent and the trial 'ourts. The
prole" is appropriate for the Co""ission
of Hu"an Rights.
The petition was therefore re"anded
to the Regional Trial Courts of 4anila$
4alaon and Pasa! Cit! where the
petitioners "a! present eviden'e
supporting their allegations so that the
erring parties "a! e pinpointed and
prose'uted. In the "eanti"e$ the a'ts
violative of hu"an rights alleged ! the
petitioners as 'o""itted during the poli'e
a'tions are E18)I1ED until su'h ti"e as
per"anent rules to govern su'h a'tions
are pro"ulgated.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Cru?$ Padilla and %ar"iento$ 88. $
Dissenting

The ruling of the "a@orit! that the
petitioners are not proper parties is a
spe'ious prete3t for ina'tion. +e have
held that te'hni'al o@e'tions "a! e
rushed aside where there are
'onstitutional 6uestions that "ust e "et
&R)DRI/-EB F%. /E**A$ 2; PHI*. EC:(
T)*E1TI1) F%. C)4E*EC$ <1 %CRA DC;(
PHI*C)1%A F%. 8I4E1EB$ E9 %CRA <D2(
ED- F%. ERICTA$ :9 %CRA <>1(
/)1BA*E% F%. C)4E*EC$ ;D %CRA >:9(
*A/-1BAD F%. CA$ 19< %CRA 122(
DE4ETRIA F%. A*.A$1<> %CRA ;C>A.
*o?ada was in fa't an aerration.
+here liert! is involved$ ever! person
is a proper part! even if he "a! not e
dire'tl! in@ured. Ea'h of us has a dut! to
prote't liert! and that alone "a#es hi" a
proper part!. It is not onl! the owner of a
urning house who has the right to 'all
the fire"en.
%e'tion ;$ Art. III of the 'onstitution is
ver! 'lear: -nreasonale sear'hes and
sei?ures of whatever nature and for
whatever purpose is prohiited.
%aturation drives are 1)T A4)1/ THE
ACCEPTED I1%TA1CE% +HE1 A %EARCH
)R A1 ARRE%T 4AG .E 4ADE +ITH)-T A
+ARRA1T. THEG C)4E -1DER THE
C)1CEPT )0 THE 0I%HI1/ EMPEDITI)1%
%TI/4ATIBED .G *A+ A1D D)CTRI1E M
M M I su"it that this 'ourt should instead
'ategori'all! and e"phati'all! that these
saturation drives are violative of hu"an
rights and individual liert! and should e
stopped i""ediatel!. +hile the! "a! e
allowed in the a'tual theater of "ilitar!
operations against the insurgents$ the
Court should also "a#e it 'lear that 4etro
4anila is not su'h a attleground.
D. I1 THE 4ATTER )0 THE PETITI)1
0)R HA.EA% C)RP-% )0 R).ERT) -4I*$
R)*A1D) D-RA* and RE1AT)
FI**A1-EFA. 4A1)*ITA -4I* and
1ICA1)R D-RA*$ 0E*ICITA% %E%E F%.
0IDE* RA4)%$ ET A*. and 'o"panion
'ases$ /.R. 1o. >19ED$ 8ul! 2$ 122C &An
1PA "a! e arrested without warrant
while sleeping or eing treated in a
hospital e'ause his eing a 'o""unist
reel is a 'ontinuing 'ri"eA
h. If the @udge finds that thereOs proale
'ause$ "ust he issue a warrant of arrest
as a "atter of 'ourseJ %ee the
distin'tions.
Read:
1. SAMULDE VS. SALVANI'
SEPTEM:ER 2-' +,88 &1o e'ause a
warrant is issued in order to have
@urisdi'tion of the 'ourt over the person of
an a''used and to assure the 'ourt of his
presen'e whenever his 'ase is 'alled in
'ourt. As su'h$ if the 'ourt elieves that
the presen'e of the a''used 'ould e had
even without a warrant of arrest$ then he
"a! not issue said warrant. 1ote: This
'ase involves a "inor offenseA
;. GO?O VS. TACGAN' *00
SCRA 2-8. If the offense 'o""itted is a
serious one li#e that otaining in this 'ase
for "urder$ the 8udge "ust issue a
warrant of arrest after deter"ining the
e3isten'e of proale 'auseA
i. %ear'hing 6uestions
Read:
DR. 1E4E%I) PR-DE1TE F%. THE H)1.
EMEC-TIFE 8-D/E A.E*ARD) 4. DAGRIT$
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *. *.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
RTC ::$ 4anila H People of the Philippines$
/R 1o. >;>DC$ De'e"er 1<$ 12>2 &En
.an'A
%ear'h and sei?ure(
re6uire"ents,re6uisites of a valid sear'h
warrant( sear'hing 6uestions
Padilla$ 8.

This is a petition to annul and set aside
the )rder of respondent 8udge DE1GI1/
the "otion of the petitioner to 6uash
%ear'h +arrant 1o. >D-1< as well as its
)rder den!ing the petitionerOs 4otion for
Re'onsideration.
0a'ts:

1. )n )'toer :1$ 12>D$ P,4a@or Alladin
Di"ag"aliw$ Chief of the Intelligen'e
%pe'ial A'tion Division &I%ADA of the
+estern Poli'e Distri't &+PDA filed with
the Regional Trial Court of 4anila$ .ran'h
::$ presided ! the respondent 8udge$ an
appli'ation for the issuan'e of a %ear'h
+arrant for violation of PD 1>EE against
the petitioner(
;. In his appli'ation for sear'h warrant$
P,4a@or Di"ag"aliw alleged that:
I1. That he has een infor"ed and has
good and suffi'ient reasons to elieve that
1E4E%I) PR-DE1TE who "a! e found at
the Pol!te'hni' -niversit! of the
Philippines 3 3 3 has in his 'ontrol or
possession firear"s$ e3plosives$ hand
grenades and a""unition intended to e
used as the "eans of 'o""itting an
offense 3 3 3(
I;. That the undersigned has verified the
report and found it to e a fa't 3 3 3 I.
In support of said appli'ation$ P,*t.
0loren'io Angeles e3e'uted a IDeposition
of +itness dated )'toer :1$ 12>D .
:. )n 1ove"er 1$ 12>D$ a %unda! and
All %aints Da!$ the sear'h warrant was
enfor'ed ! so"e ;CC +PD operatives led
! Col. Edgar Dula Torre and 4a@or
4aganto(
<. )n 1ove"er ;$ 12>D$ Ri'ardo Aando$
a "e"er of the sear'hing tea" e3e'uted
an affidavit alleging that he found in the
drawer of a 'ainet inside the wash roo"
of Dr. PrudenteOs offi'e a ulging rown
envelope with three live frag"entation
hand grenades separatel! with old
newspapers(
9. )n 1ove"er E$ 12>D$ the petitioner
"oved to 6uash the sear'h warrant on the
grounds that:
a. the 'o"plainantOs lone witness$ *t.
Angeles had no personal #nowledge of the
fa'ts whi'h for"ed the asis for the
issuan'e of the sear'h warrant(
. the e3a"ination of said witness was not
in the for" of sear'hing 6uestions and
answers(
'. the sear'h warrant was a general
warrant$ for the reason that it did not
parti'ularl! des'rie the pla'e to e
sear'hed and that it failed to 'harge one
spe'ifi' offense( and
d. the warrant was issued in violation of
Cir'ular 1o. 12 of the %upre"e Court in
that the 'o"plainant failed to allege that
the issuan'e of the sear'h warrant on a
%aturda! was urgent.
E. )n 4ar'h 2$ 12>E$ the respondent
@udge denied the "otion to 6uash and on
April ;C$ 12>>$ the sa"e @udge denied
petitionerOs "otion for re'onsideration.
Hen'e this petition.
Issue:

+as the %ear'h +arrant issued ! the
respondent @udge validJ +as there
proale 'auseJ
Held:
a. 0or a valid sear'h warrant to issue$
there "ust e proale 'ause$ whi'h is to
e deter"ined ! the @udge$ after
e3a"ination under oath or affir"ation of
the 'o"plainant and the witnesses he "a!
produ'e$ and parti'ularl! des'riing the
pla'e to e sear'hed and the persons or
things to e sei?ed. The proale 'ause
"ust e in 'onne'tion with one spe'ifi'
offense and the @udge "ust$ efore
issuing the warrant$ personall! e3a"ine in
the for" of sear'hing 6uestions and
answers$ in writing and under oath$ the
'o"plainant and the witnesses he "a!
produ'e$ on fa'ts personall! #nown to
the" and atta'h to the re'ord their sworn
state"ents together with an! affidavits
su"itted.
The Iproale 'auseI for a valid sear'h
warrant$ has een defined Ias su'h fa'ts
and 'ir'u"stan'es whi'h would lead a
reasonal! dis'reet and prudent "an to
elieve that an offense has een
'o""itted$ and that the o@e'ts sought in
'onne'tion with the offense are in the
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *8 *8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
pla'e sought to e sear'hedI. &Nuintero
vs. 1.I$ 8une ;:$ 12>>A. This proale
'ause "ust e shown to e within the
personal #nowledge of the 'o"plainant or
the witnesses he "a! produ'e and not
ased on "ere hearsa!. &P. F%. %G 8-C)$
E< PHI*. EED( A*FAREB F%. C0I$ E< PHI*.
::( -% F%. ADDI%)1$ ;> PHI*. 9EEA.
In his affidavit$ 4a@or Di"ag"aliw
de'lared that Ihe has een infor"edI that
1e"esio Prudente Ihas in his 'ontrol and
possessionI the firear"s and e3plosivees
des'ried therein$ and that he Ihas
verified the report and found it to e a
fa't.I )n the other hand$ *t. Angeles
de'lared that as a result of 'ontinuous
surveillan'e for several da!s$ the!
Igathered infor"ation=s fro" verified
sour'esI that the holders of said firear"s
and e3plosives are not li'ensed t possess
the". It is 'lear fro" the foregoing that
the appli'ant and his witness HAD 1)
PER%)1A* P1)+*ED/E )0 THE 0ACT%
A1D CIRC-4%TA1CE% whi'h e'a"e the
asis for issuing the 6uestioned sear'h
warrant$ ut a'6uired #nowledge thereof
onl! through infor"ation fro" other
sour'es or persons.
Despite the fa't that 4a@or
Di"ag"aliw stated in his affidavit that Ihe
verified the infor"ation he had earlier
re'eived and found it to e a fa't$ GET
THERE I% 1)THI1/ I1 THE REC)RD T)
%H)+ )R I1DICATE H)+ A1D +HE1
%AID APP*ICA1T FERI0IED THE EAR*IER
I10)R4ATI)1 ACN-IRED .G HI4 A% T)
8-%TI0G HI% C)1C*-%I)1. He "ight have
'larified this point if there had een
sear'hing 6uestions and answers$ ut
there were none. In fa't$ the re'ords !ield
no 6uestions and answers$ whether
sear'hing or not$ vis-a-vis the said
appli'ant.
In A*FAREB F%. C0I$ E< PHI*. ::$ it
was held that the following test "ust e
'o"plied with in an appli'ation for sear'h
warrant or in a supporting deposition
ased on personal #nowledge or not-
IThe true test of suffi'ien'! of a
deposition or affidavit to warrant issuan'e
of a sear'h warrant is whether it was
drawn in a "anner that per@ur! 'ould e
'harged thereon and the affiant e held
liale for da"age 'aused. The oath
re6uired "ust refer to the truth of the
fa'ts within the personal #nowledge of the
appli'ant of a sear'h warrant and,or his
witnesses$ not of the fa'ts "erel!
reported ! a person who" one 'onsiders
to e reliale.I
Tested ! the aove standards$ the
allegation of the witness$ *t. Angeles$ do
not 'o"e up to the level of fa'ts ased on
his personal #nowledge so "u'h so that
he 'annot e held liale for per@ur! for
su'h allegations in 'ausing the issuan'e of
the 6uestioned sear'h warrant.
.esides$ respondent @udge did not ta#e
the deposition of the appli'ant as re6uired
! the Rules of Court. As held in Roan vs.
/on?ales$ 1<9 %CRA E2<$ I"ere affidavits
of the 'o"plainant and his witnesses are
thus insuffi'ient. The e3a"ining @udge has
to ta#e the depositions in writing of the
'o"plainant and the witnesses he "a!
produ'e and atta'h the" to the re'ord.I
. There was also no sear'hing 6uestions
as#ed ! the respondent @udge e'ause as
shown ! the re'ord$ his 6uestions were
too rief and short and did not e3a"ine
the 'o"plainant and his witnesses in the
for" of sear'hing 6uestions and answers.
)n the 'ontrar!$ the 6uestions as#ed were
leading as the! 'alled for a si"ple I!esI or
InoI answer. As held in Nuintero vs. 1.I$
8une ;:$ 12>>$ Ithe 6uestions propounded
are not suffi'ientl! sear'hing to estalish
proale 'ause. As#ing of leading
6uestions to the deponent in an
appli'ation for sear'h warrant and
'ondu'ting of e3a"ination in a general
"anner would not satisf! the
re6uire"ents for the issuan'e of a valid
sear'h warrant.I
The Court avails of this de'ision to
reiterate the stri't re6uire"ents for
deter"ination of proale 'ause in the
valid issuan'e of a sear'h warrant as
enun'iated in earlier 'ases. True$ this
re6uire"ents are stringent ut the
purpose is to assure that the
'onstitutional right of the individual
against unreasonale sear'h and sei?ure
shall re"ain oth "eaningful and
effe'tive.
'. The rule is$ that a des'ription of a pla'e
to e sear'hed is suffi'ient if the offi'er
with the warrant 'an with reasonale
effort as'ertain and identif! the pla'e
intended &P F%. FE*)%)$ <> PHI*. 1>CA.
In the 'ase at ar$ the warrant des'ried
the pla'e to e sear'hed as the pre"ises
of the P-P$ "ore parti'ularl! the offi'es of
the Depart"ent of %'ien'e and Ta'ti's as
well as the )ffi'e of the President$
1e"esio Prudente.
There is also no violation of the Ione
spe'ifi' offenseI re6uire"ent 'onsidering
that the appli'ation for a sear'h warrant
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *, *,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
e3pli'itl! des'ried the offense: illegal
possession of firear"s and a""unitions
under PD 1>EE.
d. CIRC-*AR 1). 12 )0 THE %-PRE4E
C)-RT "erel! provides for a guideline$
departure fro" whi'h would not
ne'essaril! affe't the validit! of the sear'h
warrant provided the 'onstitutional
re6uire"ents are 'o"plied with.
a. H-.ERT +E.. F%. DE *E)1$
;<D %CRA E9C
Read also:
1. Alvare? vs. C0I$ E< Phil. ::
&+hen the appli'ant is asing his
#nowledge fro" an infor"ant$ the sa"e is
not validA
;. *una vs. Pla?a$ ;E %CRA :1:
:. De 4ulata vs. Iri?ari$ E; %CRA
;1C
<. 4arinas vs. %io'hi$ 1C< %CRA
<;:
9. Roan vs. /on?ales$ 1<9 E>D
E. 4ata vs. .a!ona$ 1;> %CRA :>>
&Depositions of the appli'ants and
witnesses should e atta'hed to the
re'ord of the 'aseA
D. Corro vs. *ising$ 1:D %CRA 9<1
>. 1olas'o vs Pano$ 1<D %CRA 9C2
2. .urgos vs. Chief of %taff$ 1::
%CRA >CC
1C. P. vs. .urgos$ %epte"er
1<$12>E
11. P. vs. A"innudin G Ahni$ 8ul!
E$12>>
1;. Ponsi'a vs. Ignalaga$ 8ul!
:1$12>D &+hen the state"ents in the
affidavits of witnesses are "ere
generalities$ "ere 'on'lusions of law$ and
not positive state"ents of parti'ular a'ts$
the warrant is not validA
1:. Aer'a vs. Fer$ April 19$12>>
;. Panganian vs. Cesar$ 192 %CRA
922
:. PE1D)1 F%. CA$ 1ove"er 1E$
122C. &+hen the 6uestions as#ed to the
appli'ant for a sear'h warrant was pre-
t!ped$ the sa"e is not valid sin'e there
'ould have een no sear'hing 6uestionsA
@. +arrantless sear'hes and sei?ures--
when valid
or not.
Read:
+. RICARDO VALMONTE VS. GEN
RENATO DE VILLA' GR No.
8*,88' S"&t"0;"$ 2,' +,8,
+arrantless sear'hes and sei?ures(
validit! of 'he'#points
Padilla$ 8.
0a'ts:

1. )n 8anuar! ;C$ 12>D$ the 1ational
Capital Region Distri't Co""and &1CRDCA
was a'tivated with the "ission of
'ondu'ting se'urit! operations within its
area of responsiilit! for the purpose of
"aintaining pea'e and order. As part of its
dut! to "aintain pea'e and order$ the
1CRDC installed 'he'#points in various
parts of Falen?uela$ 4etro 4anila.
Petitioners 'lai" that e'ause of these
'he'#points$ the residents of Falen?uela$
44 are worried of eing harassed and of
their safet! eing pla'ed at the aritrar!$
'apri'ious and whi"si'al disposition of the
"ilitar! authorities "anning the
'he'#points 'onsidering that their 'ars
and vehi'les are eing su@e'ted to
regular sear'hes and 'he'#-ups$ espe'iall!
at night or dawn$ without the enefit of a
sear'h warrant and,or 'ourt order.
;. )n 8ul! 2$ 12>> at dawn$ the
apprehensions of the residents of
Falen?uela in'reased e'ause .en@a"in
Parpon$ the suppl! offi'er of the
4uni'ipalit! of Falen?uela was gunned
down in 'old lood ! the "ilitar! "en
"anning the 'he'#points for ignoring or
refusing to su"it hi"self to the
'he'#point and for 'ontinuing to speed off
inspite of several warning shots fired in
the air.
Issue:

+hether or not the e3isten'e of said
'he'#points as well as the periodi'
sear'hes and sei?ures "ade ! the
"ilitar! authorities without sear'h warrant
validJ
Held:

PetitionersO 'on'ern for their safet!
and apprehension at eing harassed !
the "ilitar! "anning the 'he'#points are
not suffi'ient grounds to de'lare the
'he'#points as per se illegal.
1ot all sear'hes and sei?ures are
prohiited. Those whi'h are reasonale
are not foridden. A reasonale sear'h is
not to e deter"ined ! an! fi3ed for"ula
ut is to e resolved a''ording to the fa'ts
of ea'h 'ase.
+here$ for e3a"ple$ the offi'er "erel!
draws aside the 'urtain of a va'ant vehi'le
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 90 90
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
whi'h is par#ed on a puli' fair grounds
&People vs. Case$ 12C 4+ ;>2A$ or si"pl!
loo#s into a vehi'le &%tate vs. /aina$ 2D
%E E;A$ or flashes a light therein &Rowland
vs. Co""onwealth$ ;92 %+ ::A$ these do
not 'onstitute unreasonale sear'h.
The setting up of 'he'#points in
Falen?uela$ 4etro 4anila "a! e
'onsidered as se'urit! "easure to
effe'tivel! "aintain pea'e and order and
to thwart plots to destaili?e the
govern"ent. In this 'onne'tion$ the Court
"a! ta#e @udi'ial noti'e of the shift to
uran 'enters and their suurs of the
insurgen'! "ove"ent$ so 'learl! refle'ted
in the in'reased #illings in 'ities of poli'e
and "ilitar! "en ! 1PAOs Isparrow
units$I not to "ention the aundan'e of
unli'ensed firear"s.
.ET+EE1 THE I1HERE1T RI/HT )0
THE %TATE T) PR)TECT IT% EMI%TE1CE
A1D PR)4)TE P-.*IC +E*0ARE A1D A1
I1DIFID-A*O% RI/HT A/AI1%T A
+ARRA1T*E%% %EARCH +HICH I%
H)+EFER REA%)1A.*G C)1D-CTED$
THE 0)R4ER %HA** PREFAI*.
True$ the "anning of these
'he'#points ! the "ilitar! is sus'eptile
of ause ! the "en in unifor"$ in the
sa"e "anner that all govern"ental power
is sus'eptile to ause. .-T $ AT THE
C)%T )0 )CCA%I)1A* I1C)1FE1IE1CE$
DI%C)40)RT A1D EFE1 IRRITATI)1 T)
THE CITIBE1$ THE CHECPP)I1T% D-RI1/
THE%E A.1)R4A* TI4E% ARE PART )0
THE PRICE +E PAG 0)R A1 )RDER*G
%)CIETG A1D PEACE0-* C)44-1ITG.
0inall!$ it "ust e e"phasi?ed that on
8ul! 1D$ 12>>$ the "ilitar! 'he'#points in
4etro 4anila were te"poraril! lifted and a
review and refine"ent of the rules in the
'ondu't of the poli'e and "ilitar! "anning
the 'he'#points upon order of the 1CRDC
Chief.
Cru? and %ar"iento$ 88.$ dissenting:
The land de'laration ! the "a@orit!
that individual rights "ust !ield to the
de"ands of national se'urit! ignores the
fa't that the .ill of Rights was intended
pre'isel! to li"it the authorit! of the %tate
even if asserted on the ground of national
se'urit!.
RE%)*-TI)1 )1 THE 4)TI)1 0)R
REC)1%IDERATI)1$ 8-1E 19$ 122C

Fer! I"portant:
The %upre"e Court in its Resolution of
the 4otion for Re'onsideration dated 19
8une$ 122C$ held that "ilitar! and poli'e
'he'#points are not illegal as these
"easures to prote't the govern"ent and
safeguards the lives of the people. The
'he'#points are legal as where the
survival of the organi?ed govern"ent is on
the alan'e$ or where the lives and safet!
of the people are in grave peril. However$
the %upre"e Court held further that the
"ilitar! offi'ers "anning the 'he'#points
"a! 'ondu't FI%-A* %EARCH )1*G$ 1)T
.)DI*G %EARCH.
Read also the RE%)*-TI)1
)1 THE 4)TI)1 0)R
REC)1%IDERATI)1 dated 8-1E 19$ 122C$
1>9 %CRA EE9
Read also:
1-a. .i?al Alih vs. 4en. Castro,
)une &,,$#06
1-. P s. Cendana$ )'toer
1D$ 122C
1-'. P. vs. Castiller$ August
E$ 122C
1-d. P. vs. )laes$ 8ul! :C$
122C
;. Papa vs. 4ago$ ;; %CRA >9D
:. Roldan vs. Ar'a$ E9 %CRA ::E
<. P. vs. C0I$ 1C1 %CRA >E
9. Pa'is vs. Pa"aran$ 9E %CRA 1E
E. *ope? vs. Co""isioner$ E9 %CRA
::E
D. P vs. Cru?$ 1E9 %CRA 1:9
>. 1olas'o vs. Pano$ 1<D %CRA 9C2
H 1:2 %CRA 19;
2. P vs. Claudio$ 1EC %CRA E<E
&There is a valid warrantless sear'h if a
1ARC)4 offi'er arrests the person who
owns a ag whi'h 'ontains "ari@uana
whi'h he found out when he s"elled the
sa"e. Here $ there is a proale 'ause
sin'e he was personal #nowledge due to
his e3pertise on drugsA
11. PE)P*E F%. DE* R)%ARI)$ 8ul!
1C$ 122<. &After the infor"ant was given
! the poli'e the a"ount of P1CC.CC$ he
went to u! "ari@uana fro" the a''used
then return to the poli'e head6uarters
with said arti'le. Thereafter$ the poli'e"en
went to arrest the a''used without
warrant. The arrest is not valid sin'e it
does not fall under %e'tion 9 Rule 11:A
*i#ewise$ after se'uring a sear'h
warrant authori?ing the sei?ure of shau
and its paraphernalia and instead$ an
unli'ensed firear" was sei?ed instead$
said gun is inad"issile in eviden'e.
#. 4a! a non-@udi'ial offi'er issue a
warrant of arrestJ &1)A
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 9+ 9+
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
Read:
1. Harve! vs. 4iria"
Defensor-%antiago$ 8une ;E$12>>
;. 4oreno vs. Fivo$ ;C %CRA
9E;
:. *i" vs. Pon'e de *eon$ EE
%CRA ;22
<. H)RTE1CIA %A*ABAR F%.
H)1 T)4A% ACHAC)%)$ /.R. 1). >191C$
4ar'h 1<$ 122C &En an'A
9. Presidential AntiYDollar
%alting Tas# 0or'e vs. CA$ 4ar'h 1E$
12>2
l. Properties su@e't to sei?ure
Read:
1 1. %e'. ;$ Rule 1;E$12>9 Rules
on Cri"ial Pro'edure$ as a"ended
;. E%PA1) F%. CA$ ;>> %CRA
99>
". +arrantless sear'hes and arrests
Read:
1. P. vs. .ati$ August ;D$ 122C
1-a. 4anuel et al.$ vs. 8udge Tirso
Felas'o$ /R 1o. ><EEE$ 0eruar! 2$ 12>2
1-. /ar'ia-Padilla vs. Enrile$1;1
%CRA <D H 1:D %CRA E<D
1-'. P. vs. 4aspil$ 8r.$ August ;C$
122C &Co"pare with P. vs. A"innudin$
8ul! E$ 12>>$ supraA
1-d. Posadas vs. CA$ Aug. ;$ 122C
1-e. P. vs. De la Cru?
1-f. P. vs. orti?$ De'. :$ 122C
1-g. Rolito /o vs. CA$ 0e. 11$
122;
1-h. People vs. 4ati$ 8anuar! 1>$
1221
;. 4orales vs. Pon'e Enrile$ 1;1
%CRA 9:>
;-a. P vs. .urgos$ 1<< %CRA 1
;-. People vs. de la Cru?$ 1><
%CRA <1E
;-'. /at'halian vs. .oard$ 4a! :1$
1221
;-d. People vs. %u'ro$ 4ar'h 1>$
1221
;-e. PE)P*E F%. %)*AGA)$ ;E;
%CRA ;99
;-f. PE)P*E F%. C-I%)1$ ;9E
%CRA :;9
;-g. PE)P*E F%. DA4A%)$ ;1;
%CRA 9<D
;-h. )P)%ADA% F%. CA$ ;9> %CRA
1>>
;-i. PE)P*E F%. 8-ATA1$ ;EC %CRA
9:; &.u!-ust operationA
:. %e'. E$ Rule 11:$ 12>9 Rules on
Cri"inal Pro'edure$ as a"ended
n. Effe't posting ail or entering a plea
during the arraign"ent$ if the arrest was
illegal. &The alleged illegalit! of the arrest
is dee"ed waived upon posting of the
ond ! the a''usedA
PEOPLE VS. GALVE?' *88 SCRA 29- PEOPLE VS. GALVE?' *88 SCRA 29-
4endo?a$ 8.
T1" &ol!"0/3 /$$"<t"5
t1" /!!)<"5G/&&"ll/3t o3 t1" ;/<<
<ol"ly o4 #1/t R"y3/l5o C/<t$o 1/5
tol5 10 /35 3ot ;"!/)<" 1" </# t1"
/!!)<"5G/&&"ll/3t !o00t t1" !$0"
!1/$2"5 /2/3<t 10. I35""5' t1"
&$o<"!)to3 /50tt"5 t1/t t1"$" #/<
3o #/$$/3t o4 /$$"<t <<)"5 /2/3<t
/!!)<"5G/&&"ll/3t #1"3 t1" l/tt"$
#/< t/I"3 3to !)<to5y. Co3<5"$32
t1/t t1" /!!)<"5G/&&"ll/3t #/< 3ot
!o00tt32 / !$0" /t t1" t0" 1"
#/< /$$"<t"5 3o$ 55 t1" /$$"<t32
o44!"$ 1/6" /3y &"$<o3/l I3o#l"52"
o4 4/!t< 35!/t32 t1/t /!!)<"5G
/&&"ll/3t !o00tt"5 / !$0"' 1<
/$$"<t #t1o)t / #/$$/3t !/33ot ;"
B)<t4"5.
However$ ! entering a plea of not
guilt! during the arraign"ent$ the
a''used-appellant waived his right to raise
the issue of illegalit! of his arrest. IT I%
1)+ %ETT*ED THAT ).8ECTI)1 T) A
+ARRA1T )0 ARRE%T )R THE
PR)CED-RE .G +HICH A C)-RT
ACN-IRE% 8-RI%DICTI)1 )FER THE
PER%)1 )0 A1 ACC-%ED 4-%T .E 4ADE
.E0)RE HE E1TER% HI% P*EA$
)THER+I%E$ THE ).8ECTI)1 I% DEE4ED
+AIFED. THE 0ACT THAT THE ARRE%T
+A% I**E/A* D)E% 1)T RE1DER THE
%-.%EN-E1T PR)CEEDI1/% F)ID A1D
DEPRIFE THE %TATE )0 IT% RI/HT T)
C)1FICT THE /-I*TG +HE1 A** THE
0ACT% P)I1T T) THE C-*PA.I*ITG )0
THE ACC-%ED.
Read:
1. Callanta vs. Fillanueva$ DD %CRA
:DD
;. PE)P*E F%. 1ABARE1)$ ;EC
%CRA ;9E
:. 0I*)TE) F%. %A1DI/A1.AGA1$
;E: %CRA ;;;
<. PE)P*E F%. 1ABARE1)$ ;EC
%CRA ;9E
9. PE)P*E F%. *AP-RA$ ;99 %CRA
>9
E. PE)P*E F%. %I*A1$ ;9< %CRA
<21
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 92 92
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
o . Penalt! for illegal arrest
Read:
Palon vs. 1AP)*C)4$ 4a! ;>$
12>2
p. 8udi'ial pronoun'e"ents on illegall!
sei?ed eviden'e$ 1CE %CRA ::E
6. The e3'lusionar! rule$199 %CRA <2<
n. +hat is the status of a
do'u"ent otained through supoenaJ
Read:
Dianalan vs. Pros.$ )ffi'e of the
Tanoda!an$ 1ov. ;D$ 122C
r. %ear'h warrant for pirated video tapes
1. Centur! 0o3 vs. CA$ 1E< %CRA
E99 &The "aster 'op! of the allegedl!
pirated tape should e presented efore
the @udge in order to 'onvin'e hi" of the
e3isten'e of proale 'auseA
;. C)*-4.IA PICT-RE% F%. CA$
;E1 %CRA 1<<
LATEST
CASES ON
SEARCH
AND
SEI?URES
-G F%. .IR$ :<< %CRA :E -G F%. .IR$ :<< %CRA :E
The following are the re6uisites of
a valid sear'h warrant:
1. The warrant "ust e issued
upon proale 'ause(
;. The proale 'ause "ust e
deter"ined ! the @udge hi"self and not
! appli'ant or an! other person(
:. In deter"ining proale 'ause$
the @udge "ust e3a"ine under oath and
affir"ation the 'o"plainant and su'h
witnesses as the latter "a! produ'e( and
<. The warrant issued "ust
parti'ularl! des'rie the pla'e to e
sear'hed and the person or things to e
sei?ed.
A des'ription of the pla'e to e
sear'hed is suffi'ient if the offi'er with
the warrant 'an$ with reasonale effort$
as'ertain and identif! the pla'e intended
and distinguish it fro" other pla'es in the
'o""unit!. %ear'h warrants are not
issued on loose$ vague or doutful asis of
fa't$ nor on "ere suspi'ion or elief. In
this 'ase$ "ost of the ite"s listed in the
warrants fail to "eet the test of
parti'ularit!$ espe'iall! sin'e the witness
had furnished the @udge photo'opies of
the do'u"ents sought to e sei?ed. THE
SEARCH WARRANT IS SEPARA:LE'
AND THOSE ITEMS NOT
PARTICULARLY DESCRI:ED MAY :E
CUT OFF WITHOUT DESTROYING THE
WHOLE WARRANT.
PEOPLE VS. VALDE?' *9+ SCRA
28
T1" &$ot"!to3 /2/3<t
)3$"/<o3/;l" <"/$!1 /35 <"O)$"
!o6"$< ;ot1 33o!"3t /35 2)lty /lI"
/2/3<t /3y 4o$0 o4 1211/35"53"<<
o4 l/# "34o$!"<.
T1" Aplain vie<F do3trine'
#1!1 0/y B)<t4y / <"/$!1 #t1o)t
#/$$/3t' APP*IE% )1*G +HERE THE
P)*ICE )00ICER I% 1)T %EARCHI1/ 0)R
EFIDE1CE A/AI1% THE ACC-%ED$ .-T
I1ADFERTE1T*G C)4E% ACR)%% A1
I1CRI4I1ATI1/ ).8ECT.
()<t ;"!/)<" t1"
0/$B)/3/ &l/3t< #"$" 4o)35 3 /3
)34"3!"5 lot 5o"< 3o$ &$"6"3t t1"
/&&"ll/3t 4$o0 36oI32 t1"
&$ot"!to3 /44o$5"5 ;y t1"
Co3<tt)to3. T1" $21t /2/3<t
)3$"/<o3/;l" <"/$!1 /35 <"O)$" <
t1" 00)3ty o4 o3"J< &"$<o3' #1!1
3!l)5"< 1< $"<5"3!"' &/&"$< /35
ot1"$ &o<<"<<o3<. Fo$ / &"$<o3 to ;"
00)3" /2/3<t )3$"/<o3/;l"
<"/$!1"< /35 <"O)$"<' 1" 3""5 3ot ;"
3 1< 1o0" o$ o44!"' #t13 / 4"3!"5
y/$5 o$ &$6/t" &l/!".
PE)P*E F%. .A-*A$ :<< %CRA EE:
I3 !/<" o4 !o3<"3t"5
<"/$!1"< o$ #/6"$ o4 t1"
!o3<tt)to3/l 2)/$/3t"" /2/3<t
o;t$)<6" <"/$!1"<' it is funda"ental
that to 'onstitute waiver$ IT 4-%T APPEAR
THAT THE RI/HT EMI%T%( THE PER%)1%
I1F)*FED HAD P1)+*ED/E$ EITHER
ACT-A* )R C)1%TR-CTIFE$ of the
e3isten'e of su'h right. T1" t1$5
!o35to3 55 3ot "A<t 3 t1" 3<t/3t
!/<". N"t1"$ #/< t1" <"/$!1
3!5"3t/l to / 6/l5 #/$$/3tl"<<
/$$"<t. (PEOPLE VS. FIFUEROA' ()ly -'
2000% A3 /ll"2"5 !o3<"3t to /
#/$$/3tl"<< <"/$!1 /35 <"O)$"
!/33ot ;" ;/<"5 0"$"ly o3 t1"
&$"<)0&to3 o4 $"2)l/$ty 3 t1"
&"$4o$0/3!" o4 o44!/l 5)ty. THE
PRESUMPTION :Y ITSELF' CANNOT
PREVAIL AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 9* 9*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL' AND
?EAL IN THE PURSUIT OF CRIMINALS
CANNOT ENNO:LE THE USE OF
AR:ITRARY METHODS THAT THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF A:HORS.
CHAPTER IV
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
%e'tion :. The priva'! of 'o""uni'ation
and 'orresponden'e shall e inviolale
e3'ept upon lawful order of the 'ourt$ or
when puli' safet! or order re6uires
otherwise as pres'ried ! law.
An! eviden'e otained in violation
of this or the pre'eding se'tion shall e
inad"issile for an! purpose in an!
pro'eeding.
Read:
Read:
1)TE: Appli'ale provisions of the Hu"an
%e'urit! A't,Anti-Terroris" *aw$ Repuli'
A't 1o. 2:D;$ Approved on 4ar'h E$ ;CCD
and effe'tive on 8ul! 19$ ;CCD &This *aw
shall e auto"ati'all! suspended one &1A
"onth efore and two &;A "onths after
the holding of an! ele'tionA
Please oserve the pro'edure in otaining
the LT1" W/$$/3t =o$ O$5"$> o4
S)$6"ll/3!"N' not found in the 12>D
Philippine Constitution.
%-RFEI**A1CE )0 %-%PECT% A1D
I1TERCEPTI)1 A1D REC)RDI1/ )0
C)44-1ICATI)1% )0 %-%PECT% )R
CHAR/ED )0 TERR)RI%4
Se!tion ). %urveillan'e of
suspe'ts and inter'eption and re'ording of
'o""uni'ations. The provisions of RA
<;CC &Anti-+iretapping *awA to the
'ontrar! notwithstanding$ a poli'e or law
enfor'e"ent offi'ial and the "e"ers of
his tea" "a!$ upon a written order of the
Court of Appeals$ listen to$ inter'ept and
re'ord$ with the use of an! "ode$ for" or
#ind or t!pe of ele'troni' or other
surveillan'e e6uip"ent or inter'epting and
tra'#ing devi'es$ or with the use of an!
other suitale wa!s or "eans for that
purpose$ an! 'o""uni'ation$ "essage$
'onversation$ dis'ussion$ or spo#en or
written words etween "e"ers of a
@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawed terrorist
organi?ation$ asso'iation$ or group of
persons or of an! person 'harged with or
suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris".
Provided$ That surveillan'e$
inter'eption and re'ording of
'o""uni'ations etween law!ers and
'lients$ do'tors and patients$ @ournalists
and their sour'es and 'onfidential
usiness 'orresponden'e shall not e
authori?ed.
Se!tion %. 0or"al Appli'ation for
8udi'ial Authori?ation.- The written order
of the authori?ing division of the Court of
Appeals to tra'# down$ tap$ listen$
inter'ept$ and re'ord 'o""uni'ations$
"essages$ 'onversations$ dis'ussions$ or
spo#en or written words of an! person
suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or the
'ri"e of 'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"$
shall onl! e granted ! the authori?ing
division of the Court of Appeals -P)1 A1
EM-PARTE written appli'ation of a poli'e or
law enfor'e"ent offi'ial who has een
dul! authori?ed in writing ! the Anti-
Terroris" Coun'il 'reated in %e'tion 9: of
this A't to file su'h e3-parte appli'ation$
and upon e3a"ination under oath and
affir"ation of the appli'ant and the
witnesses who "a! produ'e to estalish:
That there is proale 'ause to
elieve ased on personal #nowledge of
fa'ts and 'ir'u"stan'es that the said
'ri"e of terroris" or 'onspira'! to 'o""it
terroris" has een 'o""itted$ or is eing
'o""itted$ or is aout to e 'o""itted(
That there is proale 'ause to
elieve ased on personal #nowledge of
fa'ts and 'ir'u"stan'es that eviden'e
whi'h is essential to the 'onvi'tion of an!
'harged or suspe'ted person for$ or to the
solution or prevention of an! su'h 'ri"es$
will e otained( and
That there is no other effe'tive
"eans readil! availale for a'6uiring su'h
eviden'e.
Se!# &. Classifi'ation and Contents
of the )rder of the Court. The written
order granted ! the authori?ing division
of the Court of Appeals as well as its
order$ if an!$ to e3tend or renew the
sa"e$ the original appli'ation of the
appli'ant$ in'luding his appli'ation to
e3tend or renew$ if an!$ and the written
authori?ations of the Anti-Terroris"
Coun'il shall e dee"ed and are here!
de'lared as 'lassified infor"ation:
Provided$ That the person eing surveilled
or whose 'o""uni'ations$ letters$ papers$
"essages$ 'onversations$ dis'ussions$
spo#en or written words and effe'ts have
een "onitored$ listened to$ ugged or
re'orded ! law enfor'e"ent authorities
has the right to e infor"ed of the a'ts
done ! the law enfor'e"ent authorities
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 99 99
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
in the pre"ises or to 'hallenge$ if he or
she intends to do so$ the legalit! of the
interferen'e efore the Court of Appeals
whi'h issued said written order. The
written order of the authori?ing division of
the 'ourt of Appeals shall spe'if! the
following:
The identit!$ su'h as na"e
and address$ if #nown$ of the 'harged of
suspe'ted persons whose
'o""uni'ations$ "essages$
'onversations$ dis'ussions$ or spo#en or
written words are to e tra'#ed down$
tapped$ listened to$ inter'epted or
re'orded and$ in 'ase of radio$ ele'troni'$
or telephone &whether wireless or
otherwiseA 'o""uni'ations$ "essages$
'onversations$ dis'ussions$ or spo#en or
written words$ the ele'troni' trans"ission
s!ste"s or the telephone nu"ers to e
tra'#ed down$ tapped$ listened to$
inter'epted$ and re'orded and their
lo'ations if the person suspe'ted of the
'ri"e of terroris" or 'onspira'! to 'o""it
terroris" is not full! #nown$ su'h person
shall e su@e't to 'ontinuous surveillan'e
provided there is reasonale ground to do
so(
The identit! &na"e and
address$ and the poli'e or law
enfor'e"ent organi?ationA of the
"e"ers of his tea" @udi'iall! authori?ed
to tra'# down$ tap$ listen to$ inter'ept$
and re'ord the 'o""uni'ations$
"essages$ 'onversations$ dis'ussions$ or
spo#en or written words(
The offense or offenses
'o""itted$ or eing 'o""itted$ or sought
to e prevented( and
The length of ti"e whi'h
the authori?ation shall e used or 'arried
out.
Se!tion# $*# Effe'tive Period of
8udi'ial Authori?ation. An! authori?ation
granted ! the authori?ing division of the
'ourt of AppealsVshall onl! e effe'tive
for the length of ti"e spe'ified in the
written order of the authori?ing division of
the Court of Appeals$ whi'h shall not
e3'eed :C da!s fro" the date of re'eipt of
the written order of the authori?ing
division of the 'ourt of Appeals ! the
appli'ant poli'e or law enfor'e"ent
offi'ial.
The CA "a! e3tend or renew the
said authori?ation for another non-
e3tendile period$ whi'h shall not e3'eed
:C da!s fro" the e3piration of the original
periodVThe e3-parte appli'ation for
renewal has een dul! authori?ed ! the
Anti-terroris" Coun'il in writing.
If no 'ase is filed within the :C-da!
period$ the appli'ant poli'e or law
enfor'e"ent offi'ial shall i""ediatel!
notif! the person su@e't of the
surveillan'e$ inter'eption$ and re'ording of
the ter"ination of the said surveillan'e$
inter'eption and re'ording. KPenalt! to e
i"posed on the poli'e offi'ial who fails to
infor" the person su@e't of surveillan'e
of the ter"ination of the surveillan'e$
"onitoring$ inter'eption and re'ording
shall e penali?ed to 1C !ears and 1 da!
to 1; !ears.
Se!tion $+. Evidentiar! Falue of
Deposited 4aterials. An! listened to$
inter'epted$ and re'orded
'o""uni'ations$ "essages$
'onversationsV+HICH HAFE .EE1
%EC-RED I1 FI)*ATI)1 )0 THE
PERTI1E1T PR)FI%I)1% )0 THI% ACT$
%HA** A.%)*-TE*G 1)T .E AD4I%%I.*E
A1D -%A.*E A% EFIDE1CE A/AI1%T
A1G.)DG I1 A1G 8-DICIA*$ N-A%I-
8-DICIA*$ *E/I%*ATIFE$ )R
AD4I1I%TRATIFE I1FE%TI/ATI)1$
I1N-IRG$ PR)CEEDI1/$ )R HEARI1/.
(UDICIAL AUTHORI?ATION TO
ECAMINE :ANM DEPOSITS'
ACCOUNTS' AND RECORDS OF
SUSPECTED OR CHARGED
TERRORISTS
%e'tion ;D. @udi'ial authori?ation
re6uired to e3a"ine an# deposits$
a''ounts and re'ords.
The @usti'es of CA designated as
spe'ial 'ourt to handle anti-terroris"
'ases after satisf!ing the"selves of the
e3isten'e of proale 'ause in a hearing
'alled for that purpose that:
A person 'harged with or
suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"(
)f a @udi'iall! de'lared and
outlawed terrorist organi?ation or group of
persons(
)f a "e"er of su'h
@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawed
organi?ation$ asso'iation or group of
persons$ "a! authori?e in writing an!
poli'e or law enfor'e"ent offi'er and the
"e"ers of his tea" dul! authori?ed in
writing ! the anti-terroris" 'oun'il to:
1. e3a"ine or 'ause
the e3a"ination of$ the deposits$
pla'e"ents$ trust a''ounts$ assets$ and
re'ords in a an# or finan'ial institution(
and
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 98 98
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;. gather or 'ause the
gathering of an! relevant infor"ation
aout su'h deposits$ pla'e"ents$ trust
a''ounts$ assets$ and re'ords fro" a an#
or finan'ial institution. The an# or
finan'ial institution shall not refuse to
allow su'h e3a"ination or to provide the
desired infor"ation$ when so ordered !
and served with the written order of the
Court of Appeals.
Se!# '%. Appli'ation to e3a"ine
deposits$ a''ounts and re'ords.
The written order of the CA
authori?ing the e3a"ination of an#
deposits$ pla'e"ents$ trust a''ounts$
assets and re'ords:
A person 'harged with or
suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"(
)f a @udi'iall! de'lared and
outlawed terrorist organi?ation or group of
persons(
)f a "e"er of su'h
@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawed
organi?ation$ asso'iation or group of
persons$ in a an# or finan'ial institution-
-%HA** )1*G .E /RA1TED .G THE
A-TH)RIBI1/ DIFI%I)1 )0 THE CA
-P)1 A1 EM-PARTE APP*ICATI)1 T)
THAT E00ECT )0 A P)*ICE )R *A+
E10)RCE4E1T )00ICIA* who has een
dul! authori?ed ! the Anti-Terroris"
Coun'il to file su'h e3-parte appli'ation
and upon e3a"ination under oath or
affir"ation of the appli'ant and his
witnesses he "a! produ'e to estalish the
fa'ts that will @ustif! the need and urgen'!
of e3a"ining and free?ing the an#
deposits$ pla'e"ents$ trust a''ounts$
assets and re'ords:
)f A person 'harged with or
suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"(
)f a @udi'iall! de'lared and
outlawed terrorist organi?ation or group of
persons(
)f a "e"er of su'h
@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawed
organi?ation$ asso'iation or group of
persons.
Se!tion ,+# Evidentiar! value of
deposited an# "aterials.- An!
infor"ation$ data$ e3'erpts$ su""aries$
notes$ "e"oranda$ wor# sheets$ reports
or do'u"ents a'6uired fro" the
e3a"ination of the an# deposits$
pla'e"ents$ trust a''ounts$ assets and
re'ords of:
A person 'harged with or
suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"(
)f a @udi'iall! de'lared and
outlawed terrorist organi?ation or group of
persons(
)f a "e"er of su'h
@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawed
organi?ation$ asso'iation or group of
persons$
-whi'h have een se'ured in
violation of the provisions of this A't$ shall
asolutel! not e ad"issile and usale as
eviden'e against an!od! in an! @udi'ial$
6uasi-@udi'ial$ legislative or ad"inistrative
investigation$ in6uir!$ pro'eeding or
hearing.
1. PE)P*E F%. CA.A*N-I1T)$
%epte"er 12$ ;CCE$ 9C; %CRA <12
2. ?ULUETA VS. CA' F";$)/$y +0' +,,-
The wife for'il! opened the
drawers at the 'lini' of her do'tor-
husand and too# diaries$ 'he'#s and
greeting 'ards of his alleged para"ours.
Thereafter$ she used the sa"e in their
legal separation 'ase. %aid do'u"ents are
inad"issile in eviden'e. This is so
e'ause the inti"a'ies of husand and
wife does not @ustif! the rea#ing of
'ainets to deter"ine "arital infidelit!.
*. OPLE VS. TORRES' ()ly 2*' +,,8
Puno$ 8.
0a'ts:
)n De'e"er 1;$ 122E$ then
President 0IDE* F. RA4)% issued
Ad"inistrative )rder 1o. :C> entitled
5AD)PTI)1 )0 A 1ATI)1A*
C)4P-TERIBED IDE1TI0ICATI)1
RE0ERE1CE %G%TE47.
The A) see#s to have all 0ilipino
'iti?ens and foreign residents to have a
Population Referen'e 1u"er &PR1A
generated ! the 1ational %tatisti's )ffi'e
&1%)A through the use of .I)4ETRIC%
TECH1)*)/G .
The A) was 6uestioned ! %enator
)ple on the following grounds:
1. The estalish"ent of the PR1
without an! law is an un'onstitutional
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 9- 9-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
usurpation of the legislative powers of the
Congress of the Philippines(
;. The appropriation of puli'
funds for the i"ple"entation of the said
A) is un'onstitutional sin'e Congress has
the e3'lusive authorit! to appropriate
funds for su'h e3penditure( and
:. The A) violates the 'iti?en=s
right to priva'! prote'ted ! the .ill of
Rights of the Constitution.
Held:
1. The A) estalishes a s!ste" of
identifi'ation that is all-en'o"passing in
s'ope$ affe'ts the life and liert! of ever!
0ilipino 'iti?ens and foreign residents and
therefore$ it is supposed to e a law
passed ! Congress that i"ple"ents it$
not ! an Ad"inistrative )rder issued !
the President. Ad"inistrative Power$
whi'h is supposed to e e3er'ised ! the
President$ is 'on'erned with the wor# of
appl!ing poli'ies and enfor'ing orders as
deter"ined ! proper govern"ental
organs. It enales the President to fi3 a
unifor" standard of ad"inistrative
effi'ien'! and 'he'# the offi'ial 'ondu't of
his agents. Pres'inding fro" the foregoing
pre'epts$ A) :C> involves a su@e't that
is not appropriate to e 'overed ! an
Ad"inistrative )rder. An ad"inistrative
order is an ordinan'e issued ! the
President whi'h relates to spe'ifi' aspe'ts
in the ad"inistrative operation of the
govern"ent. It "ust e in har"on! with
the law and should e for the sole purpose
of i"ple"enting the law and 'arr!ing out
the legislative poli'!. The su@e't of A)
:C> therefore is e!ond the power of the
President to issue and it is a usurpation of
legislative power.
;. The A) li#ewise violates the right to
priva'! sin'e its "ain purpose is to
provide a 5'o""on referen'e nu"er to
estalish a lin#age a"ong 'on'erned
agen'ies through the use of .I)4ETRIC%
TECH1)*)/G. .io"etr! is the s'ien'e of
the appli'ation of statisti'al "ethods to
iologi'al fa'ts( a "athe"ati'al anal!sis
of a iologi'al data. It is the 'onfir"ation
of an individual=s identit! through a
fingerprint$ retinal s'an$ hand geo"etr! or
fa'ial features. Through the PR1$ the
govern"ent offi'es has the 'han'e of
uilding a huge and for"idale
infor"ation ase through the ele'troni'
lin#age of the files of ever! 'iti?en. The
data$ however$ "a! e gathered for
gainful and useful govern"ent purposes(
ut the e3isten'e of this vast reservoir of
personal infor"ation 'onstitutes a 'overt
invitation to "isuse$ a te"ptation that
"a! e too great for so"e of our
authorities to resist.
0urther$ the A) does not even tells us in
'lear and une6uivo'al ter"s how these
infor"ations gathered shall e handled. It
does not provide who shall 'ontrol and
a''ess the data and under what
'ir'u"stan'es and for what purpose.
These fa'tors are essential to safeguard
the priva'! and guarant! the integrit! of
the infor"ation. The 'o"puter lin#age
gives other govern"ent agen'ies a''ess
to the infor"ation. GET$ THERE ARE 1)
C)1TR)*% T) /-ARD A/AI1%T *EAPA/E
)0 I10)R4ATI)1%. +HE1 THE ACCE%%
C)DE )0 THE C)1TR)* PR)/RA4% )0
THE PARTIC-*AR C)4P-TER %G%TE4 I%
.R)PE1$ A1 I1TR-DER$ +ITH)-T 0EAR
)0 %A1CTI)1 )R PE1A*TG$ CA1 4APE
-%E )0 THE DATA 0)R +HATEFER
P-RP)%E$ )R +)R%E$ 4A1IP-*ATE THE
DATA %T)RED +ITHI1 THE %G%TE4.
A) 1o. :C> is un'onstitutional
sin'e it falls short of assuring that
personal infor"ation gathered aout our
people will e used onl! for spe'ified
purposes there! violating the 'iti?en=s
right to priva'!.
PI*-%A1/ 4AG) -1) F%.
EMEC-TIFE %ECRETARG ED-ARD)
ER4ITA$ ET A*.$ April 12$ ;CCE H 8une ;C$
;CCE
:AYAN MUNA VS. ECECUTIVE
SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA' ET
AL.' A&$l +,' 200- R ()3" 20' 200-
Carpio$ 8.
President /loria 4a'apagal-Arro!o issued
Presidential Pro'la"ation 1o. <;C that
"andates the Adoption of a -nified$ 4ulti-
purpose Identifi'ation %!ste" ! all
/overn"ent Agen'ies in the E3e'utive
Depart"ent. This is so despite the fa't
that the %upre"e Court held in an En
.an' de'ision in 122> )P*E F%.
EMEC-TIFE %ECRETARG R-.E1 T)RRE%
Ad"inistrative )rder 1o. :C>K1ational
'o"puteri?ed Identifi'ation Referen'e
%!ste"L issued ! then President 0idel F.
Ra"os that the sa"e is un'onstitutional
e'ause 5a national ID 'ard s!ste"
re6uires legislation e'ause it 'reates a
new national data 'olle'tion and 'ard
issuan'e s!ste"$ where none e3isted
efore7. The %upre"e Court li#ewise held
that E) :C> as un'onstitutional for it
violates the 'iti?en=s right to priva'!.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 9. 9.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
.ased on the )ple ruling$ the
petitioners 'lai"ed that Pro'la"ation 1o.
<;C is un'onstitutional on two &;A
grounds:
a. usurpation of legislative
powers( and
. it infringes on the 'iti?en=s right
to priva'!
Held:
The said E3e'utive )rder 1o. <;C does not
violate the 'iti?en=s right to priva'! sin'e it
does not re6uire all the 'iti?ens to e
issued a national ID as what happened in
A) :C>. )nl! those dealing or e"plo!ed
with the said govern"ent entities who are
re6uired to provide the re6uired
infor"ation for the issuan'e of the said
ID.
CAMILO L. SA:IO 6<. GORDON$ /.R.
1o. 1D<:<C$ )'toer 1D$ ;CCE$ 9C< %CRA
DC<
%andoval-/utierre?$ 8.
T1" F/!t<D
)n 0eruar! ;C$ ;CCE$ %enator 4iria"
Defensor %antiago introdu'ed Philippine
%enate Resolution 1o. <99 &%enate Res.
1o. <99A$
;1K<L
5dire'ting an in6uir! in aid of
legislation on the ano"alous losses
in'urred ! the Philippines )verseas
Tele'o""uni'ations Corporation &P)TCA$
Philippine Co""uni'ations %atellite
Corporation &PHI*C)4%ATA$ and
PHI*C)4%AT Holdings Corporation &PHCA
due to the alleged i"proprieties in their
operations ! their respe'tive .oard of
Dire'tors.7
)n 4a! >$ ;CCE$ Chief of %taff Rio C.
Ino'en'io$ under the authorit! of %enator
Ri'hard 8. /ordon$ wrote Chair"an Ca"ilo
*. %aio of the PC//$ one of the herein
petitioners$ inviting hi" to e one of the
resour'e persons in the puli' "eeting
@ointl! 'ondu'ted ! the Committee on
4overnment Corporations and *u+li3
2nterprises and Committee on *u+li3
Servi3es. The purpose of the puli'
"eeting was to delierate on %enate Res.
1o. <99.
;;KEL
21K<L
Anne3 5E7 of the Petition in /.R.
1o. 1D<:1>.
22KEL
Anne3 507 of the Petition in /.R.
1o. 1D<:1>.
)n 4a! 2$ ;CCE$ Chair"an %aio and
other 'o""issioners of the PC// de'lined
the invitation e'ause of prior
'o""it"ent.
;:KDL
At t1" </0" t0"' t1"y
36oI"5 S"!to3 9(;% o4 E.O. No.
+ earlier 6uoted.
)n %epte"er 1;$ ;CCE$ at around 1C:<9
a.".$ 4a@or /eneral .ala@adia arrested
Chair"an %aio in his offi'e at IRC
.uilding$ 1o. >; ED%A$ 4andalu!ong Cit!
and rought hi" to the %enate pre"ises
where he was detained.
Hen'e$ Chair"an %aio filed with the
%upre"e Court a petition for ha+eas
3orpus against the %enate Committee on
4overnment Corporations and *u+li3
2nterprises and Committee on *u+li3
Servi3es$ their Chair"en$ %enators
Ri'hard /ordon and 8o#er P. Arro!o and
4e"ers.
I S S U E SD
Is the investigation 'ondu'ted on
the petitioners violative of their right to
priva'!J
H E L DD
The 'lai" of i""unit! is without "erit.
Bones of priva'! are re'ogni?ed and
prote'ted in our laws.
;<K<EL
+ithin these
?ones$ an! for" of intrusion is
i"per"issile unless e3'used ! law and
in a''ordan'e with 'usto"ar! legal
pro'ess. The "eti'ulous regard we a''ord
to these ?ones arises not onl! fro" our
'onvi'tion that the right to priva'! is a
53onstitutional right7 and 5the right most
valued +y 3ivili?ed men$7
;9K<DL
ut also
fro" our adheren'e to the -niversal
De'laration of Hu"an Rights whi'h
23KDL
Anne3 5/7 of the Petition in /.R.
1o. 1D<:1>.
24K<EL
!arHue? v. Desierto$ /.R. 1o.
1:9>>;$ 8une ;D$ ;CC1$ :92 %CRA DD;.
25K<DL
%ee !orfe v. !utu3 1o. *-
;C:>D$ 8anuar! :1$ 12E>$ ;; %CRA <;<.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 98 98
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
"andates that$ 5no one shall +e su+7e3ted
to ar+itrary interferen3e <ith his priva3y7
and 5everyone has the right to the
prote3tion of the la< against su3h
interferen3e or atta3ks.F
&1-.%/
)ur .ill of Rights$ enshrined in Arti'le III
of the Constitution$ provides at least two
guarantees that e3pli'itl! 'reate ?ones of
priva'!. It highlights a person=s 5right to
+e let alone7 or the 5right to determine
<hat, ho< mu3h, to <hom and <hen
information a+out himself shall +e
dis3losed.7
;DK<2L
S"!to3 2 guarantees
5t1" $21t o4 t1" &"o&l" to ;"
<"!)$" 3 t1"$ &"$<o3<' 1o)<"<'
&/&"$< /35 "44"!t< /2/3<t
)3$"/<o3/;l" <"/$!1"< /35 <"O)$"<
o4 #1/t"6"$ 3/t)$" /35 4o$ /3y
&)$&o<".7 S"!to3 * renders inviolale
the 5&$6/!y o4 !o00)3!/to3 /35
!o$$"<&o35"3!"7 and further 'autions
that 5/3y "65"3!" o;t/3"5 3
6ol/to3 o4 t1< o$ t1" &$"!"532
<"!to3 <1/ll ;" 3/50<<;l" 4o$ /3y
&)$&o<" 3 /3y &$o!""532.7
In evaluating a 'lai" for violation of the
right to priva'!$ a 'ourt "ust deter"ine
whether a person has e3hiited a
reasonale e3pe'tation of priva'! and$ if
so$ whether that e3pe'tation has een
violated ! unreasonale govern"ent
intrusion.
;>K9CL
Appl!ing this
deter"ination to these 'ases$ the
i"portant in6uiries are: 4$<t$ did the
dire3tors and offi3ers of *hil3omsat
26 K<>L
Arti'le 1; of the -niversal
De'laration of Hu"an Rights. %ee
also Arti'le 1D &1A and &;A of the
International Covenant on Civil and
Politi'al Rights.
27 K<2L
Constitutional and *egal
%!ste"s of A%EA1 Countries$
%ison$ A'ade"! of A%EA1 *aw and
8urispruden'e$ 122C$ at ;;1$ 'iting
I.R. Cortes$ The Constitutional
0oundations of Priva'!$ D &12DCA.
28 K9CL
Burro<s v. Superior Court
of San Bernardino County$ 1: Cal.
:d ;:>$ 9;2 P ;d 92C &12D<A.
%ee Kat? v. United states &12EDA$
:>2 -.%. :<D$ :9C-:9;$ >> %. Ct.
9CD$ 12 *. Ed. ;d 9DE( *eople v.
Krivda &12D1A 9 Cal. :d :9D$ :E<$
2E Cal. Rptr. E;$ <>E P. ;d 1;E;( >
Cal. :d E;:-E;<$1C9 Cal. Rptr.
9;1$ 9C< P. ;d <9D. I1%ERT
Herrera=s Handoo# on Arrest$
%ear'h and %ei?ure.
9oldings Corporation e8hi+it a reasona+le
e8pe3tation of priva3yI( and <"!o35$ did
the government violate su3h
e8pe3tationI
The answers are in the negative.
Petitioners were invited in the %enate=s
puli' hearing to delierate on %enate
Res. 1o. <99$ parti'ularl! Lo3 t1"
/3o0/lo)< lo<<"< 3!)$$"5 ;y t1"
P1l&&3" O6"$<"/<
T"l"!o00)3!/to3< Co$&o$/to3
(POTC%' P1l&&3" Co00)3!/to3<
S/t"llt" Co$&o$/to3 (PHILCOMSAT%'
/35 P1l!o0</t Hol532< Co$&o$/to3<
(PHC% 5)" to t1" /ll"2"5
0&$o&$"t"< 3 t1" o&"$/to3< ;y
t1"$ $"<&"!t6" ;o/$5 o4 5$"!to$<.N
)viousl!$ the in6uir! fo'us on petitioners=
a'ts 'o""itted in the dis'harge of their
duties as offi'ers and dire'tors of the said
'orporations$ parti'ularl! Phil'o"sat
Holdings Corporation. Co3<"H)"3tly'
t1"y 1/6" 3o $"/<o3/;l" "A&"!t/to3
o4 &$6/!y o6"$ 0/tt"$< 36ol632
t1"$ o44!"< 3 / !o$&o$/to3 #1"$"
t1" 2o6"$30"3t 1/< 3t"$"<t.
C"$t/3ly' <)!1 0/tt"$< /$" o4 &);l!
!o3!"$3 /35 o6"$ #1!1 t1" &"o&l"
1/6" t1" $21t to 34o$0/to3.
This goes to show that the right to priva'!
is not asolute where there is an
overriding !o0&"ll32 <t/t" 3t"$"<t.
In !orfe v. !utu3,
&#-+$/
the Court$ in line
with Jhalen v. .oe,
,'-+'/
e"plo!ed the
rational asis relationship test when it
held that there was no infringe"ent of the
individual=s right to priva'! as the
re6uire"ent to dis'losure infor"ation is
for a valid purpose$ i.e.$ to 'urtail and
"ini"i?e the opportunities for offi'ial
'orruption$ "aintain a standard of honest!
in puli' servi'e$ and pro"ote "oralit! in
puli' ad"inistration.
:1K9:L
In /almonte v.
Belmonte,
,&-+./
the Court re"ar#ed that as
puli' figures$ the 4e"ers of the for"er
.atasang Pa"ansa en@o! a "ore l0t"5
$21t to &$6/!y as 'o"pared to ordinar!
individuals$ and their a'tions are su@e't
to 'loser s'rutin!. Ta#ing this into
'onsideration$ the Court ruled that the
right of the people to a''ess infor"ation
on "atters of puli' 'on'ern prevails over
29K91L
Supra.
30K9;L
<;2 -.%. 9>2 &12DDA.
31K9:L
)usti3e *uno$ *e'ture on *egislative
In6uir! and Right to Priva'!, p. EC.
32K9<L
1DC %CRA ;9E &12>2A
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 9, 9,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
the right to priva'! of finan'ial
transa'tions.
-nder the present 'ir'u"stan'es$ the
alleged ano"alies in the PHI*C)4%AT$
PHC and P)TC$ ranging in "illions of
pesos$ and the 'onspiratorial parti'ipation
of the PC// and its offi'ials are
!o0&"ll32 $"/<o3< for the %enate to
e3a't vital infor"ation fro" the dire'tors
and offi'ers of Phil'o"sat Holdings
Corporations$ as well as fro" Chair"an
%aio and his Co""issioners to aid it in
'rafting the ne'essar! legislation to
prevent 'orruption and for"ulate re"edial
"easures and poli'! deter"ination
regarding PC//=s effi'a'!. There eing no
reasonale e3pe'tation of priva'! on the
part of those dire'tors and offi'ers over
the su@e't 'overed ! %enate Res. 1o.
<99$ it follows that their right to priva'!
has not een violated ! respondent
%enate Co""ittees.
*et it e stressed at this point that so
long as the 'onstitutional rights of
witnesses$ li#e Chair"an %aio and his
Co""issioners$ will e respe'ted !
respondent %enate Co""ittees$ it their
dut! to 'ooperate with the" in their
efforts to otain the fa'ts needed for
intelligent legislative a'tion. The
unre"itting oligation of "6"$y !tO"3 is
to respond to supoenae$ to respe't the
dignit! of the Congress and its
Co""ittees$ and to testif! full! with
respe't to "atters within the real" of
proper investigation.
In fine$ PC// Chair"an Ca"ilo
%aio and Co""issioners Ri'ardo A'ede$
1ar'iso 1ario$ 1i'asio Conti$ and Tereso
8avier( and 4anuel Andal and 8ulio
8alandoni$ PC//=s no"inees to Phil'o"sat
Holdings Corporation$ as well as its
dire'tors and offi'ers$ 0)<t !o0&ly #t1
t1" Su0poenae Ad Te"tifi!andum
<<)"5 ;y $"<&o35"3t S"3/t"
Co00tt""< 5$"!t32 t1"0 to /&&"/$
/35 t"<t4y 3 &);l! 1"/$32< $"l/t6"
to S"3/t" R"<ol)to3 No. 988.
CHAPTER V G FREEDOM OF SPEECH'
PRESS' ECPRESSION' "t!.
S"!to3 9. No l/# <1/ll ;" &/<<"5
/;$5232 t1" 4$""5o0 o4 <&""!1' o4
"A&$"<<o3' o$ o4 t1" &$"<<' o$ t1"
$21t o4 t1" &"o&l" &"/!"/;ly to
/<<"0;l" /35 &"tto3 t1"
2o6"$30"3t 4o$ t1" $"5$"<< o4 t1"$
2$"6/3!"<.
1)TE: Appli'ale provisions of the Hu"an
%e'urit! A't,Anti-Terroris" *aw$ Repuli'
A't 1o. 2:D;$ Approved on 4ar'h E$ ;CCD
and effe'tive on 8ul! 19$ ;CCD &This *aw
shall e auto"ati'all! suspended one &1A
"onth efore and two &;A "onths after
the holding of an! ele'tionA
Se!tion '( provides that persons
who have een 'harged with terroris" or
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"---even if
the! have een granted ail e'ause
eviden'e of guilt is not strongT'an e:
Detain
ed under house arrest(
Restri'
ted fro" traveling( and,or
Prohii
ted fro" using an! 'ellular phones$
'o"puters$ or other "eans of
'o""uni'ations with people outside their
residen'e.
1. Rule on 'riti'is"s against a'ts of puli'
offi'ers
Read:
1. Espuelas vs. People$ 2C Phil. 9;<
;. -% vs. .ustos$ :D Phil. D:1 (A
&);l! o44!/l <1o)l5 3ot ;" o3o3G
<I33"5 #t1 $"4"$"3!" to !o00"3t<
)&o3 1< o44!/l /!t<. T1" 3t"$"<t o4
t1" 2o6"$30"3t /35 t1" <o!"ty
5"0/35< 4)ll 5<!)<<o3 o4 &);l!
/44/$<A
:. P. vs. Pere?$ <9 Phil. 922
<. 4er'ado vs. C0I$ 11E %CRA 2:
;. 0reedo" of the press$ in general
Read:
:AGUIO MIDLAND COURIER R
CECILLE AFA:LE VS. COURT OF
APPEALS R RAMON LA:O' (R.' 999
SCRA 28 =No6"0;"$ 28' 2009>
F$""5o0 o4 EA&$"<<o37 t1" &);l! 1/<
t1" $21t to ;" 34o$0"5 o3 t1"
0"3t/l' 0o$/l /35 &1y<!/l 4t3"<< o4
!/355/t"< 4o$ &);l! o44!".
FACTSD
1. In the 8anuar! :$ 12>> issue of the
.aguio 4idland Courier &.4CA$ Ce'ille
Afale$ the Editor-in-Chief$ in her 'olu"n
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 80 80
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
5In and )ut of .aguio7 "ade the
following 'o""ents:
5)f all the 'andidates for 4a!or of
.aguio Cit!A$ *ao has the "ost
i"ponderales aout hi". People would
as#: 5'an he read and write7J +h! is he
alwa!s tal#ing aout his 8apanese father-
in-lawJ Is he reall! a 8apanes %enator or a
arrio PapitanJ Is it true that he will send
P1>4 aid to .aguioJ %o"eod! wanted to
put an advertise"ent of *ao in the
4idland Courier ut was refused e'ause
he has not !et paid his a''ount of the last
ti"e he was a 'andidate for Congress. +e
will a''ept all advertise"ents for hi" if he
pa!s his old a''ount first.7
;. In the sa"e 'olu"n$ Ce'ille Afale
wrote the following 'o""ents in her
8anuar! 1C$ 12>> 'olu"n at the Courier:
5I heard that the QDu"pt! in the
Egg= is 'a"paigning for Cortes. 1ot fair.
%o"e real do'tors are also us!
'a"paigning against *ao e'ause he has
not also paid their "edi'al servi'es with
the". %in'e he is donating "illions he
should also settle his s"all dets li#e the
reportedl! insignifi'ant a"ount of P;D$CCC
onl!. If he wins$ several tea'hers were
signif!ing to resign and leave .aguio
forever$ and Pangasinan will e the fran'a-
li6ua of .aguio.7
:. As a result of the aove arti'les$
Ra"on *aor$ 8r. filed a 'o"plaint for
Da"ages efore the regional trial Court
of .aguio Cit! as he 'lai"ed said arti'les
were lielous. He li#ewise filed a separate
'ri"inal 'o"plaint efore the )ffi'e of the
Cit! Prose'utor of .aguio ut was
dis"issed(
<. *ao 'lai"ed that the said arti'les
were tainted with "ali'e e'ause he was
allegedl! des'ried as 5Du"pt! in the
Egg7 or one 5who is a failure in his
usiness7 whi'h is false e'ause he is a
ver! su''essful usiness"an or to "ean
5?ero or a ig lie7( that he is a
5alasuas7 due to his alleged failure to
pa! his "edi'al e3penses(
The petitioners$ however$ were ale to
prove that *ao has an unpaid oligation
to the Courier in the a"ount of
P;D$<19.CC for the ads pla'ed ! his
'a"paigners for the 12>< .atasang
Pa"ansa ele'tions(
The Regional Trial Court$ .ran'h E$ .aguio
Cit!$ in its De'ision dated 8une 1<$ 122C
dis"issed *ao=s 'o"plaint for da"ages
on the ground that the arti'le of petitioner
Afale was privileged and 'onstituted fair
'o""ent on "atters of puli' interest as
it dealt with the integrit!$ reputation and
honest! of private respondent *ao who
was a 'andidate for 4a!or of .aguio Cit!(
)n 8anuar! D$ 122;$ the Court of Appeals
reversed the RTC De'ision and ordered
the petitioners to pa! Ra"on *ao$ 8r.
da"ages in the total a"ount of
P:9C$CCC.CC after 'on'luding that the
5Du"pt! in the Egg7 refers to no one ut
*ao hi"self.
Hen'e$ the Petition to the %upre"e Court.
I%%-E%:
;. +as *ao the 5Du"pt! in the Egg7
des'ried in the 6uestioned arti'le,
:. +ere the arti'les su@e't of the
'ase lielous or privileged,
HE*D:
1. The Court of Appeals is wrong
when it held that *ao is the 5Du"pt! in
the Egg7 in the 6uestioned arti'le. This is
so e'ause the arti'le stated that 5The
Du"pt! in the Egg is 'a"paigning for
Cortes7$ another 'andidate for "a!or and
opponent of *ao hi"self. It is
unelievale that *ao 'a"paigned for his
opponent and against hi"self. Although
su'h gra'ious attitude on the part of *ao
would have een 'o""endale$ it is
'ontrar! to 'o""on hu"an e3perien'e.
As pointed out ! the petitioners$ had he
done that$ it is doutful whether he 'ould
have won as Cit! 4a!or of .aguio in the
12>> ele'tions$ whi'h he a'tuall! did. In
line with the do'trine in .)R8A* F%. CA$
:1C %CRA 1$ that Qit is also not suffi'ient
that the offended part! re'ogni?ed hi"self
as the person atta'#ed or defa"ed$ ut it
"ust e shown that at least a :
rd
person
'ould identif! hi" as the o@e't of the
lielous puli'ation=$ the 'ase should e
dis"issed sin'e *ao utterl! failed to
dispose of this responsiilit!.
;. *ao 'lai"s that the petitioners
'ould not invo#e 5puli' interest7 to @ustif!
the puli'ation sin'e he was not !et a
puli' offi'ial at that ti"e. This argu"ent
is without "erit sin'e he was alread! a
'andidate for Cit! "a!or of .aguio. As
su'h$ the arti'le is still within the "antle
of prote'tion guaranteed ! the freedo"
of e3pression provided in the Constitution
sin'e it is the puli'=s right to e infor"ed
of the "ental$ "oral and ph!si'al fitness
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8+ 8+
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
of 'andidates for puli' offi'e. This was
re'ogni?ed as earl! as the 'ase of -% F%.
%EDA1)$ 1< Phil. ::> K12C2L and the
'ase of 1E+ G)RP TI4E% F%. %-**IFA1$
:DE -.%. ;9< where the -% %upre"e
Court held:
5Vit is of the ut"ost 'onse6uen'e
that the people should dis'uss the
'hara'ter and 6ualifi'ations of 'andidates
for their suffrages. The i"portan'e to the
%tate and to so'iet! of su'h dis'ussions is
so vast$ and the advantages derived so
great$ that the! "ore than 'ounteralan'e
the in'onvenien'e of private persons
whose 'ondu't "a! e involved$ and
o''asional in@ur! to the reputations of
individuals "ust !ield to the puli'
welfare$ although at ti"es su'h in@ur!
"a! e great. The puli' enefit fro"
puli'it! is so great and the 'han'e of
in@ur! to private 'hara'ter so s"all$ that
su'h dis'ussion "ust e privileged. 5
Clearl!$ the 6uestioned arti'les
'onstitute fair 'o""ent on a "atter of
puli' interest as it dealt with the
'hara'ter of the private respondent who
was running for the top ele'tive post in
.aguio Cit! at that ti"e.
2. PA12ITO 3# SA4IDAD 3S#
CO5E2EC6
/.R. 1). 2C>D>$ 8anuar!
;2$ 122C
0reedo" of e3pression and of the press
&1ote: -nani"ous en an' de'isionA
4edialdea$ 8.
0a'ts:

1. )n )'toer ;:$ 12>2$ RA EDEE$ entitled
IA1 ACT PR)FIDI1/ 0)R A1 )R/A1IC
ACT 0)R THE C)RDI**ERA A-T)1)4)-%
RE/I)1I was ena'ted into law(
;. Pursuant to said law$ the Cit! of .aguio
and Provin'es of .enguet$ Ara$ 4t.
Provin'e$ Ifugao and Palinga-Apa!ao$ all
'o"prising the autono"ous region shall
ta#e part in a pleis'ite originall!
s'heduled for De'e"er ;D$ 12>2 ut was
reset to 8anuar! :C$ 122C spe'ifi'all! for
the ratifi'ation or re@e'tion of the said a't(
:. .! virtue of the 12>D Constitution and
the )"nius Ele'tion Code &.P >>1A$ the
Co"ele' issued Co"ele' Resolution 1o.
;1ED$ %e'tion 12 of whi'h provides:
I%e'tion 12. Prohiition on 'olu"nist$
'o""entators or announ'ers.- During the
pleis'ite 'a"paign period$ on the da!
efore and on pleis'ite da!$ no "ass
"edia 'olu"nist$ 'o""entator$ announ'er
or personalit! shall use his 'olu"n or
radio or television ti"e to 'a"paign for or
against the pleis'ite issues.I
<. )n 1ove"er ;C$ 12>2$ petitioner
PA.*IT) F. %A1IDAD who is a 'olu"nist
&I)FERFIE+IA for the .aguio 4idland
Courier$ a wee#l! newspaper 'ir'ulated in
the Cit! of .aguio and the Cordilleras$
filed a petition for Prohiition with pra!er
for the issuan'e of a te"porar! restraining
order or a writ of preli"inar! in@un'tion
against the Co"ele' to en@oin the latter
fro" enfor'ing %e'tion 12 of resolution
1o. ;1ED. Petitioner 'lai"s that the said
provision is violative of his 'onstitutional
freedo" of e3pression and of the press
and it also 'onstitutes a prior restraint
e'ause it i"poses suse6uent
punish"ent for those who violate the
sa"e(
9. )n 1ove"er ;>$ 12>2$ the %upre"e
Court issued a te"porar! restraining order
en@oining the respondent fro" enfor'ing
%e'tion 12 of Resolution 1o. ;1ED(
E. )n 8anuar! 2$ 122C$ Co"ele' through
the %oli'itor /eneral filed its Co""ent
and "oved for the dis"issal of the
petition on the ground that %e'tion 12 of
Resolution 1o. ;1ED does not asolutel!
ar the petitioner fro" e3pressing his
views e'ause under %e'tion 2C and 2; of
.P >>1$ he "a! still e3press his views or
'a"paign for or against the a't through
the Co"ele' spa'e and airti"e.
Held:

+hat is granted ! Art. IM-C of the
Constitution to the Co"ele' is the power
to supervise and regulate the use and
en@o!"ent of fran'hises$ per"its or other
grants issued for the operation of
transportation or other puli' utilities to
the end that e6ual opportunit!$ ti"e and
spa'e$ and the right to repl!$ in'luding
reasonale$ e6ual rates therefor$ for puli'
infor"ation 'a"paigns and foru"s a"ong
'andidates are insured. The evil sought to
e prevented ! this provision is the
possiilit! that a fran'hise holder "a!
favor or give undue advantage to a
'andidate in ter"s of advertising ti"e and
spa'e. This is also the reason wh! a
'olu"nist$ 'o""entator or announ'er is
re6uired to ta#e a leave of asen'e fro"
his wor# during the 'a"paign period if he
is a 'andidate.
H)+EFER$ 1EITHER ARTIC*E IM-C )0
THE C)1%TIT-TI)1 1)R %ECTI)1 11&.A$
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 82 82
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;1D PAR. )0 RA EE<E CA1 .E
C)1%TR-ED T) 4EA1 THAT THE
C)4E*EC HA% A*%) .EE1 /RA1TED THE
RI/HT T) %-PERFI%E A1D RE/-*ATE
THE EMERCI%E .G 4EDIA PRACTITI)1ER%
THE4%E*FE% )0 THEIR RI/HT T)
EMPRE%%I)1 D-RI1/ THE P*E.I%CITE
PERI)D%. 4edia pra'titioners e3er'ising
their freedo" of e3pression during the
pleis'ite periods are neither the fran'hise
holders nor the 'andidates. In fa't$ there
are no 'andidates in a pleis'ite.
+hile it is true that the petitioner is
not asolutel! arred fro" 'a"paigning
for or against the )rgani' A't$ said fa't
does not 'ure the 'onstitutional infir"it!
of %e'tion 12$ Co"ele' Resolution 1o.
;1ED. This is so e'ause IT I% %TI** A
RE%TRICTI)1 )1 HI% CH)ICE )0 THE
0)R-4 +HERE HE 4AG EMPRE%% HI%
FIE+.
Pleis'ite issues are "atters of puli'
'on'ern and i"portan'e. The peopleOs
right to e infor"ed and to e ale to
freel! and intelligentl! "a#e a de'ision
would e etter served ! a''ess to an
unaridged dis'ussion of the issues$
I1C*-DI1/ THE 0)R-4. The people
affe'ted ! the issues presented in a
pleis'ite should not e undul! urdened
! restri'tions on the foru" where the
right to e3pression "a! e e3er'ised.
ACC)RDI1/*G$ %e'tion 12 of Co"ele'
Resolution 1o. ;1ED is here! de'lared
-1C)1%TIT-TI)1A*.

Read also:
+. In re: Ra"on Tulfo$4ar'h 12$ 122
2. In re: Att!. E"il 8urado$ 8ul! 1;$ 122C
*. .urgos vs. Chief of %taff$ 1:: %CRA
>CC
9. Corro vs. *ising$ 1:D %CRA <<>
8. .ast vs. 1I.$ 1:; %CRA :1E
-. Eli?alde vs. /utierre?$DE %CRA <<> (I3
o$5"$ t1/t /3y 3"#< t"0 $"l/t32 to /
B)5!/l &$o!""532 #ll 3ot ;"
/!to3/;l"' t1" </0" 0)<t ;" =/> /
t$)" /35 4/$ $"&o$t o4 t1" /!t)/l
&$o!""532<7 =;> 0)<t ;" 5o3" 3
2oo5 4/t17 /35 =!> 3o !o00"3t< 3o$
$"0/$I< <1/ll ;" 0/5" ;y t1" #$t"$S
.. Poli'arpio vs. 4anila Ti"es$ 9 %CRA
1<>
8. *ope? vs. CA$ :< %CRA 11E
,. 1ew Gor# Ti"es vs. %ullivan$:DE
-.%.;9<
+0. *iwa!wa! Pulishing vs. PC//$ April
19$l2>>
:. 0reedo" of e3pression in general
Read:
+. RA1DG DAFID F%. ARR)G)$
4a! :$ ;CCE$ <>2 %CRA 1EC(
2. Adiong vs. Co"ele'$ 4ar'h
:1$ 122; &&)tt32 o4 5"!/l< /35
<t!I"$< 3 o3"J< !/$ < #t13 t1"
&$ot"!t"5 4$""5o0 o4 "A&$"<<o3%
*. 1ational Press Clu vs.
Co"ele'$ 4ar'h 9$ 122;. Real also the
dissenting and separate opinions of the
@usti'es. &P$"6"3t32 !/0&/23<
t1$o)21 $/5o' TV /35 3"#<&/&"$< <
6/l5 3 o$5"$ to "6"3 t1" &l/y32 4"l5
;"t#""3 $!1 /35 &oo$ !/355/t"<%
9. Baldivar vs. %andigana!an$
/R 1o. D2EC-DCD H Baldivar vs.
/on?ales$ /R 1o. >C9D>$ 0eruar!
1$ 12>2
8. Eastern .road'asting vs.
Dans$1:D %CRA E;>
-. 1ewswee# vs. IAC$ 1<;
%CRA 1D1
.. Papisanan vs. Ca"ara
%hoes$ 11 %CRA <DD
8. I1 RE: Att!. Tipon$ D2 %CRA
:D;
,. *a'sa vs. IAC$ 4a! ;:$12>>
+0. Papunan vs. De Filla$
De'e"er E$ 12>>

<. 1ot within the prote'tion of the
freedo" of e3pression 'lause of the
Constitution
1. )s'enit!( test of
Read:
a. P. vs. Pottinger$ <9 Phil. :9;
. P vs. /) PI1$ August >$ 1299
T"<t<D
/. W1"t1"$ t1" /6"$/2" &"$<o3
/&&ly32 to !o3t"0&o$/$y !o00)3ty
<t/35/$5< #o)l5 435 t1" #o$I
/&&"/l< to &$)$"3t 3t"$"<t7
;. W1"t1"$ t1" #o$I 5"&!t< o$
5"<!$;"< / &/t"3tly o44"3<6" <"A)/l
!o35)!t7
!. W1"t1"$ t1" #o$I /< /
#1ol" l/!I< <"$o)< lt"$/$y ' /$t<t!'
&olt!/l o$ <!"3t4! 6/l)".
'. 4iller vs. California$ :D *. Ed. ;d
<12
d. /inserg vs. 1ew Gor#$:2C -.%.
E;2
". Pt/ 6<. CA' +.8 SCRA *-2 &A
Cit! 4a!or "a! not order the warrantless
sei?ure of "aga?ines whi'h he elieves to
e os'ene( otherwise$ he will e'o"e the
'o"plainant$ prose'utor and @udge at the
sa"e ti"e. He should otain a sear'h
warrant fro" a @udgeA
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8* 8*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;. *iel or slander( test of-
Read:
a. *ope? and 4anila Ti"es 'ases$
supra
. Nuisu"ing vs. *ope?$ 2E Phil.
91C
:. Cases undersu-@udi'e
Read:
a. P. vs. Alar'on$ E2 Phil. ;E9
9. 0reedo" of asse"l! and to petition
the govern"ent for redress of
grievan'es
GESITE "t /l. 6<. COURT OF APPEALS'
999 SCRA 8+
F$""5o0 o4 &);l! <!1ool t"/!1"$< to
&"/!"/;ly /<<"0;l" /35 &"tto3 t1"
2o6"$30"3t 4o$ $"5$"<< o4 2$"6/3!"<7
$21t o4 &);l! <!1ool t"/!1"$< to 4o$0
)3o3.
The petitioners ad"itted that the!
parti'ipated in 'on'erted "ass a'tions in
4etro 4anila fro" %epte"er to the first
half of )'toer$ 122C whi'h te"poraril!
disrupted 'lasses in 4etro 4anila ut the!
'lai"ed that the! were not on stri#e. The!
'lai"ed that the! were "erel! e3er'ising
their 'onstitutional right to pea'eal!
asse"le and petition the govern"ent for
redress of their grievan'es. Thus$ the!
"a! not e penali?ed ad"inistrativel!.
HE*D:
The issue of whether or not the
"ass a'tion laun'hed ! the puli' s'hool
tea'hers during the period fro"
%epte"er up to the 1
st
half of )'toer$
122C was a stri#e or not has een de'ided
in the 'ase of 4A1I*A P-.*IC %CH))*
TEACHER% A%%)CIATI)1 F%. *A/-I)$
;CC %CRA :;: where it was held that
5these "ass a'tions were to all intents
and purposes a stri#e( the! 'onstituted a
'on'erted and unauthori?ed stoppage of$
or asen'e fro"$ wor# whi'h it was the
tea'hers= dut! to perfor"$ underta#en for
essentiall! e'ono"i' reasons.7
It is undisputed fa't that there was
a wor# stoppage and that petitioners=
purpose was to reali?e their de"ands !
withholding their servi'es. The fa't that
the 'onventional ter" 5stri#e7 was not
used ! the stri#ing e"plo!ees to des'rie
their 'o""on 'ourse of a'tion is
in'onse6uential$ %I1CE THE %-.%TA1CE
)0 THE %IT-ATI)1$ A1D 1)T IT%
APPEARA1CE$ +I** .E DEE4ED
C)1TR)**I1/.
Despite the 'onstitutional right to
for" asso'iations under the Constitution$
e"plo!ees in the puli' servi'e "a! not
engage in stri#es$ "ass leaves$ wal#outs
and other for"s of "ass a'tions that will
lead to te"porar! stoppage or disruption
of puli' servi'e. The right of govern"ent
e"plo!ees to organi?e IS LIMITED TO
THE FORMATIONS OF UNIONS OR
ASSOCIATIONS ONLY' WITHOUT
INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO STRIME.
(:/32/l</3 6<. CA' 2.- SCRA -+,%
The petitioners are not therefore
entitled to their salaries during their
suspension e'ause the general
proposition is that a puli' offi'ial is not
entitled to an! 'o"pensation if he had not
rendered an! servi'e.
:AYAN' MARAPATAN' MILUSANG
MAG:U:UMID NG PILIPINAS (MMP%'
/35 GA:RIELA vs. EDUARDO ERMITA$
in his 'apa'it! as E3e'utive %e'retar!$
4anila Cit! 4a!or LITO ATIEN?A$ Chief
of the Philippine 1ational Poli'e$ /en.
ARTURO M. LOMI:AO' NCRPO Chief
M/B. G"3. VIDAL EUEROL' and +estern
Poli'e Distri't Chief G"3. PEDRO
:ULAONG$ /.R. 1o. 1E2><>$ 4a!$ ;CCE
A?CUNA' J.D
T1" F/!t<D
Petitioners 'o"e in three groups.

The first petitioners$ :/y/3$ "t /l.$
in /.R. 1o. 1E2>:>$ allege that the! are
'iti?ens and ta3pa!ers of the Philippines
and that their rights as organi?ations and
individuals were violated when the rall!
the! parti'ipated in on )'toer E$ ;CC9
was violentl! dispersed ! poli'e"en
i"ple"enting .atas Pa"ansa &..P.A 1o.
>>C.

The se'ond group 'onsists of ;E
individual petitioners$ ("<< 5"l P$/5o$ "t
/l.$ in /.R. 1o. 1E2><>$ who allege that
the! were in@ured$ arrested and detained
when a pea'eful "ass a'tion the! held on
%epte"er ;E$ ;CC9 was pree"pted and
violentl! dispersed ! the poli'e. The!
further assert that on )'toer 9$ ;CC9$ a
group the! parti'ipated in "ar'hed to
4ala'aZang to protest issuan'es of the
Pala'e whi'h$ the! 'lai"$ put the 'ountr!
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 89 89
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
under an 5unde'lared7 "artial rule$ and
the protest was li#ewise dispersed
violentl! and "an! a"ong the" were
arrested and suffered in@uries.

The third group$ Ml)</32 M/yo
U3o (MMU%' "t /l.$ petitioners in /.R. 1o.
1E2>>1$ allege that the! 'ondu't pea'eful
"ass a'tions and that their rights as
organi?ations and those of their individual
"e"ers as 'iti?ens$ spe'ifi'all! the right
to pea'eful asse"l!$ are affe'ted !
.atas Pa"ansa 1o. >>C and the poli'! of
5Calirated Pree"ptive Response7 &CPRA
eing followed to i"ple"ent it.

MMU' "t /l.$ 'lai" that on )'toer
<$ ;CC9$ a rall! P4- 'o-sponsored was to
e 'ondu'ted at the 4endiola ridge ut
poli'e lo'#ed the" along C.4. Re'to and
*epanto %treets and for'il! dispersed
the"$ 'ausing in@uries to several of their
"e"ers. The! further allege that on
)'toer E$ ;CC9$ a "ulti-se'toral rall!
whi'h P4- also 'o-sponsored was
s'heduled to pro'eed along EspaZa
Avenue in front of the -niversit! of %anto
To"as and going towards 4endiola ridge.
Poli'e offi'ers lo'#ed the" along 4ora!ta
%treet and prevented the" fro"
pro'eeding further. The! were then
for'il! dispersed$ 'ausing in@uries on one
of the". Three other rall!ists were
arrested.

All petitioners assail .atas
Pa"ansa 1o. >>C$ so"e of the" in toto
and others onl! %e'tions <$ 9$ E$ 1;$
1:&aA$ and 1<&aA$ as well as the poli'! of
CPR. The! see# to stop violent dispersals
of rallies under the 5no per"it$ no rall!7
poli'! and the CPR poli'! re'entl!
announ'ed.
..P. 1o. >>C$ 5The Puli' Asse"l!
A't of 12>9$7 provides:
.atas Pa"ansa .lg. >>C

An A't Ensuring The 0ree E3er'ise
.! The People )f Their Right Pea'eal! To
Asse"le And Petition The /overn"ent
KAndL 0or )ther Purposes

Be it ena3ted +y the Batasang *am+ansa
in session assem+led>

%ECTI)1 1. 5itle . R This A't shall
e #nown as 5The Puli' Asse"l! A't of
12>9.7

%EC. ;. De3laration of poli3y. R
The 'onstitutional right of the people
pea'eal! to asse"le and petition the
govern"ent for redress of grievan'es is
essential and vital to the strength and
stailit! of the %tate. To this end$ the
%tate shall ensure the free e3er'ise of
su'h right without pre@udi'e to the rights
of others to life$ liert! and e6ual
prote'tion of the law.

%EC. :. Definition of terms. R 0or
purposes of this A't:

&A 5Puli' pla'e7 shall in'lude
an! highwa!$ oulevard$ avenue$ road$
street$ ridge or other thoroughfare$ par#$
pla?a s6uare$ and,or an! open spa'e of
puli' ownership where the people are
allowed a''ess.

&'A 54a3i"u" toleran'e7
"eans the highest degree of restraint that
the "ilitar!$ poli'e and other pea'e
#eeping authorities shall oserve during a
puli' asse"l! or in the dispersal of the
sa"e.

%EC. <. *ermit <hen reHuired and
<hen not reHuired.-- A written per"it
shall e re6uired for an! person or
persons to organi?e and hold a puli'
asse"l! in a puli' pla'e. However$ no
per"it shall e re6uired if the puli'
asse"l! shall e done or "ade in a
freedo" par# dul! estalished ! law or
ordinan'e or in private propert!$ in whi'h
'ase onl! the 'onsent of the owner or the
one entitled to its legal possession is
re6uired$ or in the 'a"pus of a
govern"ent-owned and operated
edu'ational institution whi'h shall e
su@e't to the rules and regulations of said
edu'ational institution. Politi'al "eetings
or rallies held during an! ele'tion
'a"paign period as provided for ! law
are not 'overed ! this A't.
%EC. 9. Appli3ation
reHuirements.-- All appli'ations for a
per"it shall 'o"pl! with the following
guidelines:

1. The appli'ations shall e in writing
and shall in'lude the na"es of the leaders
or organi?ers( the purpose of su'h puli'
asse"l!( the date$ ti"e and duration
thereof$ and pla'e or streets to e used
for the intended a'tivit!( and the proale
nu"er of persons parti'ipating$ the
transport and the puli' address s!ste"s
to e used.

;. The appli'ation shall in'orporate
the dut! and responsiilit! of appli'ant
under %e'tion > hereof.

:. The appli'ation shall e filed with
the offi'e of the "a!or of the 'it! or
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 88 88
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
"uni'ipalit! in whose @urisdi'tion the
intended a'tivit! is to e held$ at least five
&9A wor#ing da!s efore the s'heduled
puli' asse"l!.

<. -pon re'eipt of the appli'ation$
whi'h "ust e dul! a'#nowledged in
writing$ the offi'e of the 'it! or "uni'ipal
"a!or shall 'ause the sa"e to
i""ediatel! e posted at a 'onspi'uous
pla'e in the 'it! or "uni'ipal uilding.

%EC. E. A3tion to +e taken on the
appli3ation. R

1. It shall e the dut! of the "a!or or
an! offi'ial a'ting in his ehalf to issue or
grant a per"it unless there is 'lear and
'onvin'ing eviden'e that the puli'
asse"l! will 'reate a 'lear and present
danger to puli' order$ puli' safet!$
puli' 'onvenien'e$ puli' "orals or puli'
health.

;. The "a!or or an! offi'ial a'ting in
his ehalf shall a't on the appli'ation
within two &;A wor#ing da!s fro" the date
the appli'ation was filed$ failing whi'h$ the
per"it shall e dee"ed granted. %hould
for an! reason the "a!or or an! offi'ial
a'ting in his ehalf refuse to a''ept the
appli'ation for a per"it$ said appli'ation
shall e posted ! the appli'ant on the
pre"ises of the offi'e of the "a!or and
shall e dee"ed to have een filed.

:. If the "a!or is of the view that
there is i""inent and grave danger of a
sustantive evil warranting the denial or
"odifi'ation of the per"it$ he shall
i""ediatel! infor" the appli'ant who
"ust e heard on the "atter.

<. The a'tion on the per"it shall e in
writing and served on the appli'aKntL
within twent!-four hours.

9. If the "a!or or an! offi'ial a'ting
in his ehalf denies the appli'ation or
"odifies the ter"s thereof in his per"it$
the appli'ant "a! 'ontest the de'ision in
an appropriate 'ourt of law.

E. In 'ase suit is rought efore the
4etropolitan Trial Court$ the 4uni'ipal
Trial Court$ the 4uni'ipal Cir'uit Trial
Court$ the Regional Trial Court$ or the
Inter"ediate Appellate 'ourt$ its de'isions
"a! e appealed to the appropriate 'ourt
within fort!-eight &<>A hours after re'eipt
of the sa"e. 1o appeal ond and re'ord
on appeal shall e re6uired. A de'ision
granting su'h per"it or "odif!ing if in
ter"s satisfa'tor! to the appli'ant shall e
i""ediatel! e3e'utor!.

D. All 'ases filed in 'ourt under this
se'tion shall e de'ided within twent!-four
&;<A hours fro" date of filing. Cases filed
hereunder shall e i""ediatel! endorsed
to the e3e'utive @udge for disposition or$ in
his asen'e$ to the ne3t in ran#.

>. In all 'ases$ an! de'ision "a! e
appealed to the %upre"e Court.

CPR$ on the other hand$ is a poli'!
set forth in a press release ! 4ala'aZang
dated %epte"er ;1$ ;CC9$ shown in
Anne3 5A7 to the Petition in /.R. 1o.
1E2><>$ thus:

4ala'aZang )ffi'ial
4anila$ Philippines 1E+%

Release 1o. ;
%epte"er ;1$ ;CC9


STATEMENT OF ECECUTIVE
SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA

:n Unla<ful !ass A3tions

In view of intelligen'e reports
pointing to 'redile plans of anti-
govern"ent groups to infla"e the politi'al
situation$ sow disorder and in'ite people
against the dut! 'onstituted authorities$
we have instru'ted the P1P as well as the
lo'al govern"ent units to stri'tl! enfor'e
a 5no per"it$ no rall!7 poli'!$ disperse
groups that run afoul of this standard and
arrest all persons violating the laws of the
land as well as ordinan'es on the proper
'ondu't of "ass a'tions and
de"onstrations.

T1" $)l" o4 !/l;$/t"5
&$""0&t6" $"<&o3<" < 3o# 3 4o$!"'
3 l") o4 0/A0)0 tol"$/3!". T1"
/)t1o$t"< #ll 3ot <t/35 /<5" #1l"
t1o<" #t1 ll 3t"3t /$" 1"$532 /
#tt32 o$ )3#tt32 0/<< o4 &"o&l"
/35 3!t32 t1"0 3to /!to3< t1/t /$"
30!/l to &);l! o$5"$' /35 t1" &"/!"
o4 035 o4 t1" 3/to3/l !o00)3ty.

-nlawful "ass a'tions will e
dispersed. The "a@orit! of law-aiding
'iti?ens have the right to e prote'ted !
a vigilant and proa'tive govern"ent.

+e appeal to the detra'tors of the
govern"ent to engage in lawful and
pea'eful 'ondu't efitting of a de"o'rati'
so'iet!.

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8- 8-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
The President=s 'all for unit! and
re'on'iliation stands$ ased on the rule of
law.

Petitioners :/y/3' "t /l.$ 'ontend
that .atas Pa"ansa 1o. >>C is 'learl! a
violation of the Constitution and the
International Covenant on Civil and
Politi'al Rights and other hu"an rights
treaties of whi'h the Philippines is a
signator!.

The! argue that ..P. 1o. >>C
re6uires a per"it efore one 'an stage a
puli' asse"l! regardless of the
presen'e or asen'e of a 'lear and
present danger. It also 'urtails the 'hoi'e
of venue and is thus repugnant to the
freedo" of e3pression 'lause as the ti"e
and pla'e of a puli' asse"l! for" part
of the "essage for whi'h the e3pression is
sought. 0urther"ore$ it is not 'ontent-
neutral as it does not appl! to "ass
a'tions in support of the govern"ent. The
words 5lawful 'ause$7 5opinion$7
5protesting or influen'ing7 suggest the
e3position of so"e 'ause not espoused !
the govern"ent. Also$ the phrase
5"a3i"u" toleran'e7 shows that the law
applies to asse"lies against the
govern"ent e'ause the! are eing
tolerated. As a 'ontent-ased legislation$
it 'annot pass the stri't s'rutin! test.

F)$t1"$0o$"' t1" l/# 5"l"2/t"<
&o#"$< to t1" M/yo$ #t1o)t
&$o6532 !l"/$ <t/35/$5<. T1" t#o
<t/35/$5< <t/t"5 3 t1" l/#< (!l"/$
/35 &$"<"3t 5/32"$ /35 003"3t /35
2$/6" 5/32"$% /$" 3!o3<<t"3t.
Regarding the CPR poli'!$ it is void for
eing an ultra vires a't that alters the
standard of "a3i"u" toleran'e set forth
in ..P. 1o. >>C$ aside fro" eing void for
eing vague and for la'# of puli'ation.

0inall!$ petitioners MMU' "t /l.'
argue that the Constitution sets no li"its
on the right to asse"l! and therefore
..P. 1o. >>C 'annot put the prior
re6uire"ent of se'uring a per"it. And
even assu"ing that the legislature 'an set
li"its to this right$ the li"its provided are
unreasonale: 0irst$ allowing the 4a!or
to den! the per"it on 'lear and
'onvin'ing eviden'e of a 'lear and present
danger is too 'o"prehensive. %e'ond$
the five-da! re6uire"ent to appl! for a
per"it is too long as 'ertain events
re6uire instant puli' asse"l!$ otherwise
interest on the issue would possil! wane.

As to the CPR poli'!$ the! argue
that it is pree"ptive$ that the govern"ent
ta#es a'tion even efore the rall!ists 'an
perfor" their a't$ and that no law$
ordinan'e or e3e'utive order supports the
poli'!. 0urther"ore$ it 'ontravenes the
"a3i"u" toleran'e poli'! of ..P. 1o. >>C
and violates the Constitution as it 'auses
a 'hilling effe't on the e3er'ise ! the
people of the right to pea'eal! asse"le.

I " " u e "7

<. )n the 'onstitutionalit! of .atas
Pa"ansa 1o. >>C$ spe'ifi'all! %e'tions <$
9$ E$ 1; 1:&aA and 1<&aA thereof$ and
Repuli' A't 1o. D1EC:

1. Are these 'ontent-neutral or
'ontent-ased regulationsJ
;. Are the! void on grounds of
overreadth or vaguenessJ
:. Do the! 'onstitute prior
restraintJ
<. Are the! undue delegations
of powers to 4a!orsJ
9. Do the! violate international
hu"an rights treaties and the -niversal
De'laration of Hu"an RightsJ

9. )n the 'onstitutionalit! and legalit!
of the poli'! of Calirated Pree"ptive
Response &CPRA:

1. Is the poli'! void on its fa'e
or due to vaguenessJ
;. Is it void for la'# of
puli'ationJ
:. Is the poli'! of CPR void as
applied to the rallies of %epte"er ;E and
)'toer <$ 9 and E$ ;CC9J
H " l 5D
Petitioners= standing 'annot e seriousl!
'hallenged. Their right as 'iti?ens to
engage in pea'eful asse"l! and e3er'ise
the right of petition$ as guaranteed ! the
Constitution$ is dire'tl! affe'ted ! ..P.
1o. >>C whi'h re6uires a per"it for all
who would puli'l! asse"le in the
nation=s streets and par#s. The! have$ in
fa't$ purposel! engaged in puli'
asse"lies without the re6uired per"its
to press their 'lai" that no su'h per"it
'an e validl! re6uired without violating
the Constitutional guarantee.
Respondents$ on the other hand$ have
'hallenged su'h a'tion as 'ontrar! to law
and dispersed the puli' asse"lies held
without the per"it.

%e'tion < of Arti'le III of the Constitution
provides:

%EC. <. 1o law shall e passed aridging
the freedo" of spee'h$ of e3pression$ or
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8. 8.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
of the press$ or the right of the people
pea'eal! to asse"le and petition the
govern"ent for redress of grievan'es.

The first point to "ar# is that the right to
pea'eal! asse"le and petition for
redress of grievan'es is$ together with
freedo" of spee'h$ of e3pression$ and of
the press$ a right that en@o!s pri"a'! in
the real" of 'onstitutional prote'tion. 0or
these rights 'onstitute the ver! asis of a
fun'tional de"o'rati' polit!$ without whi'h
all the other rights would e "eaningless
and unprote'ted. As stated in )a3into v.
CA$ the Court$ as earl! as the onset of this
'entur!$ in U.S. v. Apurado alread!
upheld the right to asse"l! and petition$
as follows:

There is no 6uestion as to the petitioners=
rights to pea'eful asse"l! to petition the
govern"ent for a redress of grievan'es
and$ for that "atter$ to organi?e or for"
asso'iations for purposes not 'ontrar! to
law$ as well as to engage in pea'eful
'on'erted a'tivities. These rights are
guaranteed ! no less than the
Constitution$ parti'ularl! %e'tions < and >
of the .ill of Rights$ %e'tion ;&9A of Arti'le
IM$ and %e'tion : of Arti'le MIII.
8urispruden'e aounds with hallowed
pronoun'e"ents defending and pro"oting
the people=s e3er'ise of these rights. As
earl! as the onset of this 'entur!$ this
Court in U.S. vs. Apurado$ alread! upheld
the right to asse"l! and petition and
even went as far as to a'#nowledge:

5It is rather to e e3pe'ted that "ore or
less disorder will "ar# the puli'
asse"l! of the people to protest against
grievan'es whether real or i"aginar!$
e'ause on su'h o''asions feeling is
alwa!s wrought to a high pit'h of
e3'ite"ent$ and the greater$ the grievan'e
and the "ore intense the feeling$ the less
perfe't$ as a rule will e the dis'iplinar!
'ontrol of the leaders over their
irresponsile followers. .ut if the
prose'ution e per"itted to sei?e upon
ever! instan'e of su'h disorderl! 'ondu't
! individual "e"ers of a 'rowd as an
e3'use to 'hara'teri?e the asse"l! as a
seditious and tu"ultuous rising against
the authorities$ then the right to asse"le
and to petition for redress of grievan'es
would e3pose all those who too# part
therein to the severest and "ost
un"erited punish"ent$ if the purposes
whi'h the! sought to attain did not
happen to e pleasing to the prose'uting
authorities. If instan'es of disorderl!
'ondu't o''ur on su'h o''asions$ the
guilt! individuals should e sought out
and punished therefor$ ut the ut"ost
dis'retion "ust e e3er'ised in drawing
the line etween disorderl! and seditious
'ondu't and etween an essentiall!
pea'eale asse"l! and a tu"ultuous
uprising.7

Again$ in *rimi3ias v. Gugoso$ the Court
li#ewise sustained the pri"a'! of freedo"
of spee'h and to asse"l! and petition
over 'o"fort and 'onvenien'e in the use
of streets and par#s.
1e3t$ however$ it "ust e re"e"ered
that the right$ while sa'rosan't$ is not
asolute. In *rimi3ias$ this Court said:

The right to freedo" of spee'h$ and to
pea'efull! asse"le and petition the
govern"ent for redress of grievan'es$ are
funda"ental personal rights of the people
re'ogni?ed and guaranteed ! the
'onstitutions of de"o'rati' 'ountries. .ut
it is a settled prin'iple growing out of the
nature of well-ordered 'ivil so'ieties that
the e3er'ise of those rights is not asolute
for it "a! e so regulated that it shall not
e in@urious to the e6ual en@o!"ent of
others having e6ual rights$ nor in@urious to
the rights of the 'o""unit! or so'iet!.
The power to regulate the e3er'ise of su'h
and other 'onstitutional rights is ter"ed
the sovereign 5poli'e power$7 whi'h is the
power to pres'rie regulations$ to
pro"ote the health$ "orals$ pea'e$
edu'ation$ good order or safet!$ and
general welfare of the people. This
sovereign poli'e power is e3er'ised ! the
govern"ent through its legislative ran'h
! the ena't"ent of laws regulating those
and other 'onstitutional and 'ivil rights$
and it "a! e delegated to politi'al
sudivisions$ su'h as towns$ "uni'ipalities
and 'ities ! authori?ing their legislative
odies 'alled "uni'ipal and 'it! 'oun'ils
ena't ordinan'es for purpose
.eyes v. Bagatsing further e3pounded on
the right and its li"its$ as follows:
1. It is thus 'lear that the Court is
'alled upon to prote't the e3er'ise of the
'ognate rights to free spee'h and pea'eful
asse"l!$ arising fro" the denial of a
per"it. The Constitution is 6uite e3pli'it:
51o law shall e passed aridging the
freedo" of spee'h$ or of the press$ or the
right of the people pea'eal! to asse"le
and petition the /overn"ent for redress
of grievan'es.7 0ree spee'h$ li#e free
press$ "a! e identified with the liert! to
dis'uss puli'l! and truthfull! an! "atter
of puli' 'on'ern without 'ensorship or
punish"ent. There is to e then no
previous restraint on the 'o""uni'ation
of views or suse6uent liailit! whether in
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 88 88
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
liel suits$ prose'ution for sedition$ or
a'tion for da"ages$ or 'onte"pt
pro'eedings unless there e a 5'lear and
present danger of a sustantive evil that
Kthe %tateL has a right to prevent.7
0reedo" of asse"l! 'onnotes the right
of the people to "eet pea'eal! for
'onsultation and dis'ussion of "atters of
puli' 'on'ern. It is entitled to e
a''orded the ut"ost deferen'e and
respe't. It is not to e li"ited$ "u'h less
denied$ e3'ept on a showing$ as is the
'ase with freedo" of e3pression$ of a
'lear and present danger of a sustantive
evil that the state has a right to prevent.
Even prior to the 12:9 Constitution$
8usti'e 4al'ol" had o''asion to stress
that it is a ne'essar! 'onse6uen'e of our
repuli'an institutions and 'o"ple"ents
the right of free spee'h. To paraphrase
the opinion of 8usti'e Rutledge$ spea#ing
for the "a@orit! of the A"eri'an %upre"e
Court in Tho"as v. Collins$ it was not !
a''ident or 'oin'iden'e that the rights to
freedo" of spee'h and of the press were
'oupled in a single guarantee with the
right of the people pea'eal! to asse"le
and to petition the govern"ent for redress
of grievan'es. All these rights$ while not
identi'al$ are inseparale. In ever! 'ase$
therefore$ where there is a li"itation
pla'ed on the e3er'ise of this right$ the
@udi'iar! is 'alled upon to e3a"ine the
effe'ts of the 'hallenged govern"ental
a'tuation. The sole @ustifi'ation for a
li"itation on the e3er'ise of this right$ so
funda"ental to the "aintenan'e of
de"o'rati' institutions$ is the danger$ of a
'hara'ter oth grave and i""inent$ of a
serious evil to puli' safet!$ puli' "orals$
puli' health$ or an! other legiti"ate
puli' interest.

;. 1owhere is the rationale
that underlies the freedo" of e3pression
and pea'eale asse"l! etter e3pressed
than in this e3'erpt fro" an opinion of
8usti'e 0ran#furter: 5It "ust never e
forgotten$ however$ that the .ill of Rights
was the 'hild of the Enlighten"ent. .a'#
of the guarant! of free spee'h la! faith in
the power of an appeal to reason ! all
the pea'eful "eans for gaining a''ess to
the "ind. It was in order to avert for'e
and e3plosions due to restri'tions upon
rational "odes of 'o""uni'ation that the
guarant! of free spee'h was given a
generous s'ope. .ut utteran'e in a
'onte3t of violen'e 'an lose its
signifi'an'e as an appeal to reason and
e'o"e part of an instru"ent of for'e.
%u'h utteran'e was not "eant to e
sheltered ! the Constitution.7 +hat was
rightfull! stressed is the aandon"ent of
reason$ the utteran'e$ whether veral or
printed$ eing in a 'onte3t of violen'e. It
"ust alwa!s e re"e"ered that this
right li#ewise provides for a safet! valve$
allowing parties the opportunit! to give
vent to their views$ even if 'ontrar! to the
prevailing 'li"ate of opinion. 0or if the
pea'eful "eans of 'o""uni'ation 'annot
e availed of$ resort to non-pea'eful
"eans "a! e the onl! alternative. 1or is
this the sole reason for the e3pression of
dissent. It "eans "ore than @ust the right
to e heard of the person who feels
aggrieved or who is dissatisfied with
things as the! are. Its value "a! lie in
the fa't that there "a! e so"ething
worth hearing fro" the dissenter. That is
to ensure a true fer"ent of ideas. There
are$ of 'ourse$ well-defined li"its. +hat
is guaranteed is pea'eale asse"l!. )ne
"a! not advo'ate disorder in the na"e of
protest$ "u'h less prea'h reellion under
the 'loa# of dissent. The Constitution
frowns on disorder or tu"ult attending a
rall! or asse"l!. Resort to for'e is ruled
out and outrea#s of violen'e to e
avoided. The ut"ost 'al" though is not
re6uired. As pointed out in an earl!
Philippine 'ase$ penned in 12CD to e
pre'ise$ -nited %tates v. Apurado: 5It is
rather to e e3pe'ted that "ore or less
disorder will "ar# the puli' asse"l! of
the people to protest against grievan'es
whether real or i"aginar!$ e'ause on
su'h o''asions feeling is alwa!s wrought
to a high pit'h of e3'ite"ent$ and the
greater the grievan'e and the "ore
intense the feeling$ the less perfe't$ as a
rule$ will e the dis'iplinar! 'ontrol of the
leaders over their irresponsile followers.7
It ears repeating that for the
'onstitutional right to e invo#ed$ riotous
'ondu't$ in@ur! to propert!$ and a'ts of
vandalis" "ust e avoided. To give free
rein to one=s destru'tive urges is to 'all for
'onde"nation. It is to "a#e a "o'#er! of
the high estate o''upied ! intelle'tual
liert! in our s'he"e of values.

There 'an e no legal o@e'tion$
asent the e3isten'e of a 'lear and
present danger of a sustantive evil$ on
the 'hoi'e of *uneta as the pla'e where
the pea'e rall! would start. The
Philippines is 'o""itted to the view
e3pressed in the pluralit! opinion$ of 12:2
vintage of$ 8usti'e Roerts in Hague v.
CI): 5+henever the title of streets and
par#s "a! rest$ the! have i""e"oriall!
een held in trust for the use of the puli'
and$ ti"e out of "ind$ have een used for
purposes of asse"l!$ 'o""uni'ating
thoughts etween 'iti?ens$ and dis'ussing
puli' 6uestions. %u'h use of the streets
and puli' pla'es has$ fro" an'ient ti"es$
een a part of the privileges$ i""unities$
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8, 8,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
rights and lierties of 'iti?ens. The
privilege of a 'iti?en of the -nited %tates
to use the streets and par#s for
'o""uni'ation of views on national
6uestions "a! e regulated in the interest
of all( it is not asolute$ ut relative$ and
"ust e e3er'ised in suordination to the
general 'o"fort and 'onvenien'e$ and in
'onsonan'e with pea'e and good order(
ut "ust not$ in the guise of respondents$
e aridged or denied.7 The aove
e3'erpt was 6uoted with approval in
Pri"i'ias v. 0ugoso. Pri"i'ias "ade
e3pli'it what was i"pli'it in 4uni'ipalit! of
Cavite v. Ro@as$ a 1219 de'ision$ where
this Court 'ategori'all! affir"ed that
pla?as or par#s and streets are outside the
'o""er'e of "an and thus nullified a
'ontra't that leased Pla?a %oledad of
plaintiff-"uni'ipalit!. Referen'e was
"ade to su'h pla?a 5eing a pro"enade
for puli' use$7 whi'h 'ertainl! is not the
onl! purpose that it 'ould serve. To
repeat$ there 'an e no valid reason wh!
a per"it should not e granted for the
proposed "ar'h and rall! starting fro" a
puli' par# that is the *uneta.

<. 1either 'an there e an! valid
o@e'tion to the use of the streets to the
gates of the -% e"ass!$ hardl! two
lo'#s awa! at the Ro3as .oulevard.
Pri"i'ias v. 0ugoso has resolved an!
lur#ing dout on the "atter. In holding
that the then 4a!or 0ugoso of the Cit! of
4anila should grant a per"it for a puli'
"eeting at Pla?a 4iranda in Nuiapo$ this
Court 'ategori'all! de'lared: 5)ur
'on'lusion finds support in the de'ision in
the 'ase of +illis Co3 v. %tate of 1ew
Ha"pshire$ :1; -.%.$ 9E2. In that 'ase$
the statute of 1ew Ha"pshire P.*. 'hap.
1<9$ se'tion ;$ providing that no parade
or pro'ession upon an! ground autting
thereon$ shall e per"itted unless a
spe'ial li'ense therefor shall first e
otained fro" the sele't"en of the town
or fro" li'ensing 'o""ittee$= was
'onstrued ! the %upre"e Court of 1ew
Ha"pshire as not 'onferring upon the
li'ensing oard unfettered dis'retion to
refuse to grant the li'ense$ and held valid.
And the %upre"e Court of the -nited
%tates$ in its de'ision &12<1A penned !
Chief 8usti'e Hughes affir"ing the
@udg"ent of the %tate %upre"e Court$
held that Qa statute re6uiring persons
using the puli' streets for a parade or
pro'ession to pro'ure a spe'ial li'ense
therefor fro" the lo'al authorities is not
an un'onstitutional aridg"ent of the
rights of asse"l! or of freedo" of spee'h
and press$ where$ as the statute is
'onstrued ! the state 'ourts$ the
li'ensing authorities are stri'tl! li"ited$ in
the issuan'e of li'enses$ to a 'onsideration
of the ti"e$ pla'e$ and "anner of the
parade or pro'ession$ with a view to
'onserving the puli' 'onvenien'e and of
affording an opportunit! to provide proper
poli'ing$ and are not invested with
aritrar! dis'retion to issue or refuse
li'ense$ S S S. 51or should the point
"ade ! Chief 8usti'e Hughes in a
suse6uent portion of the opinion e
ignored: 5Civil lierties$ as guaranteed !
the Constitution$ i"pl! the e3isten'e of an
organi?ed so'iet! "aintaining puli' order
without whi'h liert! itself would e lost in
the e3'esses of unrestri'ted auses. The
authorit! of a "uni'ipalit! to i"pose
regulations in order to assure the safet!
and 'onvenien'e of the people in the use
of puli' highwa!s has never een
regarded as in'onsistent with 'ivil lierties
ut rather as one of the "eans of
safeguarding the good order upon whi'h
the! ulti"atel! depend. The 'ontrol of
travel on the streets of 'ities is the "ost
fa"iliar illustration of this re'ognition of
so'ial need. +here a restri'tion of the
use of highwa!s in that relation is
designed to pro"ote the puli'
'onvenien'e in the interest of all$ it 'annot
e disregarded ! the atte"pted e3er'ise
of so"e 'ivil right whi'h in other
'ir'u"stan'es would e entitled to
prote'tion.7
3 3 3

E. 3 3 3 The prin'iple under
A"eri'an do'trines was given utteran'e
! Chief 8usti'e Hughes in these words:
5The 6uestion$ if the rights of free spee'h
and pea'eale asse"l! are to e
preserved$ is not as to the auspi'es under
whi'h the "eeting is held ut as to its
purpose( not as to the relations of the
spea#ers$ ut whether their utteran'es
trans'end the ounds of the freedo" of
spee'h whi'h the Constitution prote'ts.7
There 'ould e danger to puli' pea'e and
safet! if su'h a gathering were "ar#ed !
turulen'e. That would deprive it of its
pea'eful 'hara'ter. It is true that the
li'ensing offi'ial$ here respondent 4a!or$
is not devoid of dis'retion in deter"ining
whether or not a per"it would e granted.
It is not$ however$ unfettered dis'retion.
+hile pruden'e re6uires that there e a
realisti' appraisal not of what "a!
possil! o''ur ut of what "a! proal!
o''ur$ given all the relevant
'ir'u"stan'es$ still the assu"ption R
espe'iall! so where the asse"l! is
s'heduled for a spe'ifi' puli' pla'e R is
that the per"it "ust e for the asse"l!
eing held there. The e3er'ise of su'h a
right$ in the language of 8usti'e Roerts$
spea#ing for the A"eri'an %upre"e Court$
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -0 -0
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
is not to e 5aridged on the plea that it
"a! e e3er'ised in so"e other pla'e.7

3 3 3

>. .! wa! of a su""ar!. The
appli'ants for a per"it to hold an
asse"l! should infor" the li'ensing
authorit! of the date$ the puli' pla'e
where and the ti"e <hen it will ta#e
pla'e. If it were a private pla'e$ onl! the
'onsent of the owner or the one entitled
to its legal possession is re6uired. %u'h
appli'ation should e filed well ahead in
ti"e to enale the puli' offi'ial
'on'erned to appraise whether there "a!
e valid o@e'tions to the grant of the
per"it or to its grant ut at another puli'
pla'e. It is an indispensale 'ondition to
su'h refusal or "odifi'ation that the 'lear
and present danger test e the standard
for the de'ision rea'hed. If he is of the
view that there is su'h an i""inent and
grave danger of a sustantive evil$ the
appli'ants "ust e heard on the "atter.
Thereafter$ his de'ision$ whether favorale
or adverse$ "ust e trans"itted to the"
at the earliest opportunit!. Thus if so
"inded$ the! 'an have re'ourse to the
proper @udi'ial authorit!. 0ree spee'h and
pea'eale asse"l!$ along with the other
intelle'tual freedo"s$ are highl! ran#ed in
our s'he"e of 'onstitutional values. It
'annot e too strongl! stressed that on
the @udi'iar!$ -- even "ore so than on the
other depart"ents R rests the grave and
deli'ate responsiilit! of assuring respe't
for and deferen'e to su'h preferred rights.
1o veral for"ula$ no san'tif!ing phrase
'an$ of 'ourse$ dispense with what has
een so feli'itiousl! ter"ed ! 8usti'e
Hol"es 5as the sovereign prerogative of
@udg"ent.7 1onetheless$ the presu"ption
"ust e to in'line the weight of the s'ales
of @usti'e on the side of su'h rights$
en@o!ing as the! do pre'eden'e and
pri"a'!. 3 3 3.


..P. 1o. >>C was ena'ted after this
Court rendered its de'ision in .eyes.

The provisions of ..P. 1o. >>C
pra'ti'all! 'odif! the ruling in .eyes:


R"y"< 6. :/2/t<32
&/.R. 1o. *-E9:EE$ 1ove"er 2$ 12>:$
1;9 %CRA 99:$ 9E2A

>. .! wa! of a su""ar!. The appli'ants
for a per"it to hold an asse"l! should
infor" the li'ensing authorit! of the date$
the puli' pla'e where and the ti"e <hen
it will ta#e pla'e. If it were a private
pla'e$ onl! the 'onsent of the owner or
the one entitled to its legal possession is
re6uired. %u'h appli'ation should e filed
well ahead in ti"e to enale the puli'
offi'ial 'on'erned to appraise whether
there "a! e valid o@e'tions to the grant
of the per"it or to its grant ut at another
puli' pla'e. It is an indispensale
'ondition to su'h refusal or "odifi'ation
that the 'lear and present danger test e
the standard for the de'ision rea'hed. If
he is of the view that there is su'h an
i""inent and grave danger of a
sustantive evil$ the appli'ants "ust e
heard on the "atter. Thereafter$ his
de'ision$ whether favorale or adverse$
"ust e trans"itted to the" at the
earliest opportunit!. Thus if so "inded$
the! 'an have re'ourse to the proper
@udi'ial authorit!.

:.P. No. 880

%EC. <. *ermit <hen reHuired and <hen
not reHuired.-- A written per"it shall e
re6uired for an! person or persons to
organi?e and hold a puli' asse"l! in a
puli' pla'e. However$ no per"it shall e
re6uired if the puli' asse"l! shall e
done or "ade in a freedo" par# dul!
estalished ! law or ordinan'e or in
private propert!$ in whi'h 'ase onl! the
'onsent of the owner or the one entitled
to its legal possession is re6uired$ or in
the 'a"pus of a govern"ent-owned and
operated edu'ational institution whi'h
shall e su@e't to the rules and
regulations of said edu'ational institution.
Politi'al "eetings or rallies held during
an! ele'tion 'a"paign period as provided
for ! law are not 'overed ! this A't.
%EC. 9. Appli3ation reHuirements.-- All
appli'ations for a per"it shall 'o"pl! with
the following guidelines:
&aA The appli'ations shall e in writing and
shall in'lude the na"es of the leaders or
organi?ers( the purpose of su'h puli'
asse"l!( the date$ ti"e and duration
thereof$ and pla'e or streets to e used
for the intended a'tivit!( and the proale
nu"er of persons parti'ipating$ the
transport and the puli' address s!ste"s
to e used.
&A The appli'ation shall in'orporate the
dut! and responsiilit! of appli'ant under
%e'tion > hereof.
&'A The appli'ation shall e filed with the
offi'e of the "a!or of the 'it! or
"uni'ipalit! in whose @urisdi'tion the
intended a'tivit! is to e held$ at least five
&9A wor#ing da!s efore the s'heduled
puli' asse"l!.
&dA -pon re'eipt of the appli'ation$ whi'h
"ust e dul! a'#nowledged in writing$ the
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -+ -+
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
offi'e of the 'it! or "uni'ipal "a!or shall
'ause the sa"e to i""ediatel! e posted
at a 'onspi'uous pla'e in the 'it! or
"uni'ipal uilding.

%EC. E. A3tion to +e taken on the
appli3ation. R
&aA It shall e the dut! of the "a!or or
an! offi'ial a'ting in his ehalf to issue or
grant a per"it unless there is 'lear and
'onvin'ing eviden'e that the puli'
asse"l! will 'reate a 'lear and present
danger to puli' order$ puli' safet!$
puli' 'onvenien'e$ puli' "orals or puli'
health.
&A The "a!or or an! offi'ial a'ting in his
ehalf shall a't on the appli'ation within
two &;A wor#ing da!s fro" the date the
appli'ation was filed$ failing whi'h$ the
per"it shall e dee"ed granted. %hould
for an! reason the "a!or or an! offi'ial
a'ting in his ehalf refuse to a''ept the
appli'ation for a per"it$ said appli'ation
shall e posted ! the appli'ant on the
pre"ises of the offi'e of the "a!or and
shall e dee"ed to have een filed.
&'A If the "a!or is of the view that there
is i""inent and grave danger of a
sustantive evil warranting the denial or
"odifi'ation of the per"it$ he shall
i""ediatel! infor" the appli'ant who
"ust e heard on the "atter.
&dA The a'tion on the per"it shall e in
writing and served on the appli'aKntL
within twent!-four hours.
&eA If the "a!or or an! offi'ial a'ting in
his ehalf denies the appli'ation or
"odifies the ter"s thereof in his per"it$
the appli'ant "a! 'ontest the de'ision in
an appropriate 'ourt of law.
&fA In 'ase suit is rought efore the
4etropolitan Trial Court$ the 4uni'ipal
Trial Court$ the 4uni'ipal Cir'uit Trial
Court$ the Regional Trial Court$ or the
Inter"ediate Appellate Court$ its de'isions
"a! e appealed to the appropriate 'ourt
within fort!-eight &<>A hours after re'eipt
of the sa"e. 1o appeal ond and re'ord
on appeal shall e re6uired. A de'ision
granting su'h per"it or "odif!ing it in
ter"s satisfa'tor! to the appli'ant shall e
i""ediatel! e3e'utor!.
&gA All 'ases filed in 'ourt under this
se'tion shall e de'ided within twent!-four
&;<A hours fro" date of filing. Cases filed
hereunder shall e i""ediatel! endorsed
to the e3e'utive @udge for disposition or$ in
his asen'e$ to the ne3t in ran#.
&hA In all 'ases$ an! de'ision "a! e
appealed to the %upre"e Court.
&iA Telegraphi' appeals to e followed !
for"al appeals are here! allowed.

It is ver! 'lear$ therefore$ that :.P.
No. 880 < 3ot /3 /;<ol)t" ;/3 o4
&);l! /<<"0;l"< ;)t / $"<t$!to3
t1/t <0&ly $"2)l/t"< t1" t0"' &l/!"
/35 0/33"$ o4 t1" /<<"0;l"<. This
was adverted to in :smeKa v. Comele3,
::
where the Court referred to it as a
5'ontent-neutral7 regulation of the ti"e$
pla'e$ and "anner of holding puli'
asse"lies.
:<

A fair and i"partial reading of ..P.
1o. >>C thus readil! shows that it refers
to /ll #inds of puli' asse"lies
:9
that
would use puli' pla'es. The referen'e to
5lawful 'ause7 does not "a#e it 'ontent-
ased e'ause asse"lies reall! have to
e for lawful 'auses$ otherwise the! would
not e 5pea'eale7 and entitled to
prote'tion. 1either are the words
5opinion$7 5protesting7 and 5influen'ing7 in
the definition of puli' asse"l! 'ontent
ased$ sin'e the! 'an refer to an! su@e't.
The words 5petitioning the govern"ent for
redress of grievan'es7 'o"e fro" the
wording of the Constitution$ so its use
'annot e avoided. 0inall!$ "a3i"u"
toleran'e is for the prote'tion and enefit
of all rall!ists and is independent of the
'ontent of the e3pressions in the rall!.

0urther"ore$ the per"it 'an onl! e
denied on the ground of 'lear and present
danger to puli' order$ puli' safet!$
puli' 'onvenien'e$ puli' "orals or puli'
health. This is a re'ogni?ed e3'eption to
the e3er'ise of the right even under the
-niversal De'laration of Hu"an Rights
and the International Covenant on Civil
and Politi'al Rights.

N"t1"$ < t1" l/# o6"$;$o/5. It
regulates the e3er'ise of the right to
pea'eful asse"l! and petition onl! to the
e3tent needed to avoid a 'lear and
33
/.R. 1o. 1:;;:1$ 4ar'h :1$
122>$ ;>> %CRA <<D.
34
@+id$ p. <D>.
35
E3'ept pi'#eting and other
'on'erted a'tion in stri#e areas !
wor#ers and e"plo!ees resulting
fro" a laor dispute$ whi'h are
governed ! the *aor Code and
other laor laws( politi'al "eeting
or rallies held during an! ele'tion
'a"paign period$ whi'h are
governed ! the Ele'tion Code and
other ele'tion related laws( and
puli' asse"lies in the 'a"pus of
a govern"ent-owned and operated
edu'ational institution$ whi'h shall
e su@e't to the rules and
regulations of said edu'ational
institution. &%e'. :KaL and %e'. < of
..P. 1o. >>CA.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -2 -2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
present danger of the sustantive evils
Congress has the right to prevent.

There is$ li#ewise$ 3o &$o$ $"<t$/3t$
sin'e the 'ontent of the spee'h is not
relevant to the regulation.
As to the 5"l"2/to3 o4 &o#"$<
to t1" 0/yo$$ the law provides a pre'ise
and suffi'ient standard R the 'lear and
present danger test stated in %e'. E&aA.
The referen'e to 5i""inent and grave
danger of a sustantive evil7 in %e'. E&'A
sustantiall! "eans the sa"e thing and is
not an in'onsistent standard. As to
whether respondent 4a!or has the sa"e
power independentl! under Repuli' A't
1o. D1EC
:E
is thus not ne'essar! to
resolve in these pro'eedings$ and was not
pursued ! the parties in their argu"ents.

0inall!$ for those who 'annot wait$ %e'tion
19 of the law provides for an alternative
foru" through the 'reation of freedo"
par#s where no prior per"it is needed for
pea'eful asse"l! and petition at an!
ti"e:

%EC. 19. Greedom parks. R Ever! 'it! and
"uni'ipalit! in the 'ountr! shall within si3
"onths after the effe'tivit! of this A't
36
The *o'al /overn"ent
Code. %pe'ifi'all!$ %e'tion 1E
stating the general welfare 'lause$
thus:
%EC. 1E. 4eneral Jelfare.
R Ever! lo'al govern"ent unit shall
e3er'ise the powers e3pressl!
granted$ those ne'essaril! i"plied
therefro"$ as well as powers
ne'essar!$ appropriate$ or
in'idental for its effi'ient and
effe'tive governan'e$ and those
whi'h are essential to the
pro"otion of the general welfare.
+ithin their respe'tive territorial
@urisdi'tions$ lo'al govern"ent
units shall ensure and support
a"ong other things$ the
preservation and enri'h"ent of
'ulture$ pro"ote health and safet!$
enhan'e the right of the people to
a alan'ed e'olog!$ en'ourage and
support the develop"ent of
appropriate and self-reliant
s'ientifi' and te'hnologi'al
'apailities$ i"prove puli' "orals$
enhan'e e'ono"i' prosperit! and
so'ial @usti'e$ pro"ote full
e"plo!"ent a"ong their
residents$ "aintain pea'e and
order$ and preserve the 'o"fort
and 'onvenien'e of their
inhaitants.
estalish or designate at least one suitale
5freedo" par#7 or "all in their respe'tive
@urisdi'tions whi'h$ as far as pra'ti'ale$
shall e 'entrall! lo'ated within the
pola'ion where de"onstrations and
"eetings "a! e held at an! ti"e without
the need of an! prior per"it.

In the 'ities and "uni'ipalities of
4etropolitan 4anila$ the respe'tive
"a!ors shall estalish the freedo" par#s
within the period of si3 "onths fro" the
effe'tivit! this A't.

;
The Court now 'o"es to the "atter of the
CPR. As stated earlier$ the %oli'itor
/eneral has 'on'eded that the use of the
ter" should now e dis'ontinued$ sin'e it
does not "ean an!thing other than the
"a3i"u" toleran'e poli'! set forth in ..P.
1o. >>C. This is stated in the Affidavit of
respondent E3e'utive %e'retar! Eduardo
Er"ita$ su"itted ! the %oli'itor /eneral$
thus:

The truth of the "atter is the poli'! of
5'alirated pree"ptive response7 is in
'onsonan'e with the legal definition of
5"a3i"u" toleran'e7 under %e'tion : &'A
of ..P. .lg. >>C$ whi'h is the 5highest
degree of restraint that the "ilitar!$ poli'e
and other pea'e#eeping authorities shall
oserve during a puli' asse"l! or in the
dispersal of the sa"e.7 -nfortunatel!$
however$ the phrase 5"a3i"u" toleran'e7
has a'6uired a different "eaning over the
!ears. 4an! have ta#en it to "ean
ina'tion on the part of law enfor'ers even
in the fa'e of "a!he" and serious threats
to puli' order. 4ore so$ other felt that
the! need not other se'ure a per"it
when holding rallies thin#ing this would e
5tolerated.7 Clearl!$ the popular
'onnotation of 5"a3i"u" toleran'e7 has
departed fro" its real essen'e under ..P.
.lg. >>C.

It should e e"phasi?ed that the poli'! of
"a3i"u" toleran'e is provided under the
sa"e law whi'h re6uires all pui'
asse"lies to have a per"it$ whi'h allows
the dispersal of rallies without a per"it$
and whi'h re'ogni?es 'ertain instan'es
when water 'annons "a! e used. This
'ould onl! "ean that 5"a3i"u"
toleran'e7 is not in 'onfli't with a 5no
per"it$ no rall! poli'!7 or with the
dispersal and use of water 'annons under
'ertain 'ir'u"stan'es for indeed$ the
"a3i"u" a"ount of toleran'e re6uired is
dependent on how pea'eful or unrul! a
"ass a'tion is. )ur law enfor'ers should
'alirate their response ased on the
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -* -*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
'ir'u"stan'es on the ground with the
view to pree"pting the outrea# of
violen'e.

Thus$ when I stated that 'alirated
pree"ptive response is eing enfor'ed in
lieu of "a3i"u" toleran'e I 'learl! was
not referring to its legal definition ut to
the distorted and "u'h aused definition
that it has now a'6uired. I onl! wanted to
disause the "inds of the puli' fro" the
notion that law enfor'ers would shir# their
responsiilit! of #eeping the pea'e even
when 'onfronted with dangerousl!
threatening ehavior. I wanted to send a
"essage that we would no longer e la3
in enfor'ing the law ut would hen'eforth
follow it to the letter. Thus I said$ A<e
have instru3ted the *;* as <ell as the
lo3al government units to stri3tly enfor3e
a no permit, no rally poli3y . . . arrest all
persons violating the la<s of the land . . .
unla<ful mass a3tions <ill +e dispersed.F
1one of these is at loggerheads with the
letter and spirit of .atas Pa"ansa .lg.
>>C. It is thus asurd for 'o"plainants to
even 'lai" that I ordered "! 'o-
respondents to violate an! law.

In su"$ this Court reiterates its asi'
poli'! of upholding the funda"ental rights
of our people$ espe'iall! freedo" of
e3pression and freedo" of asse"l!. 0or
this reason$ the so-'alled 'alirated
pree"ptive response poli'! has no pla'e
in our legal fir"a"ent and "ust e stru'#
down as a dar#ness that shrouds freedo".
It "erel! 'onfuses our people and is used
! so"e poli'e agents to @ustif! auses.
)n the other hand$ ..P. 1o. >>C 'annot e
'onde"ned as un'onstitutional( it does
not 'urtail or undul! restri't freedo"s( it
"erel! regulates the use of puli' pla'es
as to the ti"e$ pla'e and "anner of
asse"lies. 0ar fro" eing insidious$
5"a3i"u" toleran'e7 is for the enefit of
rall!ists$ not the govern"ent. The
delegation to the "a!ors of the power to
issue rall! 5per"its7 is valid e'ause it is
su@e't to the 'onstitutionall!-sound
5'lear and present danger7 standard.

WHEREFORE' the petitions are
GRANTED in part$ and C/l;$/t"5
P$""0&t6" R"<&o3<" (CPRA$ insofar as
it would purport to differ fro" or e in lieu
of "a3i"u" toleran'e$ is NULL and
VOID and respondents are EN(OINED to
REFRAIN fro" using it and to STRICTLY
O:SERVE the re6uire"ents of "a3i"u"
toleran'e.

R"/5D
1. Right of asse"l!..:1 %CRA D:< and
D<;
;. Evangelista vs. Earnshaw$ 9D Phil
;99
:. Pri"i'ias vs. 0uguso$ >C Phil. D1
<. De la Cru? vs. Ela$ 22 Phil. :<E
9. 1avarro vs. Fillegas$ :1 %CRA D:1
E. Philippine .loo"ing 4ills Case$91
%CRA 1>2
D. Re!es vs. .agatsing$ 1;9 %CRA
99:(see guidelines
>. Rui? vs. /ordon$ 1;E %CRA ;::
2. Fillar vs. TIP$ 1:9 %CRA DC9
1C. 4alaanan vs. Ra"ento$ 1;2 %CRA
:92
11. Carpio vs. /uevara$ 1CE %CRA E>9
1;. 1estleO Phils. vs. %an'he?$ 19<
%CRA 9<;
1:. Arre?a vs. Araneta -niversit!
0oundation$ 1:D %CRA 2<
E. 0reedo" fro" prior restraint
Read:
1. /on?ales vs. Palaw Patiga#$ 1:D
%CRA D1D
;. 1ew Gor# Ti"es vs. -.%.$ <C: -.%.
D1: &An! s!ste" of prior restraints of
e3pression 'o"es to this Court earing a
heav! presu"ption against its validit!A
:. 1ear vs. 4innesota$ ;>: -.%. E2D
<. Ti"es 0il" vs. Cit! of Chi'ago$ :E9
-.%. <:
9. 0reed"an vs. 4ar!land$ :>C -.%.
91

8. Cl"/$ /35 &$"<"3t 5/32"$ /35
5/32"$o)< t"35"3!y $)l" (#1"t1"$
t1" #o$5< )<"5 3 <)!1 !$!)0<t/3!"<
/35 /$" o4 <)!1 / 3/t)$" /< to !$"/t"
/ !l"/$ /35 &$"<"3t 5/32"$ t1/t t1"y
#ll ;$32 /;o)t t1" <);<t/3t6" "6l<
t1/t t1" St/t" 1/< t1" $21t to
&$"6"3t%
D-a. D/32"$o)< t"35"3!y $)l" (I4 t1"
#o$5< )tt"$"5 !$"/t" / 5/32"$o)<
t"35"3!y #1!1 t1" St/t" 1/< t1"
$21t to &$"6"3t' t1"3 <)!1 #o$5< /$"
&)3<1/;l"%
Read:
1. Caansag vs. 0ernande?$ 1C; Phil.
19;
;. Read again the Re!es and Rui?
'ases$ supra
:. Read again Baldivar vs.
%andigana!an$ /R 1o. D2EC-DCDH
Baldivar vs. /on?ales$ /R 1o.
>C9D>$ 0eruar! 1$ 12>2
>. T1" ;/l/3!32Go4G3t"$"<t t"<t
(W1"3 / &/$t!)l/$ !o35)!t <
$"2)l/t"5 3 t1" 3t"$"<t o4 t1" &);l!
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -9 -9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
o$5"$' /35 t1" $"2)l/to3 $"<)lt< 3 /3
35$"!t' !o35to3/l' &/$t/l
/;$520"3t o4 <&""!1' t1" 5)ty o4 t1"
!o)$t< < to 5"t"$03" #1!1 o4 t1" 2
!o34l!t32 3t"$"<t< 5"0/35 2$"/t"$
&$ot"!to3 )35"$ t1" !$!)0<t/3!"<
&$"<"3t"5.%
Read:
A=2. *.:DUC5@:; /S. )UD42
CA*UL:;4, )UA; *:;C2 2;.@L2, 25 AL.,
$1' SC.A 01$
Read also:
1. *agun?ad vs. /on?ales$ 2; %CRA
<DE
;. /itlow vs. 1ew Gor#$ ;E> -.%. E9;$
in'luding the 'riti'is" on this test
! 8usti'e Hol"es
:. %ee also Baldivar 'ase aove
CHAPTER VI G THE NONG
ESTA:LISHMENT
OF RELIGION CLAUSE
S"!to3 8. No l/# <1/ll ;" 0/5"
$"<&"!t32 t1" "<t/;l<10"3t o4
$"l2o3' o$ &$o1;t32 t1" 4$""
"A"$!<" t1"$"o4. T1" 4$"" "A"$!<"
/35 "3Boy0"3t o4 $"l2o)< &$o4"<<o3
/35 #o$<1&' #t1o)t 5<!$03/to3
o$ &$"4"$"3!" <1/ll 4o$"6"$ ;"
/llo#"5. No $"l2o)< t"<t <1/ll ;"
$"H)$"5 4o$ t1" "A"$!<" o4 !6l o$
&olt!/l $21t<.
ESTRADA VS. SOLEDAD ESCRITOR'
9,2 SCRA + (R"<ol)to3 o4 t1" Moto3
4o$ R"!o3<5"$/to3%' 908 SCRA +
Puno$ 8.
Respondent is the Court interpreter
of RTC .ran'h ;9:$ *as Pinas Cit!.
Co"plainant re6uested for an
investigation of respondent for living with
a "an not her husand while she was still
legall! "arried and having orne a 'hild
within this live-in arrange"ent. Estrada
elieves that Es'ritor is 'o""itting a
grossl! i""oral a't whi'h tarnishes the
i"age of the @udi'iar!$ thus she should not
e allowed to re"ain e"plo!ed therein as
it "ight appear that the 'ourt 'ondones
her a't.
Respondent ad"itted she started
living with *u'iano Nuilapio$ 8r. "ore than
;C !ears ago when her husand was still
alive ut living with another wo"an. %he
li#ewise ad"itted having a son with
Nuilapio ut denies an! liailit! for alleged
grossl! i""oral 'ondu't e'ause:
%he is a "e"er of the
8ehovah=s +itnesses and the +at'h Tower
%o'iet!(
That the 'on@ugal arrange"ent
was in 'onfor"it! with their religious
eliefs(
That the 'on@ugal arrange"ent
with Nuilapio has the approval of her
'ongregation.
Es'ritor li#ewise 'lai"ed that she had
e3e'uted a 5DEC*ARATI)1 )0 P*ED/I1/
0AITH0-*1E%%7 in a''ordan'e with her
religion whi'h allows "e"ers of the
8ehovah=s witnesses who have een
aandoned ! their spouses to enter into
"arital relations. The De'laration thus
"a#es the resulting union "oral and
inding within the 'ongregation all over
the world e3'ept in 'ountries where
divor'e is allowed.
HE*D:
Es'ritor=s 'on@ugal arrange"ent
'annot e penali?ed as she has "ade out
a 'ase for e3e"ption fro" the law ased
on her funda"ental right to religion. The
Court re'ogni?es that state interests "ust
e upheld in order that freedo"s---
in'luding religious freedo"---"a! e
en@o!ed. I1 THE AREA )0 RE*I/I)-%
EMERCI%E A% A PRE0ERRED 0REED)4$
H)+EFER$ 4A1 %TA1D% ACC)-1TA.*E
T) A1 A-TH)RITG HI/HER THA1 THE
%TATE$ and so the stateinterest sought to
e upheld "ust e so 'o"pelling that its
violation will erode the ver! fari' of the
state that will also prote't the freedo". In
the asen'e of a showing that the state
interest e3ists$ "an "ust e allowed to
sus'rie to the Infinite.
Es'ritor was therefore held not
ad"inistrativel! liale for grossl! i""oral
'ondu't.
0REED)4 )0 RE*I/I)1 0REED)4 )0 RE*I/I)1
- an! spe'ifi' s!ste" of elief$
worship or 'ondu't$ often involving a 'ode
of ethi's and philosoph!.
- A profession of faith to an
a'tive power that inds and elevates "an
to his Creator.
The e3isten'e of a Divine eing is not
ne'essaril! inherent in religion( the
.uddhists espouses a wa! of life without
referen'e to an o"nipotent /od.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -8 -8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
8Strong fen!e" ma9e good
neig:0or";# The idea is to delineate the
oundaries etween two institutions and
prevent en'roa'h"ents ! one against the
other.
The do'trine 'uts oth wa!s. It is
not onl! the %tate that is prohiited fro"
interfering in purel! e''lesiasti'al affairs(
the Chur'h is li#ewise arred fro"
"eddling in purel! se'ular "atters.
NONGSTA:LISHMENT CLAUSED
It si"pl! "eans 5that the %tate
'annot set up a 'hur'h( nor pass laws
whi'h aids one religion( aid all religion$ or
prefer one religion over another nor for'e
nor influen'e a person to go to or re"ain
awa! fro" 'hur'h against his will( or for'e
hi" to profess a elief or diselief( that
the %tate 'annot openl! or se'retl!
parti'ipate in the affairs of an! religious
organi?ation or group and vi'e versa7
(EVERSON VS. :OARD OF
EDUCATION' **0 US +%
This 'lause see#s to prote't:
Foluntaris"---"ust 'o"e into
e3isten'e through the voluntar! support of
its "e"ers(
Insulation fro" politi'al pro'essT
growth through voluntar! support of its
"e"ers will not ta#e pla'e if there is
intervention fro" the %tate.
There will e no violation of the
non-estalish"ent 'lause if:
the statute has a se'ular legislative
purpose(
its prin'ipal or pri"ar! effe't is one
that neither advan'es nor inhiits religion(
and
it does not foster an e3'essive
govern"ent entangle"ent with religion.
(LEMON VS. MURT?MAN' 90* US -02%
The govern"ent is neutral and
while prote'ting all$ it prefers none and
disparages none. 5All7 here applies oth to
the eliever and the non-eliever.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION INCLUDES
FREEDOM FROM RELIGION7 THE
RIGHT TO WORHIP INCLUDES THE
RIGHT NOT TO WORSHIP.
SCHOOL PRAYER CASE (ENGEL VS.
VITALE' *.0 US 92+%
5It is un'onstitutional for a s'hool
to re6uire the students to re'ite a pra!er
'o"posed ! the .oard of Regents at the
starts of the da!=s 'lass. 5It is no part of
the usiness of govern"ent to 'o"pose
offi'ial pra!ers for an! group of the
A"eri'an People.7
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF A:INGTON VS.
SCHEMPP' *.9 US 20*
It is un'onstitutional for a law to
re6uire that at least 1C verses fro" the
Hol! .ile e read dail! without 'o""ent
e'ause the sa"e 'onstitute a religious
e3er'ise whi'h violates the non-
estalish"ent 'lause.
:OARD OF EDUCATION VS. ALLEN'
*,2 US 2*-
A law re6uiring the .oard of
Edu'ation to lend te3too#s free of 'harge
to all students fro" grades D-1; of
paro'hial s'hool. This is 'onstitutional
sin'e it is not the paro'hial s'hool whi'h
gets the enefits ut the parents.
2/2.S:; /S. B:A.D :G 2DUCA5@:;, 2/2.S:; /S. B:A.D :G 2DUCA5@:;,
,,' US $ ,,' US $
The law authori?ing rei"urse"ent
of transportation e3penses of s'hool
'hildren going to and fro" paro'hial
s'hools is not violative of the non-
estalish"ent 'lause e'ause it will e the
parents who get enefits$ not the
paro'hial s'hool.
RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS PROFESSION
AND WORSHIP HAS TWO ASPECTSD
/. F$""5o0 to ;"l"6"7 /35
;. F$""5o0 to /!t.
I1 the first$ su'h freedo" is asolute. He
"a! indulge in his own theories aout life
and death( worship an! god he 'hooses$
or none at all. He "a! not e punished
even if he 'annot prove what he elieves.
In the se'ond$ if the individual
e3ternali?es what he elieves$ his freedo"
to do so e'o"es su@e't to the authorit!
of the %tate. This is so e'ause religious
freedo" 'an e e3er'ised onl! with due
regard to the rights of others. E3a"ple:
5/o forth and "ultipl!---'annot "arr!
several ti"es @ust to 'o"pl!.
PE)P*E F%. *A/4A1 H B)%A$ :> )./. PE)P*E F%. *A/4A1 H B)%A$ :> )./.
1EDE 1EDE
Avoiding "ilitar! duties ased on
religious grounds is not allowed in the
Philippines e'ause of %e'tion <$ Arti'le II
TThe state is the prote'tor of the people
and it is the pri"e dut! of the people to
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -- --
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
defend the %tate and in the fulfill"ent of
this dut!$ the %tate "a! 'all all 'iti?ens to
render "ilitar! or 'ivil servi'e.
@; .2 SU!!2.S, ,&% US %1$ @; .2 SU!!2.S, ,&% US %1$
The a't of the Illinois %upre"e
Court den!ing ad"ission to the ar
e'ause of his refusal to ta#e in good faith
an oath to support the Constitution of the
%tate of Illinois whi'h re6uires "andator!
servi'e in the "ilitar! in ti"es of war was
reversed ! the -% %upre"e Court stating
that this 'onstitutes a violation of the 1
st
A"end"ent whi'h guarantees religious
freedo".
1. Religious freedo" in relation to
i"pair"ent of 'ontra'ts and the
right to @oin asso'iations$:E %CRA
<<9
;. Read:
1. Aglipa! vs. Rui?$ E< Phil. ;C1
;. /ar'es vs. Esten?o$ 1C< %CRA 91C
:. I1P vs. /ironella$ 1CE %CRA 1
<. A"eri'an .ile %o'iet! vs. Cit! of
4anila$ 1C1 Phil. :2>
9. /erona vs. %e'. of Edu'ation$ 1CE
Phil. 11
E. Pa"il vs. Teleron$ 1ove"er ;C$
12D>
D. Fi'toriano vs. Eli?alde Rope$ 92
%CRA 9<
D. /er"an vs. .arangan$ 1:9 %CRA
91<
ROEL E:RALINAG' ET AL VS. THE
DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS OF CE:U' M/$!1 +' +,,*
/rino--A6uino$ 8.
0a'ts:
------
1. The petitioners are high s'hool and
grade s'hools students enrolled in the
different puli' s'hools of the Provin'e of
Ceu and who elong to the religious
group #nown as the 8ehovahOs +itnesses(
;. That the! rrefused to ta#e part in the
flag 'ere"on! whi'h in'ludes pla!ing ! a
and or singing the Philippine 1ational
Anthe"$ saluting the Philippine 0lag and
re'iting the patrioti' pledge e'ause the!
'onsidered the flag as an i"age and the!
should not worship it e3'ept /)D(
:. That e'ause of their refusal to perfor"
the foregoing a'ts as re6uired ! RA 1;E9
of 8ul! 11$ 1299 and ! Depart"ent )rder
1o. > dated 8ul! ;1$ 1299 of the DEC%
"a#ing the flag 'ere"on! 'o"pulsor! in
all edu'ational institutions$ the! were
e3pelled ! the respondent s'hool
authorities.
Hen'e this petition.
Issue:
------
4a! the petitioners e e3pelled for
refusing to salute the flag$ re'ite the
patrioti' pledge or sing the national
anthe" in order to follow their religious
eliefsJ
Held:

The sa"e issue was raised in
4erona vs. Se3retary of 2du3ation, $'1
*hil. & ($#%#( and Bal+una vs. Se3retary
of 2du3ation, $$' *hil. $%' ($#1'( where
the %C held that:
The flag is not an i"age ut a
s!"ol of the Repuli' of the Philippines$
an e"le" of national sovereignt!$ of
national unit! and 'ohesion and of
freedo" and liert! whi'h it and the
Constitution guarantee and prote't. -nder
a s!ste" of 'o"plete separation of 'hur'h
and state in the govern"ent$ the flag is
utterl! devoid of an! religious signifi'an'e.
The law$ RA 1;E9 was li#ewise
in'orporated in E3e'utive )rder 1o. ;2D$
%epte"er ;1$ 12>>.
)ur tas# is e3tre"el! diffi'ult for
the :C-!ear old de'ision of this Court in
/ER)1A upholding the salute law and
approving the e3pulsion of students who
refuse to oe! it$ is not lightl! to e trifled
with.
The idea that one "a! e
'o"pelled to salute the flag$ sing the
national anthe"$ and re'ite the patrioti'
pledge$ during flag 'ere"on! on pain of
eing dis"issed fro" oneOs @o or e
e3pelled in s'hool$ I% A*IE1 T) THE
C)1%CIE1CE )0 THE PRE%E1T
/E1ERATI)1 )0 0I*IPI1)% +H) C-T
THEIR TEETH )1 THE .I** )0 RI/HT%
+HICH /-ARA1TEE% THEIR RI/HT% T)
0REE %PEECH A1D THE 0REE EMERCI%E
)0 RE*I/I)-% PR)0E%%I)1 A1D
+)R%HIP &%e'tion 9$ Art. III$ 12>D
ConstitutionA.
Religious freedo" is a funda"ental
right whi'h is entitled to the highest
priorit! and the a"plest prote'tion a"ong
hu"an rights$ for it involves the
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -. -.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
relationship of "an and his Creator &Chief
8usti'e 0ernandoOs separate opinion in
4erman vs. Barangan, $,% SC.A %,'(.
The right to religious profession
has a two-fold aspe't$ vis.$ freedo" to
elieve and freedo" to a't on oneOs elief.
The first is asolute as long as the elief is
'onfined within the real" of the thought.
The se'ond is su@e't to regulation where
the elief is translated into e3ternal a'ts
that affe't the puli' welfare.
The sole @ustifi'ation for a prior
restraint or li"itation on the e3er'ise of
religious freedo" &a''ording the 0or"er
Chief @usti'e Teehan#ee in his dissenting
opinion in /er"an vs. .aranaganA is the
e3isten'e of a grave and present danger
of a 'hara'ter oth grave and i""inent$
of a serious evil to puli' safet!$ puli'
"orals$ puli' health or an! other
legiti"ate puli' interest$ that the %tate
has the right and dut! to presvent. Asent
su'h a threat to puli' safet!$ the
e3pulsion of the petitioners fro" the
s'hools is not @ustified sin'e the! are not
doing an!thing that 'ould warrant their
e3pulsion sin'e during flag 'ere"onies$
the! @ust 6uietl! stand at attention to
show their respe't for the rights of others
who 'hoose to parti'ipate in the sole"n
pro'eedings.
In /i3toriano vs. 2li?alde .ope
Jorkers Union, %# SC.A %-, we upheld
the e3e"ption of the "e"ers of the
Iglesia ni Pristo fro" the 'overage of the
'losed-shop agree"ent etween the laor
union and the 'o"pan! e'ause it would
violate the tea'hing of their 'hur'h not to
@oin an! laor group.
+e hold that a si"ilar e3e"ption
"a! e a''orded to the 8ehovahOs
+itnesses with regard to the oservan'e
of the flag 'ere"on! out of respe't to
their religious eliefs$ however Ii?arreI
those eliefs "a! see" to others
CHAPTER VII G THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
S"!to3 -. T1" l;"$ty o4 /;o5" /35 o4
!1/3232 t1" </0" #t13 t1" l0t<
&$"<!$;"5 ;y l/# <1/ll 3ot ;"
0&/$"5 "A!"&t )&o3 l/#4)l o$5"$ o4
t1" !o)$t. N"t1"$ <1/ll t1" $21t to
t$/6"l ;" 0&/$"5 "A!"&t 3 t1"
3t"$"<t o4 3/to3/l <"!)$ty' &);l!
</4"ty' o$ &);l! 1"/lt1' /< 0/y ;"
&$o65"5 ;y l/#.
1)TE: THE APP*ICA.*E PR)FI%I)1 )0
THE H-4A1 %EC-RITG ACT )1 THE
RI/HT T) TRAFE*
Se!tion '( provides that persons
who have een 'harged with terroris" or
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"---even if
the! have een granted ail e'ause
eviden'e of guilt is not strongT'an e:
Detain
ed under house arrest(
Restri'
ted fro" traveling( and,or
Prohii
ted fro" using an! 'ellular phones$
'o"puters$ or other "eans of
'o""uni'ations with people outside their
residen'e.
-pon appli'ation of the prose'utor$ the
suspe't=s right to travel shall e li"ited to
the "uni'ipalit! or 'it! where he resides
or where the 'ase is pending$ in the
interest of national se'urit! and puli'
safet!. Travel outside of said "uni'ipalit!
or 'it!$ without the authori?ation of the
'ourt$ shall e dee"ed a violation of the
ter"s and 'onditions of the ail whi'h
shall then e forfeited as provided in the
Rules of Court.
These restri'tions shall e
ter"inated upon a'6uittal of the a''used(
or the dis"issal of the 'ase filed against
hi"( or earlier upon the dis'retion of the
'ourt or upon "otion of the prose'utor.
1. The 'onstitutional as well as hu"an
right to travel$ 1;2 %CRA
;. Read:
FERDINAND MARCOS' ET AL. VS. HON.
RAUL MANGLAPUS' ET AL.' G.R. NO.
882++' S"&t"0;"$ +8' +,8, /35 t1"
R"<ol)to3 o4 t1" Moto3 4o$
R"!o3<5"$/to3 5/t"5 O!to;"$ 2.'
+,8,
right to travel( liert! of aode
and Iright to returnI
En an'
Cortes$ 8.

This is a petition for "anda"us and
prohiition as#ing the %upre"e Court to
)rder the respondents to issue travel
do'u"ents to the petitioners and to en@oin
the i"ple"entation of the PresidentOs
de'ision to ar their return to the
Philippines.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -8 -8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
The 'ase for the petitioners is founded
on the assertion that their right to return
to the Philippines is guaranteed ! the
following provisions of the Constitution:
%e'tion 1. 1o person shall e deprived
of life liert! or propert! without due
pro'ess of law$ nor shall an! person e
denied e6ual prote'tion of the laws.
%e'tion E. The liert! of aode and of
'hanging the sa"e within the li"its
pres'ried ! law shall not e i"paired
e3'ept in the interest of national se'urit!$
puli' safet! or puli' health$ as "a! e
provided ! law.
The petitioners 'ontend that the
President has no power to i"pair the
liert! of aode of the 4ar'oses e'ause
onl! the Courts "a! do so Iwithin the
li"its pres'ried ! lawI. 1or "a! the
President i"pair the right to travel
e'ause no law has authori?ed her to do
so.
Also$ the petitioners 'lai" that under
international law$ parti'ularl! the
-niversal De'laration of Hu"@an Rights
guaranteed the right of the 4ar'oses to
return to the Philippines. Thus:
Art. 1: &1A Ever!one has the right to
freedo" of "ove"ent and residen'e
within the orders of ea'h state.
&;A Ever!one has the right to leave an!
'ountr!$ in'luding his own$ A1D T)
RET-R1 T) HI% C)-1TRG.
*i#ewise$ under the International
Covenant on Civil and Politi'al Rights$
whi'h had een ratified ! the Philippines$
provides:
Art. 1;
<A 1o one shall e aritraril! deprived of
the right to enter his own 'ountr!.
The respondents argue that the issue
in this 'ase involves a politi'al 6uestion
whi'h is therefore e!ond the @urisdi'tion
of the Court. 0urther"ore$ the! argue that
the right of the state to national se'urit!
prevails over individual rights$ 'iting
%e'tion <$ Art. II of the 12>D Philippine
Constitution.
Issue:

+hether or not$ in the e3er'ise of the
powers granted in the Constitution$ the
President "a! prohiit the 4ar'oses fro"
returning to the Philippines.
The su-issues$ whi'h 'ould help in the
deter"ination of the "ain issue$ are:
1. Does the President have the
power to ar the 4ar'oses to return to the
PhilippinesJ
a. Is this a politi'al 6uestionJ
;. Assu"ing that the President has
the power to ar for"er Pres. 4ar'os and
his fa"il! fro" returning to the
Philippines$ in the interest of national
se'urit!$ puli' safet! or puli' health$ has
the President "ade a finding that the
return of the petitioners to the Philippines
is a 'lear and present danger to national
se'urit!$ puli' welfare or puli' health.
And if she has "ade that finding$ have the
re6uire"ents of due pro'ess een
'o"plied with in "a#ing su'h findingJ Has
there een prior noti'e to the petitionersJ
Held:

It "ust e e"phasi?ed that the
individual right involved in this 'ase is not
the right to travel fro" the Philippines to
other 'ountries or within the Philippines.
These are what the right to travel
'onnote. Essentiall!$ the right to return to
oneOs 'ountr!$ a totall! distin't right under
international law$ independent fro"$
though related to the right to travel. Thus$
even the -niversal de'laration of Hu"an
Rights and the International Covenant on
Civil and Politi'al Rights treat the right to
freedo" of "ove"ent and aode within
the territor! of the state$ the right to
leave a 'ountr! and the right to enter
oneOs 'ountr! as separate and distin't
rights.
THE RI/HT T) RET-R1 T) )1EO%
C)-1TRG I% 1)T A4)1/ THE RI/HT%
%PECI0ICA**G /-ARA1TEED .G THE .I**
)0 RI/HT%$ +HICH TREAT% )1*G )0 THE
*I.ERTG )0 A.)DE A1D THE RI/HT T)
TRAFE*$ .-T IT I% )-R +E**-
C)1%IDERED FIE+ THAT THE RI/HT T)
RET-R1 4AG .E C)1%IDERED A% A
/E1ERA**G ACCEPTED PRI1CIP*E )0
I1TER1ATI)1A* *A+$ -1DER )-R
C)1%TIT-TI)1$ I% PART )0 THE *A+ )0
THE *A1D.
To t1" P$"<5"3t' t1" &$o;l"0 <
o3" o4 ;/l/3!32 t1" 2"3"$/l #"l4/$"
/35 t1" !o00o3 2oo5 /2/3<t t1"
"A"$!<" o4 $21t< o4 !"$t/3
3565)/l<. T1" &o#"$ 36ol6"5 < t1"
P$"<5"3tT< RESIDUAL POWER to
&$ot"!t t1" 2"3"$/l #"l4/$" o4 t1"
&"o&l".
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW -, -,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
The 'ourt 'annot 'lose its e!es to
present realities and pretend that the
'ountr! is not esieged ! the insurgen'!$
separatist "ove"ent in 4indanao$ rightist
'onspira'ies to gra power$ et'. +ith
these efore her$ the President 'annot e
said to have a'ted aritraril!$ 'apri'iousl!
and whi"si'all!.
*astl!$ the issue involved in the 'ase at
ar is not politi'al in nature sin'e under
%e'tion 1$ Art. FIII of the Constitution$
@udi'ial power now in'ludes the dut! to
Ideter"ine whether or not there has
een a grave ause of dis'retion
a"ounting to la'# of @urisdi'tion on the
part of an! ran'h or instru"entalit! of
the govern"ent.I
1)TE:
The "ain opinion was 'on'urred in !
D @usti'es &C8 0ernan$ 1arvasa$ 4elen'io-
Herrera$ /an'a!'o$ /rino-A6uino$
4edialdea and RegaladoA or a total of >
@usti'es in voting in favor of DI%4I%%I1/
the petition. %even @usti'es filed separate
dissenting opinions &/utierre?$ 8r.$ Cru?$
Paras$ 0eli'iano$ Padilla$ .idin and
%ar"ientoA.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
/utierre?$ 8r.$ 8.$ dissenting.

+ith all due respe't for the "a@orit! in
the Court that the "ain issue in this 'ase
is not one of power ut one on RI/HT%. If
he 'o"es ho"e$ the govern"ent has the
power to arrest and punish hi" ut does it
have the power to den! hi" his right to
'o"e ho"e and die a"ong fa"iliar
surroundingsJ 3 3 3 The govern"ent has
"ore than a"ple powers under e3isting
laws to deal with a person who
transgresses the pea'e and i"perils puli'
safet!. .-T THE DE1IA* )0 TRAFE*
PAPER% I% 1)T )1E )0 TH)%E P)+ER%
.ECA-%E THE .I** )0 RI/HT% %AG %).
THERE I% 1) *A+ PRE%CRI.I1/ EMI*E I1
0)REI/1 *A1D A% THE PE1A*TG 0)R
H-RTI1/ THE 1ATI)1.
. The fears e3pressed ! its
representatives were ased on "ere
'on@e'tures of politi'al and e'ono"i'
destaili?ation without an! single pie'e of
'on'rete eviden'e to a'# up their
apprehensions.
A"a?ingl!$ however$ the "a@orit! has
'o"e to the 'on'lusion that there e3ist
Ifa'tual ases for the PresidentOs de'isionI
to ar 4ar'osOs return. That is not "!
re'olle'tion of the i"pressions of the
Court after the hearing.

;. %ilverio vs. CA$ April >$ 1221
Read also:
1. Caun'a vs. %ala?ar$ >; Phil. >91
;. Pwong vs. PC//$ De'e"er D$l2>D
:. 4anoto' vs. CA$ 1<; %CRA 1<2
1. Petitioner Ri'ardo 4anoto'$ 8r. has E
'ri"inal 'ases for estafa pending against
hi". In said 'ases he was ad"itted to ail
with the 0/- Insuran'e Corporation as
suret!.
He is also involved in a 'ase pending
efore the %e'urities and E3'hange
Co""ission.
;. The %EC re6uested the Co""issioner
on I""igration not to 'lear petitioner for
departure pending disposition of the 'ase
involving hi". The sa"e was granted !
the Co""issioner.
:. Petitioner suse6uentl! filed efore
the trial 'ourts a "otion entitled I"otion
for per"ission to leave the 'ountr!I
stating as ground therefor his desire to go
to the -nited %tates$ Irelative to his
usiness transa'tions and opportunitiesI.
<. The "otion was denied ! the lower
'ourts and the "atter was elevated to the
Court of Appeals whi'h also denied the
sa"e. Petitioner rings the "atter to the
%.C. 'lai"ing his 'onstitutional right to
travel and also 'ontending that having
een ad"itted to ail as a "atter of right$
neither the 'ourts whi'h granted hi" ail
nor the %EC would have @urisdi'tion over
his liert!.
HELDD
Petition denied.
a. A 'ourt has the power to prohiit a
person ad"itted to ail fro" leaving the
Philippines. This is a ne'essar!
'onse6uen'e of the nature and fun'tion of
a ail ond. The 'ondition i"posed upon
petitioner to "a#e hi"self availale at all
ti"es whenever the 'ourt re6uires his
presen'e operates as a valid restri'tion on
his right to travel.
. I3 3 3 the result of the oligation
assu"ed ! appellee to hold the a''used
a"enale at all ti"es to the orders and
pro'esses of the lower 'ourt$ was to
prohiit the a''used fro" leaving the
@urisdi'tion of the Philippines$ e'ause$
otherwise$ said orders and pro'esses will
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW .0 .0
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
e nugator!$ and inas"u'h as the
@urisdi'tion of the 'ourts fro" whi'h the!
issued does not e3tend e!ond that of the
Philippines the! would have no inding
for'e outside of said @urisdi'tion.I(P"o&l"
6<. Uy T)<32' -+ P1l. 909 (l,*8%
'. To allow the petitioner to leave the
Philippines without suffi'ient reason would
pla'e hi" e!ond the rea'h of the 'ourts.
d. Petitioner 'ites the Court of Appeals
'ase of People vs. %hepherd &C.A.-/.R.
1o. ;:9C9-R$ 0e. 1:$ 12>CA as authorit!
for his 'lai" that he 'ould travel. The %.C.
held however that said 'ase is not
s6uarel! on all fours with the 'ase at ar.
-nli#e the %hepherd 'ase$ petitioner has
failed to satisf! the 'ourts of the urgen'!
of his travel$ the duration thereof$ as well
as the 'onsent of his suret! to the
proposed travel.
e. It "a! thus e inferred that the fa't
that a 'ri"inal 'ase is pending against an
a''used does not auto"ati'all! ar hi"
fro" travelling aroad. H" 0)<t
1o#"6"$ !o363!" t1" !o)$t< o4 t1"
)$2"3!y o4 1< t$/6"l' t1" 5)$/to3
t1"$"o4' /35 t1/t 1< <)$"t"< /$"
#ll32 to )35"$t/I" t1" $"<&o3<;lty
o4 /llo#32 10 to t$/6"l.
<. Fillavi'en'io vs. *u#an$ :2 Phil.
DD>
9. Roan vs. /on?ales$ supra.
E. %alonga vs. Her"oso$ 2D %CRA 1;1
D. Read also the 0erdinand 4ar'os
Cases of August H )'toer$ 12>2
CHAPTER 3III < THE
CO4STITUTIO4A2
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
S"!to3 .. T1" $21t o4 t1" &"o&l" to
34o$0/to3 o3 0/tt"$< o4 &);l!
!o3!"$3 <1/ll ;" $"!o23O"5. A!!"<<
to o44!/l $"!o$5<K<1/ll ;" /44o$5"5
t1" !tO"3 <);B"!t to <)!1 l0t/to3<
/< 0/y ;" &$o65"5 ;y l/#.
1. Read:
Right to Priva'!( right to infor"ation on
"atters of puli' 'on'ern(
CAMILO L. SA:IO 6<. GORDON$ /.R.
1o. 1D<:<C$ )'toer 1D$ ;CCE$ 9C< %CRA
DC<
%andoval-/utierre?$ 8.
T1" F/!t<D
)n 0eruar! ;C$ ;CCE$ %enator 4iria"
Defensor %antiago introdu'ed Philippine
%enate Resolution 1o. <99 &%enate Res.
1o. <99A$
:DK<L
5dire'ting an in6uir! in aid of
legislation on the ano"alous losses
in'urred ! the Philippines )verseas
Tele'o""uni'ations Corporation &P)TCA$
Philippine Co""uni'ations %atellite
Corporation &PHI*C)4%ATA$ and
PHI*C)4%AT Holdings Corporation &PHCA
due to the alleged i"proprieties in their
operations ! their respe'tive .oard of
Dire'tors.7 The pertinent portions of the
Resolution read:
WHEREAS$ in the last 6uarter of ;CC9$
the representation and entertain"ent
e3pense of the PHC s#!ro'#eted to P<.:
"illion$ as 'o"pared to the previous
!ear=s "ere P1CE thousand(
+HEREA%$ so"e oard "e"ers
estalished wholl! owned PHC susidiar!
'alled Tele'o""uni'ations Center$ In'.
&TCIA$ where PHC funds are allegedl!
siphoned( in 1> "onths$ over PD: "illion
had een allegedl! advan'ed to TCI
without an! a''ountailit! report given to
PHC and PHI*C)4%AT(
+HEREA%$ the *hilippine Star$ in its 1;
0eruar! ;CC; issue reported that the
e3e'utive 'o""ittee of Phil'o"sat has
pre'ipitatel! released P;E9 "illion and
granted P1;9 "illion loan to a relative of
an e3e'utive 'o""ittee "e"er( to date
there have een no pa!"ents given$
su@e'ting the 'o"pan! to an esti"ated
interest in'o"e loss of P11.;9 "illion in
;CC<(
+HERE0)RE$ ;" t $"<ol6"5 t1/t t1"
&$o&"$ S"3/t" Co00tt"" <1/ll
!o35)!t /3 3H)$y 3 /5 o4
l"2<l/to3' o3 t1" /3o0/lo)< lo<<"<
3!)$$"5 ;y t1" P1l&&3" O6"$<"/<
T"l"!o00)3!/to3< Co$&o$/to3
(POTC%' P1l&&3" Co00)3!/to3<
S/t"llt" Co$&o$/to3 (PHILCOMSAT%'
/35 P1l!o0</t Hol532< Co$&o$/to3<
(PHC% 5)" to t1" /ll"2"5
0&$o&$"t"< 3 t1" o&"$/to3< ;y
t1"$ $"<&"!t6" ;o/$5 o4 5$"!to$<.
)n 4a! >$ ;CCE$ Chief of %taff Rio C.
Ino'en'io$ under the authorit! of %enator
Ri'hard 8. /ordon$ wrote Chair"an Ca"ilo
*. %aio of the PC//$ one of the herein
37K<L
Anne3 5E7 of the Petition in /.R.
1o. 1D<:1>.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW .+ .+
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
petitioners$ inviting hi" to e one of the
resour'e persons in the puli' "eeting
@ointl! 'ondu'ted ! the Committee on
4overnment Corporations and *u+li3
2nterprises and Committee on *u+li3
Servi3es. The purpose of the puli'
"eeting was to delierate on %enate Res.
1o. <99.
:>KEL
)n 4a! 2$ ;CCE$ Chair"an %aio de'lined
the invitation e'ause of prior
'o""it"ent.
:2KDL
At t1" </0" t0"' 1"
36oI"5 S"!to3 9(;% o4 E.O. No.
+ earlier 6uoted.
)n %epte"er 1;$ ;CCE$ at around 1C:<9
a.".$ 4a@or /eneral .ala@adia arrested
Chair"an %aio in his offi'e at IRC
.uilding$ 1o. >; ED%A$ 4andalu!ong Cit!
and rought hi" to the %enate pre"ises
where he was detained.
Hen'e$ Chair"an %aio filed with the
%upre"e Court a petition for ha+eas
3orpus against the %enate Committee on
4overnment Corporations and *u+li3
2nterprises and Committee on *u+li3
Servi3es$ their Chair"en$ %enators
Ri'hard /ordon and 8o#er P. Arro!o and
4e"ers. The 'ase was do'#eted as /.R.
1o. 1D<:<C.
I S S U E SD
Is the refusal of the petitioners to
testif! in Congress ! virtue of E) 1o. 1$
%e'tion < KL violates the 'onstitutional
provision on infor"ation on "atters of
puli' 'on'ernJ
H E * D:
Ges.
%e'tion <&A of E.). 1o.1 whi'h was
invo#ed ! the petitioners in support of
their refusal to testif! in the %enate li"its
38KEL
Anne3 507 of the Petition in /.R.
1o. 1D<:1>.
39KDL
Anne3 5/7 of the Petition in /.R.
1o. 1D<:1>.
the power of legislative in6uir! !
e3e"pting all PC// "e"ers or staff
fro" testif!ing in an! @udi'ial$ legislative
or ad"inistrative pro'eeding$ thus:
No 0"0;"$ o$ <t/44 o4 t1"
Co00<<o3 <1/ll ;" $"H)$"5 to
t"<t4y o$ &$o5)!" "65"3!" 3 /3y
B)5!/l' l"2<l/t6" o$ /503<t$/t6"
&$o!""532 !o3!"$332 0/tt"$< #t13
t< o44!/l !o23O/3!".
%u'h provision of E) 1o. 1 is
un'onstitutional e'ause it violates the
'onstitutional provision ensuring the
people=s a''ess to infor"ation on "atters
of puli'
+GA. :ANTAY REPU:LIC ACT VS.
COMELEC' MAY 9' 200.' 82* SCRA +
The petitioner re6uested the
C)4E*EC to pulish the individual
no"inees of all the part!-list groups in
order that the! will e guided on what
part!-list group shall e supported !
the". The C)4E*EC held that under the
Part!-list A't$ su'h list of no"inees is
'onfidential and should not e pulished.
H"l5D
The C)4E*EC should pulish the
list of no"inees of all the part!-list
groups. This is in a''ordan'e with the
right to infor"ation on "atters of puli'
'on'ern whi'h shall e a''orded to ever!
'iti?en.
2. V/l0o3t" 6<. :"l0o3t"' GR No.
.9,*0' F";$)/$y +*' +,8, in relation
to the Right to Priva'!

Cortes$ 8.
0a'ts:

1. )n 8une <$ 12>E$ petitioner Fal"onte
wrote the respondent as#ing the latter to
furnish hi" 'opies of for"er "e"ers of
the .atasang Pa"ansa who were ale to
se'ure a I'lean loanI fro" the /%I% prior
to the 0eruar! D$ 12>E ele'tions(
;. )n 8une 1D$ 12>E$ respondent through
'ounsel refused to give the petitioner a list
of said law"a#ers who otained I'lean
loansI fro" the /%I% on the ground that
there is a 'onfidential relationship
etween the /%I% and its orrowers and it
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW .2 .2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
would e proper for the" to preserve the
sa"e(
:. )n 8ul! 12$ 12>E$ the petitioners filed
this instant petition.
Issues:

1. +hether or not the 'ase should e
dis"issed for failure to e3haust
ad"inistrative re"ediesJ
;. +hether or not the petitioners are
entitled to the do'u"ents sought in
a''ordan'e with their 'onstitutional right
to infor"ationJ
Held:

1. It is well-settled in our @urisdi'tion that
efore a part! 'an e allowed to resort to
the 'ourts$ he is e3pe'ted to have
e3hausted all "eans of ad"inistrative
redress availale under the law.
In the 'ase at ar$ the de'ision of the
/eneral 4anager of the /%I% is
appealale,reviewale ! the /%I% .oard
of Trustees. Petitioners did not as# the
.oard of Trustees to review the de'ision of
the respondent.
However$ the rule on e3haustion of
ad"inistrative re"edies is not appli'ale
when onl! 6uestions of law is involved.
&Pas'ual vs. Provin'ial .oard$ 1CE Phil.
<EE( Aguilar vs. Falen'ia$ <C %CRA ;1C(
4alaanan vs. Ra"ento$ 1;2 %CRA :92.
This is not the first ti"e that the 'ourt
is 'onfronted with a 'ase involving the
right to infor"ation. In Tanada vs. Tuvera$
1:E %CRA ;D$ we upheld the 'iti?enOs right
to infor"ation as well as in *egaspi vs.
C%C$ 19C %CRA 9:C and ordered the
govern"ent offi'ers involved to a't as
pra!ed for ! the petitioners. The
pertinent provision of the Constitution is
%e'tion D$ Art. III whi'h provides:
The right of the people to infor"ation on
"atters of puli' 'on'ern shall e
re'ogni?ed. A''ess to offi'ial re'ords$ and
to do'u"ents$ and papers pertaining to
offi'ial a'ts$ transa'tions 3 3 3 shall e
afforded the 'iti?en$ su@e't to su'h
li"itations as "a! e provided for ! law.
The postulate of puli' offi'e is a
puli' trust as institutionali?ed in the
Constitution &%e'. 1$ Art. MIA to prote't
the people fro" ause of govern"ental
power$ would 'ertainl! e e"pt! words if
a''ess to infor"ation of puli' 'on'ern is
denied e3'ept under li"itations pres'ried
! law.
Petitioners are "e"ers of the "edia.
As su'h$ the! have oth the right to
gather and the oligation to 'he'# the
a''ura'! of the infor"ation the!
disse"inate 3 3 3
The right to infor"ation is an essential
pre"ise of a "eaningful right to spee'h
and e3pression. .ut this is not to sa! that
the right to infor"ation is "erel! an
ad@un't of and therefore restri'ted in
appli'ation ! the e3er'ise of the freedo"
of spee'h and of the press. 0ar fro" it.
The right to infor"ation goes hand in
hand with the 'onstitutional poli'ies of
Ifull puli' dis'losureI and Ihonest! in the
puli' servi'eI.
Get$ li#e all the 'onstitutional
guarantees$ the right to infor"ation is not
asolute. It is su@e't to li"itations
provided for ! law and the peopleOs right
to infor"ation is li"ited to I"atters of
puli' 'on'ernI. %i"ilarl!$ the %tateOs
poli'! of full dis'losure is li"ited to
Itransa'tions involving puli' interestI and
su@e't to Ireasonale 'onditions
pres'ried ! law.I
The infor"ation sought to e otained
! the petitioners affe't puli' interest
sin'e the /%I% is the trustee of
'ontriutions fro" the govern"ent and its
e"plo!ees. The funds of the /%I% assu"e
a puli' 'hara'ter and that its oligations
are guaranteed ! the govern"ent.
The petitioners are entitled to a''ess
to do'u"ents sought su@e't to
reasonale regulations that the
respondent "a! i"pose relating to
"anner and hours of e3a"ination$ to the
end that da"age or loss of the re'ords
"a! e avoided$ that undue interferen'e
with the duties of the 'ustodian of the
re'ords "a! e prevented and that the
right of other persons entitled to inspe't
the re'ords "a! e insured K*egaspi vs.
C%C$ supra( %uido vs. )?aeta$ >C Phil.
:>:L
he petitioners$ however$ are not
entitled to e furnished 'opies of list of
alleged "e"ers of the .atasang
Pa"ansa who were ale to se'ure 'lean
loans through the inter'essions of Pres.
4ar'os and the 0irst *ad!. This is so
e'ause a''ess to puli' re'ords does not
in'lude the right to 'o"pel 'ustodians of
offi'ial re'ords to prepare lists$ astra'ts$
su""aries and the li#e in their desire to
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW .* .*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
a'6uire infor"ation on "atters of puli'
'on'ern.
The respondent is therefore ordered to
allow petitioners a''ess to do'u"ents and
re'ords eviden'ing loans granted to
"e"ers of the .atasang Pa"ansa$ as
petitioners "a! spe'if!$ su@e't to
reasonale rules and regulations as the
/%I% "a! dee" ne'essar!.
%E1ATE )0 THE PHI*IPPI1E%$ represented
! %E1ATE PRE%IDE1T 0RA1P*I1
DRI*)1$ ET A*.$ F%. EMEC. %EC.
ED-ARD) ER4ITA$ ET A*.$ /.R. 1o.
1E2DD$ April ;C$ ;CCE

CARPIO MORALES' J.D

T1" F/!t<D
In the e3er'ise of its legislative
power$ the %enate of the Philippines$
through its various %enate Co""ittees$
'ondu'ts in6uiries or investigations in aid
of legislation whi'h 'all for$ inter alia$ the
attendan'e of offi'ials and e"plo!ees of
the e3e'utive depart"ent$ ureaus$ and
offi'es in'luding those e"plo!ed in
/overn"ent )wned and Controlled
Corporations$ the Ar"ed 0or'es of the
Philippines &A0PA$ and the Philippine
1ational Poli'e &P1PA.

)n %epte"er ;1 to ;:$ ;CC9$ the
Co""ittee of the %enate as a whole
issued invitations to various offi'ials of the
E3e'utive Depart"ent for the" to appear
on %epte"er ;2$ ;CC9 as resour'e
spea#ers in a puli' hearing on the railwa!
pro@e't of the 1orth *u?on Railwa!s
Corporation with the China 1ational
4a'hiner! and E6uip"ent /roup
&hereinafter 1orth Rail Pro@e'tA. The
puli' hearing was spar#ed ! a privilege
spee'h of %enator 8uan Pon'e Enrile
urging the %enate to investigate the
alleged overpri'ing and other unlawful
provisions of the 'ontra't 'overing the
1orth Rail Pro@e't.

)n %epte"er ;>$ ;CC9$ the President of
the Philippines issued E.). <E<$
5E1%-RI1/ ).%ERFA1CE )0 THE
PRI1CIP*E )0 %EPARATI)1 )0 P)+ER%$
ADHERE1CE T) THE R-*E )1 EMEC-TIFE
PRIFI*E/E A1D RE%PECT 0)R THE
RI/HT% )0 P-.*IC )00ICIA*%
APPEARI1/ I1 *E/I%*ATIFE I1N-IRIE%
I1 AID )0 *E/I%*ATI)1 -1DER THE
C)1%TIT-TI)1$ A1D 0)R )THER
P-RP)%E%$7 whi'h$ pursuant to %e'tion E
thereof$ too# effe't i""ediatel!. The
salient provisions of the )rder are as
follows:

%ECTI)1 1. Appearan3e +y 9eads of
Departments Before Congress. R In
a''ordan'e with Arti'le FI$ %e'tion ;; of
the Constitution and to i"ple"ent the
Constitutional provisions on the separation
of powers etween 'o-e6ual ran'hes of
the govern"ent$ /ll 1"/5< o4
5"&/$t0"3t< o4 t1" EA"!)t6" :$/3!1
o4 t1" 2o6"$30"3t <1/ll <"!)$" t1"
!o3<"3t o4 t1" P$"<5"3t &$o$ to
/&&"/$32 ;"4o$" "t1"$ Ho)<" o4
Co32$"<<.
+hen the se'urit! of the %tate or the
puli' interest so re6uires and the
President so states in writing$ the
appearan'e shall onl! e 'ondu'ted in
e3e'utive session.
%ECTI)1. ;. ;ature, S3ope and Coverage
of 28e3utive *rivilege. L
&aA 1ature and %'ope. - The rule of
'onfidentialit! ased on e3e'utive
privilege is funda"ental to the operation
of govern"ent and rooted in the
separation of powers under the
Constitution &Almonte vs. /asHue?, /.R.
1o. 29:ED$ ;: 4a! 1229A. 0urther$
Repuli' A't 1o. ED1: or the Code of
Condu't and Ethi'al %tandards for Puli'
)ffi'ials and E"plo!ees provides that
Puli' )ffi'ials and E"plo!ees shall not
use or divulge 'onfidential or 'lassified
infor"ation offi'iall! #nown to the" !
reason of their offi'e and not "ade
availale to the puli' to pre@udi'e the
puli' interest.
&A W1o /$" !o6"$"5. R The following
are 'overed ! this e3e'utive order:
1. %enior offi'ials of
e3e'utive depart"ents #1o 3 t1"
B)520"3t o4 t1" 5"&/$t0"3t 1"/5< are
'overed ! the e3e'utive privilege(
;. /enerals and flag
offi'ers of the Ar"ed 0or'es of the
Philippines and su'h other offi'ers who in
the @udg"ent of the Chief of %taff are
'overed ! the e3e'utive privilege(
:. Philippine 1ational
Poli'e &P1PA offi'ers with ran# of 'hief
superintendent or higher and su'h other
offi'ers who in the @udg"ent of the Chief
of the P1P are 'overed ! the e3e'utive
privilege(
<. %enior national
se'urit! offi'ials who in the @udg"ent of
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW .9 .9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
the 1ational %e'urit! Adviser are 'overed
! the e3e'utive privilege( and
9. %u'h other offi'ers
as "a! e deter"ined ! the President.

I S S U E SD

1. +hether E.). <E< violates the
right of the people to infor"ation on
"atters of puli' 'on'ern( and


H E L DD
E.) <E< li#ewise violates the
'onstitutional provision on the right to
infor"ation on "atters of puli' 'on'ern.
There are 'lear distin'tions etween the
right of Congress to infor"ation whi'h
underlies the power of in6uir! and the
right of the people to infor"ation on
"atters of puli' 'on'ern. 0or one$ the
de"and of a 'iti?en for the produ'tion of
do'u"ents pursuant to his right to
infor"ation does not have the sa"e
oligator! for'e as a su+poena du3es
te3um issued ! Congress. 1either does
the right to infor"ation grant a 'iti?en the
power to e3a't testi"on! fro"
govern"ent offi'ials. These powers
elong onl! to Congress and not to an
individual 'iti?en.
To the e3tent that investigations in
aid of legislation are generall! 'ondu'ted
in puli'$ however$ an! e3e'utive issuan'e
tending to undul! li"it dis'losures of
infor"ation in su'h investigations
ne'essaril! deprives the people of
infor"ation whi'h$ eing presu"ed to e
in aid of legislation$ is presu"ed to e a
"atter of puli' 'on'ern. The 'iti?ens are
there! denied a''ess to infor"ation
whi'h the! 'an use in for"ulating their
own opinions on the "atter efore
Congress T opinions whi'h the! 'an then
'o""uni'ate to their representatives and
other govern"ent offi'ials through the
various legal "eans allowed ! their
freedo" of e3pression. Thus holds
/almonte v. Belmonte:

It is in the interest of the %tate that the
'hannels for free politi'al 5<!)<<o3 ;"
0/3t/3"5 to t1" "35 t1/t t1"
2o6"$30"3t 0/y &"$!"6" /35 ;"
$"<&o3<6" to t1" &"o&l"J< #ll. Y"t'
t1< o&"3 5/lo2)" !/3 ;" "44"!t6"
o3ly to t1" "At"3t t1/t t1" !tO"3$y <
34o$0"5 /35 t1)< /;l" to 4o$0)l/t"
t< #ll 3t"ll2"3tly. )nl! when the
parti'ipants in the dis'ussion are aware of
the issues and have a''ess to infor"ation
relating thereto 'an su'h ear fruit.
<C
&E"phasis and unders'oring suppliedA

The i"pair"ent of the right of the people
to infor"ation as a 'onse6uen'e of E.).
<E< is$ therefore$ in the sense e3plained
aove$ @ust as dire't as its violation of the
legislature=s power of in6uir!.
1-a. *egaspi vs. C%C$ 19C %CRA 9:C
1-. .rilliantes vs. Chang$ Aug. 1<$
122C
1-'. Canlas vs. Fa?6ue?$ 8ul! :$
122C
1-d. A6uino-%ar"iento vs. 4anuel
4orato$ 1ove"er 1:$ 1221
;. Tanada vs. Tuvera$ 1<E %CRA <<
:. .aldo?a vs. Di"aano$ D1 %CRA 1<
<. *anta'o vs. *lla"as$ 1C> %CRA 9C;
9. %uido vs. )?aeta$ >C Phil. :>:
CHAPTER IC G THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO FORM AND (OIN RIGHT TO FORM AND (OIN
ASSOCIATIONS ASSOCIATIONS
S"!to3 8. T1" $21t o4 t1" &"o&l"'
3!l)532 t1o<" "0&loy"5 3 t1"
&);l! /35 &$6/t" <"!to$<' to 4o$0
)3o3<' /<<o!/to3<' <o!"t"< 4o$
&)$&o<"< 3ot !o3t$/$y to l/# <1/ll 3ot
;" /;$52"5.
1. 0reedo" of Asso'iation$ 1CC %CRA 1CC
;. The funda"ental right of self-
organi?ation$1C> %CRA :2C
:. The right of self-organi?ation of
"anagerial e"plo!ees$<D %CRA <:<
<. Read:
1. In re: ATTG. EDI**)1$ >< %CRA 99<
;. Tarnate vs. 1oriel$ 1CC %CRA 2:
:. %a"ahan ng 4anggagawa vs.
1oriel$ 1C> %CRA :>1
<. Fillar vs. In'iong$ April ;C$l2>:
9. P. vs. 0errer$ <> %CRA :>;
E. P. vs. 0errer$ 9E %CRA D2: &Read
the dissenting opinion of 8usti'e
0ER1A1D) in oth 'asesA
CHAPTER = < THE PO>ER
OF EMINENT DOMAIN
S"!to3 ,. P$6/t" &$o&"$ty <1/ll 3ot
;" t/I"3 4o$ &);l! )<" #t1o)t B)<t
!o0&"3</to3
1. The inherent power of e"inent
do"ain$2: %CRA EE:
40
/.R. 1o. D<2:C$ 0eruar! 1:$ 12>2$
1DC %CRA ;9E.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW .8 .8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;. +ho "a! e3er'ise itJ How aout a
aranga!J Ges provided there is an
approval of the President.
Read:
1. :/$/32/y M/t!t! 6<. El;3/<'
+98 SCRA 8*
;. Pro'edure for the e3er'ise of said
power( E3tent of pa!"ent to e "ade
efore writ of possession shall e issued in
favor of the govern"ent.
Falue of propert! e3propriated for
national pro@e'ts( +rit of possession when
it shall e issued ! the 'ourt( when Rule
ED of the Rules of Court and when RA
>2D< shall appl!( full pa!"ent of @ust
'o"pensation efore govern"ent ta#es
over.
REPU:LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
(UDGE GINGOYON' 9.8 SCRA 9.9
Tinga$ 8.
0a'ts:
In ;CC:$ the %upre"e Court held in AGAN
VS. PIATCO' 902 SCRA -+2 that the
C)1CE%%I)1 A/REE4E1T 0)R THE
.-I*D )PERATE TRA1%0ER
ARRA1/E4E1T )0 THE 1I1)G AN-I1)
I1TER1ATI)1A* AIRP)RT PA%%E1/ER
TER4I1A* II etween the Philippine
/overn"ent and the Philippine
International Air Ter"inals Co.$ In'.
&PIATC)A as well as the a"end"ents
thereto is void for eing 'ontrar! to law
and puli' poli'!. )n 4otion for
Re'onsideration (920 SCRA 920A$ the
%upre"e Court held that:
5This Court$ however$ is not
un"indful of the realit! that the stru'tures
'o"prising the 1AIA IPT III fa'ilit! are
al"ost 'o"plete and that funds have een
spent ! PIATC) in their 'onstru'tion. 0or
the govern"ent to ta#e over the said
fa'ilit!$ IT HAS TO COMPENSATE
RESPONDENT PIATCO AS :UILDER OF
THE SAID STRUCTURES. THE
COMPENSATION MUST :E (UST AND
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND
EEUITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT CAN
NOT UN(USTLY ENRICH ITSELF AT
THE ECPENSE OF PIATCO AND ITS
INVESTORS.N
)n De'e"er ;1$ ;CC<$ the
/overn"ent filed a 'o"plaint for
e3propriation with the RTC of Pasa! Cit!
see#ing a writ of possession authori?ing to
ta#e i""ediate possession and 'ontrol
over 1AIA : fa'ilities and deposited the
a"ount of P:.C. in 'ash with *and .an#
of the Philippines representing the
assessed value of the ter"inal=s assessed
value for ta3ation purposes.
)n the sa"e da!$ 8udge /ingo!on
issued an )rder dire'ting the issuan'e of a
writ of possession to the govern"ent to
5ta#e or enter upon the possession of the
1AIA : fa'ilities7. It held that it is the
"inisterial dut! of the govern"ent to
issue writ of possession upon deposit of
the assessed value of the propert! su@e't
of e3propriation.
However$ on 8anuar! <$ ;CC9$
8udge /ingo!on issued another )rder
supple"enting the De'e"er ;1$ ;CC<
)rder. It pointed out that the earlier
orderas to the a"ount to e deposited !
the govern"ent was ased on %e'tion ;$
Rule ED when what should e appli'ale is
RA >2D< and therefore ordered that the
a"ount of -%[E;$:<:$1D9.DD e released
to PIATC) instead of the a"ount in the
De'e"er ;1$ ;CC< )rder.
)n 8anuar! D$ ;CC9$ 8udge
/ingo!on issued another )rder dire'ting
the appoint"ent of three &:A
Co""issioners to deter"ine @ust
'o"pensation for the 1AIA : Co"ple3.
.oth )rders were 6uestioned !
the govern"ent as having een issued
with grave ause of dis'retion.
ISSUESD
+. W1/t l/# < /&&l!/;l" 3 t1<
"A&$o&$/to3 !/<"D R)l" -. o4 t1"
R)l"< o4 Co)$t o$ RA 8,.9U
2. I4 RA 8,.9 #ll ;" )<"5' 0/y
t1" !o)$t )<"5 t1" &$o6<o3 o4 R)l"
-. o3 t1" * !o00<<o3"$< to
5"t"$03" B)<t !o0&"3</to3.
HELDD
1.
Appli'ation of Rule ED would violate the
A/A1 Do'trine whi'h provides that 5for
the govern"ent to ta#e over the said
1AIA : fa'ilit!$ IT HA% T) C)4PE1%ATE
RE%P)1DE1T PIATC) A% .-I*DER )0
THE %AID %TR-CT-RE%7. If %e'tion ;$
Rule ED will e applied$ PIATC) would e
en@oined fro" re'eiving the @ust
'o"pensation even if the govern"ent
ta#es over the 1AIA : fa'ilit!. It is
suffi'ient that the govern"ent deposits
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW .- .-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
the a"ount e6ual to the assessed value of
the fa'ilities. It would violate the
pros'ription in the A/A1 De'ision that the
govern"ent "ust pa! first the @ust
'o"pensation efore ta#ing over the
fa'ilities.
%o when shall Rule ED e used in
e3propriation 'ases and when shall RA
>2D< e usedJ
In all 5N/to3/l 2o6"$30"3t &$oB"!t<7
or 53/to3/l 34$/<t$)!t)$" &$oB"!t<7$
li#e those 'overed ! the 5.uild-)perate-
Transfer7$ RA >2D< shall e followed. The
rest$ Rule ED shall appl!.
Differen'es etween the two laws on
e3propriation:
a. -nder Rule ED$ the govern"ent
5"erel! deposits7 the assessed value of
the propert! su@e't of e3propriation and
'an have a writ of possession over the
sa"e while under RA >2D<$ the s'he"e of
i""ediate pa!"ent &1CCUA shall e
followed.
. -nder Rule ED$ there 'an e writ of
possession even if the owner of the
propert! has not re'eived a single 'entavo
while under RA >2D<$ as in this 'ase$ +rit
of Possession "a! not e issued in favor
of the govern"ent -1TI* ACT-A*
RECEIPT ! PIATC) of the proferred value
of @ust 'o"pensation.
-pon issuan'e of the writ in favor of the
govern"ent$ however$ it 'ould alread!
e3er'ise a'ts of ownership over the 1AIA
: fa'ilities.
The @ust 'o"pensation to e paid
! the govern"ent shall e deter"ined
within EC da!s fro" the finalit! of the
de'ision ased on %e'tion <$ RA >2D<.
;
Rule ED on the appoint"ent of
three &:A 'o""issioners to deter"ine @ust
'o"pensation "a! e used sin'e RA >2D<
does not provide for su'h pro'edure.
8ust Co"pensation( A"ount to e
deposited in 'ourt efore a +rit of
Possession "a! e issued ! the 'ourt in
favor of the govern"ent( +hen to appl!
Rule ED and when to appl! RA 1o. >2D<(
+ho owns the interest of the initial
a"ount deposited for the purpose of
issuing writ of possession
REPU:LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
HOLY TRINITY REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION' G.R. No. +.29+0'
A&$l +9' 2008
THE FACTSD
)n ;2 De'e"er ;CCC$ petitioner Repuli'
of the Philippines$ represented ! the Toll
Regulator! .oard &TR.A$ filed with the RTC
a Consolidated Co"plaint for
E3propriation against landowners whose
properties would e affe'ted ! the
'onstru'tion$ rehailitation and e3pansion
of the 1orth *u?on E3presswa!. The suit
was do'#eted as Civil Case 1o. >E2-4-
;CCC and raffled to .ran'h >9$ 4alolos$
.ula'an. Respondent Hol! Trinit! Realt!
and Develop"ent Corporation &HTRDCA
was one of the affe'ted landowners.
)n 1> 4ar'h ;CC;$ TR. filed an -rgent
E3-Parte 4otion for the issuan'e of a +rit
of Possession$ "anifesting that it
deposited a suffi'ient a"ount to 'over the
pa!"ent of 1CCU of the ?onal value of
the affe'ted properties$ in the total
a"ount of P;>$<CE$DCC.CC$ with the *and
.an# of the Philippines$ %outh Haror
.ran'h &*.P-%outh HarorA$ an authori?ed
govern"ent depositor!. TR. "aintained
that sin'e it had alread! 'o"plied with the
provisions of %e'tion < of Repuli' A't 1o.
>2D<
<1K9L
in relation to %e'tion ; of Rule ED
of the Rules of Court$ the issuan'e of the
writ of possession e'o"es "inisterial on
the part of the RTC.
The RTC issued$ on 12 4ar'h ;CC;$ an
)rder for the Issuan'e of a +rit of
Possession.

)n : 4ar'h ;CC:$ HTRDC filed with the
RTC a 4otion to +ithdraw Deposit$
pra!ing that the respondent or its dul!
authori?ed representative e allowed to
withdraw the a"ount of P;;$2E>$CCC.CC$
out of TR.=s advan'e deposit of
P;>$<CE$DCC.CC with *.P-%outh Haror$
3!l)532 t1" 3t"$"<t #1!1 /!!$)"5
t1"$"o3.
Thereafter$ the RTC allowed the release of
the prin'ipal a"ount together with the
interest to the respondent ut on 4otion
for Re'onsideration of the TR.$ it
disallowed the withdrawal of the interest
reasoning out that the said issue will e
in'luded in the se'ond stage of
e3propriation$ that is$ the deter"ination of
@ust 'o"pensation.
The private respondent elevated the issue
to the Court of Appeals whi'h ruled that
<1
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW .. ..
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
the respondent is entitled to the interest
! wa! of a''ession.
Hen'e$ this petition of the govern"ent
efore the %upre"e Court.
I S S U ED
+ho has the right over the interest
of the a"ount deposited representing the
?onal value of the propert! sought to e
e3propriatedJ The e3propriator or the
landownerJ
HELDD
The petition is without "erit.
The TR. 'lai"s that there are two
stages
<;K11L
in e3propriation pro'eedings$
the deter"ination of the authorit! to
e3er'ise e"inent do"ain and the
deter"ination of @ust 'o"pensation. The
TR. argues that it is onl! during the
se'ond stage when the 'ourt will appoint
'o""issioners and deter"ine 'lai"s for
entitle"ent to interest$ 'iting Land Bank
of the *hilippines v. Jy3o3o
-,-$'/
and
;ational *o<er Corporation v. Angas.
<<K1:L
The TR. further points out that the
e3propriation a''ount with *.P-%outh
Haror is not in the na"e of HTRDC$ ut
of DP+H. Thus$ the said e3propriation
a''ount in'ludes the 'o"pensation for the
other landowners na"ed defendants in
Civil Case 1o. >E2-4-;CCC$ and does not
e3'lusivel! elong to respondent.
The said argu"ent is without "erit
e'ause it failed to distinguish etween
the e3propriation pro'edures under
Repuli' A't 1o. >2D< and Rule ED of the
Rules of Court. Repuli' A't 1o. >2D< and
Rule ED of the Rules of Court spea# of
different pro'edures$ with the for"er
spe'ifi'all! governing e3propriation
pro'eedings for national govern"ent
infrastru'ture pro@e'ts. Thus$ in .epu+li3
v. 4ingoyon$
<9K1<L
we held:
There are at least two 'ru'ial differen'es
etween the respe'tive pro'edures under
Rep. A't 1o. >2D< and Rule ED. U35"$
t1" <t/t)t"' t1" Go6"$30"3t <
$"H)$"5 to 0/I" 00"5/t" &/y0"3t
to t1" &$o&"$ty o#3"$ )&o3 t1" 4l32
o4 t1" !o0&l/3t to ;" "3ttl"5 to /
#$t o4 &o<<"<<o3' #1"$"/< 3 R)l"
-.' t1" Go6"$30"3t < $"H)$"5 o3ly
<;
<:
<<
<9
to 0/I" /3 3t/l 5"&o<t #t1 /3
/)t1o$O"5 2o6"$30"3t 5"&o<t/$y.
4oreover$ Rule ED pres'ries that the
initial deposit e e6uivalent to the
assessed value of the propert! for
purposes of ta3ation$ unli#e Rep. A't 1o.
>2D< whi'h provides$ as the relevant
standard for initial 'o"pensation$ the
"ar#et value of the propert! as stated in
the ta3 de'laration or the 'urrent relevant
?onal valuation of the .ureau of Internal
Revenue &.IRA$ whi'hever is higher$ and
the value of the i"prove"ents and,or
stru'tures using the repla'e"ent 'ost
"ethod.
3 3 3 3
Rule ED outlines the pro'edure under
whi'h e"inent do"ain "a! e e3er'ised
! the /overn"ent. Get ! no "eans does
it serve at present as the solitar! guideline
through whi'h the %tate "a! e3propriate
private propert!. 0or e3a"ple$ %e'tion 12
of the *o'al /overn"ent Code governs as
to the e3er'ise ! lo'al govern"ent units
of the power of e"inent do"ain through
an enaling ordinan'e. And then there is
Rep. A't 1o. >2D<$ whi'h 'overs
e3propriation pro'eedings intended for
national govern"ent infrastru'ture
pro@e'ts.
Rep. A't 1o. >2D<$ whi'h provides for a
pro'edure e"inentl! "ore favorale to
the propert! owner than Rule ED$
ines'apal! applies in instan'es when the
national govern"ent e3propriates
propert! 5for national govern"ent
infrastru'ture pro@e'ts.7 Thus$ if
e3propriation is engaged in ! the
national govern"ent for purposes other
than national infrastru'ture pro@e'ts$ the
assessed value standard and the deposit
"ode pres'ried in Rule ED 'ontinues to
appl!.
There is no 6uestion that the pro'eedings
in this 'ase deal with the e3propriation of
properties intended for a national
govern"ent infrastru'ture pro@e't.
Therefore$ the RTC 'orre'tl! applied the
pro'edure laid out in Repuli' A't 1o.
>2D<$ ! re6uiring the deposit of the
a"ount e6uivalent to 1CCU of the ?onal
value of the properties sought to e
e3propriated efore the issuan'e of a writ
of possession in favor of the Repuli'.
The 'ontrovers!$ though$ arises not fro"
the a"ount of the deposit$ ut as to the
ownership of the interest that had sin'e
a''rued on the deposited a"ount.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW .8 .8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
+hether the Court of Appeals was 'orre't
in holding that the interest earned ! the
deposited a"ount in the e3propriation
a''ount would a''rue to HRTDC ! virtue
of a''ession$ hinges on the deter"ination
of who a'tuall! owns the deposited
a"ount$ sin'e$ under Arti'le <<C of the
Civil Code$ the right of a''ession is
'onferred ! ownership of the prin'ipal
propert!:
Art. <<C. The ownership of propert! gives
the right ! a''ession to ever!thing whi'h
is produ'ed there!$ or whi'h is
in'orporated or atta'hed thereto$ either
naturall! or artifi'iall!.
The prin'ipal propert! in the 'ase at ar is
part of the deposited a"ount in the
e3propriation a''ount of DP+H whi'h
pertains parti'ularl! to HTRDC. %u'h
a"ount$ deter"ined to e
P;;$2E>$CCC.CC of the P;>$<CE$DCC.CC
total deposit$ was alread! ordered ! the
RTC to e released to HTRDC or its
authori?ed representative. The Court of
Appeals further re'ogni?ed that the
deposit of the a"ount was alread!
dee"ed a 'onstru'tive deliver! thereof to
HTRDC:
+hen the Kherein petitionerL TR.
deposited the "one! as advan'e pa!"ent
for the e3propriated propert! with an
authori?ed govern"ent depositar! an#
for purposes of otaining a writ of
possession$ it is dee"ed to e a
5'onstru'tive deliver!7 of the a"ount
'orresponding to the 1CCU ?onal
valuation of the e3propriated propert!.
%in'e KHTRDCL is entitled thereto and
undisputal! the owner of the prin'ipal
a"ount deposited ! Kherein petitionerL
TR.$ 'onversel!$ the interest !ield$ as
a''ession$ in a an# deposit should
li#ewise pertain to the owner of the
"one! deposited.
<EK19L
%in'e the Court of Appeals found that the
HTRDC is the owner of the deposited
a"ount$ then the latter should also e
entitled to the interest whi'h a''rued
thereon.
The deposit was "ade in order to 'o"pl!
with %e'tion < of Repuli' A't 1o. >2D<$
whi'h re6uires nothing less than the
immediate payment of 1CCU of the value
of the propert!$ ased on the 'urrent
?onal valuation of the .IR$ to the propert!
<E
owner. Thus$ going a'# to our ruling in
.epu+li3 v. 4ingoyon
-6-$(/
:
It is the plain intent of Rep. A't 1o. >2D<
to supersede the s!ste" of deposit under
Rule ED with the s'he"e of 5i""ediate
pa!"ent7 in 'ases involving national
govern"ent infrastru'ture pro@e'ts.
The 'riti'al fa'tor in the different "odes of
effe'ting deliver! whi'h gives legal effe't
to the a't is the a'tual intention to deliver
on the part of the part! "a#ing su'h
deliver!.
<>K1DL
The intention of the TR. in
depositing su'h a"ount through DP+H
was 'learl! to 'o"pl! with the
re6uire"ent of i""ediate pa!"ent in
Repuli' A't 1o. >2D<$ so that it 'ould
alread! se'ure a writ of possession over
the properties su@e't of the e3propriation
and 'o""en'e i"ple"entation of the
pro@e't. In fa't$ TR. did not o@e't to
HTRDC=s 4otion to +ithdraw Deposit with
the RTC$ for as long as HTRDC shows &1A
that the propert! is free fro" an! lien or
en'u"ran'e and &;A that respondent is
the asolute owner thereof.
<2K1>L

A 'lose s'rutin! of TR.=s argu"ents
would further reveal that it does not
dire'tl! 'hallenge the Court of Appeals=
deter"inative pronoun'e"ent that the
interest earned ! the a"ount deposited
in the e3propriation a''ount a''rues to
HTRDC ! virtue of a''ession. TR. onl!
asserts that HTRDC is 5entitled onl! to an
a"ount e6uivalent to the ?onal value of
the e3propriated propert!$ nothing "ore
and nothing less.7
+e agree in TR.=s state"ent sin'e it is
e3a'tl! how the a"ount of the i""ediate
pa!"ent shall e deter"ined in
a''ordan'e with %e'tion < of Repuli' A't
1o. >2D<$ i.e.$ an a"ount e6uivalent to
1CCU of the ?onal value of the
e3propriated properties. However$ TR.
alread! 'o"plied therewith ! depositing
the re6uired a"ount in the e3propriation
a''ount of DP+H with *.P-%outh Haror.
.! depositing the said a"ount$ TR. is
alread! 'onsidered to have paid the sa"e
to HTRDC$ and HTRDC e'a"e the owner
thereof. The a"ount earned interest after
the deposit( hen'e$ the interest should
pertain to the owner of the prin'ipal who
is alread! deter"ined as HTRDC. The
interest is paid ! *.P-%outh Haror on
the deposit$ and the TR. 'annot 'lai"
that it paid an a"ount "ore than what it
is re6uired to do so ! law.
<D
<>
<2
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ., .,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
%in'e the respondent is the owner of
P22',-8'000.00$ it is entitled ! right of
a''ession to the interest that had a''rued
to the said a"ount onl!.
+e are not persuaded ! TR.=s 'itation of
;ational *o<er Corporation v. Angas and
Land Bank of the *hilippines v. Jy3o3o$ in
support of its argu"ent that the issue on
interest is "erel! part and par'el of the
deter"ination of @ust 'o"pensation whi'h
should e deter"ined in the se'ond stage
of the pro'eedings onl!. +e find that
neither 'ase is appli'ale herein.
The issue in Angas is whether or not$ in
the 'o"putation of the legal rate of
interest on @ust 'o"pensation for
e3propriated lands$ the appli'ale law is
Arti'le ;;C2 of the Civil Code whi'h
pres'ries a EU legal interest rate$ or
Central .an# Cir'ular 1o. <1E whi'h fi3ed
the legal rate at 1;U per annu". +e
ruled in Angas that sin'e the #ind of
interest involved therein is interest ! wa!
of da"ages for dela! in the pa!"ent
thereof$ and not as earnings fro" loans or
forearan'es of "one!$ Arti'le ;;C2 of the
Civil Code pres'riing the EU interest
shall appl!. In Jy3o3o$ on the other
hand$ we 'larified that interests in the
for" of da"ages 'annot e applied where
there is pro"pt and valid pa!"ent of @ust
'o"pensation.
The 'ase at ar$ however$ does not involve
interest as da"ages for dela! in pa!"ent
of @ust 'o"pensation. It 'on'erns interest
earned ! the a"ount deposited in the
e3propriation a''ount.
-nder %e'tion < of Repuli' A't 1o. >2D<$
the i"ple"enting agen'! of the
govern"ent pa!s @ust 'o"pensation
twi'e: &1A i""ediatel! upon the filing of
the 'o"plaint$ where the a"ount to e
paid is 1CCU of the value of the propert!
ased on the 'urrent relevant ?onal
valuation of the .IR &initial paymentA( and
&;A when the de'ision of the 'ourt in the
deter"ination of @ust 'o"pensation
e'o"es final and e3e'utor!$ where the
i"ple"enting agen'! shall pa! the owner
the differen'e etween the a"ount
alread! paid and the @ust 'o"pensation as
deter"ined ! the 'ourt &final paymentA.
9C
K12L

As a final note$ TR. does not o@e't to
HTRDC=s withdrawal of the a"ount of
P;;$2E>$CCC.CC fro" the e3propriation
a''ount$ provided that it is ale to show
9C
&1A that the propert! is free fro" an! lien
or en'u"ran'e and &;A that it is the
asolute owner thereof.
91K;1L
The said
'onditions do not put in ae!an'e the
'onstru'tive deliver! of the said a"ount
to HTRDC pending the latter=s 'o"plian'e
therewith. Arti'le 11>D
9;K;;L
of the Civil
Code provides that the 5effe'ts of a
'onditional oligation to give$ on'e the
'ondition has een fulfilled$ shall retroa't
to the da! of the 'onstitution of the
oligation.7 Hen'e$ when HTRDC 'o"plied
with the given 'onditions$ as deter"ined
! the RTC in its )rder
9:K;:L
dated ;1 April
;CC:$ the effe'ts of the 'onstru'tive
deliver! retroa'ted to the a'tual date of
the deposit of the a"ount in the
e3propriation a''ount of DP+H.
.I/*A1/-A+A F%. 8-D/E
.ACA**A$ :9< %CRA 9E;
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2'
RULE -. OF THE +,,. RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE
DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN THE
RO:ERN DEVELOPMENT CASE' THE
ONLY REEUISITES FOR THE
IMMEDIATE ENTRY :Y THE
GOVERNMENT IN ECPROPRIATION
CASES ARED
/. t1" 4l32 o4 / !o0&l/3t 4o$
"A&$o&$/to3 <)44!"3t 3 4o$0 /35
<);<t/3!"7 /35
. t1" 0/I32 o4 / 5"&o<t
"H)6/l"3t to t1" ASSESSED VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY SU:(ECT TO
ECPROPRIATION.
The owners of the e3propriated land are
entitled to legal interest on the
'o"pensation eventuall! ad@udged fro"
the date the 'onde"nor ta#es possession
of the land until the full 'o"pensation is
paid to the" or deposited in 'ourt.
N"# R"H)<t"< ;"4o$"
00"5/t" &o<<"<<o3 o$ #$t o4
&o<<"<<o3 0/y ;" <<)"5 3
"A&$o&$/to3 !/<"<D
+. Co0&l/3t <)44!"3t 3 4o$0
/35 <);<t/3!"7 /35
2. P/y0"3t o4 +8F o4 t1" M/$I"t
6/l)" /< /&&"/$32 3 t1" l/t"<t T/A
D"!l/$/to3.
91
9;
9:
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 80 80
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
THE CITY OF ILOILO VS. (UDGE
LEGASPI' RTC 22' ILOILO CITY' 999
SCRA 2-,
Re6uisites efore the e3propriator is
allowed i""ediate entr! on the propert!
su@e't of e3propriation if the e3propriator
is a lo'al govern"ent unit.
T1" "A&$o&$/to$ 0/y
00"5/t"ly "3t"$ t1" &$o&"$ty
<);B"!t o4 "A&$o&$/to3 &$o!""532<
4 t1" 4ollo#32 $"H)<t"< /$" &$"<"3tD
1. the 'o"plaint for e3propriation
filed in 'ourt is suffi'ient in for" and
sustan'e( and
2. t1" "A&$o&$/to$ 0)<t
5"&o<t t1" /0o)3t "H)6/l"3t to
+8F o4 t1" 4/$ 0/$I"t 6/l)" o4 t1"
&$o&"$ty to ;" "A&$o&$/t"5 ;/<"5 o3
t< !)$$"3t t/A 5"!l/$/to3.
GA:ATIN VS. LAND :ANM OF THE
PHILIPPINES' 999 SCRA +.-
+hat is the asis of the @ust
'o"pensation for e3propriation
pro'eedings in 'onne'tion with the
agrarian refor" progra" of the
govern"ent.
Held:
T1" t/I32 o4 &$6/t" l/35<
)35"$ t1" /2$/$/3 $"4o$0 &$o2$/0 o4
t1" 2o6"$30"3t &/$t/I"< o4 t1"
3/t)$" o4 /3 "A&$o&$/to3
&$o!""532<. A< <)!1' in 'o"puting the
@ust 'o"pensation$ it is the value of the
land at the ti"e of the ta#ing$ not at the
ti"e of the rendition of the @udg"ent$
whi'h should e ta#en into 'onsideration.
:ANM OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
VS. COURT OF APPEALS' 99+ SCRA
-*.
()<t !o0&"3</to3 3 "A&$o&$/to3
!/<"<7 6/l)" o4 t1" &$o&"$ty #1"3U
()<t !o0&"3</to3 < 5"43"5 /<
t1" 4)ll /35 4/$ "H)6/l"3t o4 t1"
&$o&"$ty t/I"3 4$o0 t< o#3"$ ;y t1"
"A&$o&$/to$. T1" 0"/<)$" < 3ot t1"
t/I"$J< 2/3' ;)t t1" o#3"$J< lo<<.
M/$I"t 6/l)" < t1/t <)0 o4 0o3"y
#1!1 / &"$<o3 5"<$o)< ;)t 3ot
!o0&"ll"5 to ;)y' /35 /3 o#3"$
#ll32 ;)t 3ot !o0&"ll"5 to <"ll'
#o)l5 /2$"" o3 /< / &$!" to ;" 26"3
/35 $"!"6"5 t1"$"4o$".
T1" B)<t !o0&"3</to3 <
5"t"$03"5 /< o4 t1" 5/t" o4 t/I32
o4 t1" &$o&"$ty o$ t1" 4l32 o4 t1"
!o0&l/3t 4o$ "A&$o&$/to3'
WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
<. .asis of @ust 'o"pensation
Read:
a. 1PC vs. 8o'son$ 0eruar! ;9$
122;
a-1. Ansaldo vs. Tantui'o$ Aug. :$
122C
. 4un. of 4a#ati vs. CA$ )'t. 1$
122C
'. Reuli' vs. IAC$ 1>9 %CRA 9D;
d. 4un. of Talisa! vs. Ra"ire?$ 1>:
%CRA 9;>
e. 1PC vs. CA$ 1;2 %CRA EE9
f. 4addu"a vs. /%I%$ 1>; %CRA
;>1
Read also:
1. 4eaning of @ust 'o"pensation in
e"inent do"ain pro'eedings$ ;2
%CRA >E>
.asis of @ust 'o"pensation &E3'eptional
'aseA
:ERMENMOTTER' INC. VS. COURT OF
APPEALS
AND REPU:LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
De3em+er $-, $##& De3em+er $-, $##&
Cru?$ 8.
0a'ts:
------
1. )n 8une 1>$ 12>;$ Fi'ente Fira!$ then
President of Apolinario Apa'ile %'hool of
0isheries$ a govern"ent institution in
1asugu$ .atangas$ sent the petitioner a
written offer to u! the propert! of the
latter with an area of 1C$E<C s6uare
"eters for its 9-!ear e3pansion progra"(
;. That the petitioner e3pressed
willingness to sell at P9C.CC per s6uare
"eter in its repl!(
:. Fira! then re6uested the )ffi'e of the
Provin'ial Assessor of the Provin'e of
.atangas to appraise the land and the
latter fi3ed its "ar#et value at P:;.CC per
s6uare "eter(
<. Fira! then wrote the petitioner and
e3pressed willingness to u! the latterOs
propert! at P:;.CC per s6uare "eter. The
petitioner$ however$ stu'# to its original
valuation. *ater on$ it said that its
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8+ 8+
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
propert! had in fa't appre'iated to as
"u'h as P1CC.CC per s6uare "eter(
9. )n )'toer ;>$ 12>:$ the Repuli' of
the Philippines filed a 'o"plaint for the
e3propriation of the petitionerOs propert!
and invo#ed the assess"ent "ade ! the
Provin'ial Appraisal Co""ittee of the
Provin'ial Assessor of .atangas in the
a"ount of P:;.CC. The govern"ent
li#ewise sought i""ediate possession of
the propert! upon deposit of 1CU of the
total assess"ent in a''ordan'e with PD
<>(
E. .er#en#otter originall! 6uestioned the
purpose of the e3propriation ut later
aandoned this o@e'tion and
'on'entrated onl! on what it 'alled the
IunderappraisalI of the su@e't land(
D. The RTC then appointed a panel of
'o""issioners in a''ordan'e with Rule
ED$ e'tion 9$ of the Rules of Court$ to
deter"ine the @ust 'o"pensation to e
paid for the land(
>. )n %epte"er ;:$ 12>9$ the panel of
'o""issioners su"itted its report to
the trial 'ourt and pegged the "ar#et
value at P>9.CC per s6uare "eter(
2. The Repuli' of the Philippines
o@e'ted and pointed to three &:A
'ontra'ts of sale e3e'uted ! the
petitioner in 12>9 where! it sold three
&:A tra'ts of land si"ilar in topograph!
and ad@a'ent to the propert! in 6uestion
for the unit pri'e of onl! P12.1> per
s6uare "eter(
1C. The 'ourt dire'ted the 'o""issioners
to 'onvene anew and to re'eive
additional eviden'e. However$ in its
se'ond report dated April 1$ 12>D$ the
panel reiterated its original
re'o""endation of P>9.CC,s6. ". or a
total of P2C<$<CC.CC for the entire area
sought to e e3propriated. The trial 'ourt
a'ting on this re'o""endation rendered
@udg"ent re6uiring the Repuli' to pa!
the petitioner the a"ount of P2C<$<CC.CC
for the entire area sought to e
e3propriated(
11. The govern"ent appealed the trial
'ourtOs de'ision to the Court of Appeals
whi'h rendered a de'ision REFER%I1/
THE *)+ER C)-RTO% DECI%I)1 and
de'laring that the fair "ar#et value whi'h
should e the asis in 'o"puting the
a"ount to e paid ! the govern"ent to
the petitioner shall e P12.1>$ the "ar#et
value a''ording set ! the petitioner if
we follow the three &:A deeds of sale it
e3e'uted in favor of three &:A different
individuals(
1;. The petitioner was therefore
'onstrained to file this instant petition
'lai"ing that the Court of Appeals erred
in holding that P12.1> per s6uare "eter
should e the asis of the 'o"putation
for the @ust 'o"pensation of its propert!
e'ause:
a. Fira! even offered the a"ount of
P:;.CC per s6uare"eter as the fair
"ar#et value(
. that P:;.CC per s6uare "eter was
the appraised value "ade ! the )ffi'e
of the Provin'ial Assessor of .atangas(
and
'. the 'o"plaint itself pra!s that the
"ar#et value e pegged at P:;.CC per
s6uare "eter.
Issue:
------
+HAT %H)-*D .E THE .A%I%
I1 THE C)4P-TATI)1 )0 THE 8-%T
C)4PE1%ATI)1: P:;.CC,%N. 4. I1
ACC)RA1CE +ITH THE APPRAI%A* )0
THE PR)FI1CIA* A%%E%%)R(
P1CC.CC,%N.4. A% C*AI4ED .G THE
)+1ER( P>9.CC,%N. 4. A%
REC)44E1DED .G THE .)ARD )0
C)44I%%I)1ER% APP)I1TED .G THE
C)-RT T) EFA*-ATE THE %A4E$ )R
P12.1> PER %N-ARE 4ETER +HICH +A%
THE %E**I1/ PRICE I1 A1 AD8ACE1T
*)T %)*D .G THE PETITI)1ER T)
THREE PRIFATE I1DIFID-A*%.
Held.
-----
The asis in the 'o"putation of
@ust 'o"pensation shall e P12.1> per
s6uare "eter or the pri'e whi'h the
petitioner sold its other lots to other
individuals.
This is so e'ause there is no
showing that the petitioner had an!
spe'ial reason for granting ea'h of the
individual vendees the e3traordinar!
dis'ount a"ounting to as "u'h as D9U
of its 'lai"ed real value of the land. To
all appearan'es$ the! were ordinar!
u!ers who ought the land for their own
private purposes onl! and not for the
puli' purpose invo#ed ! the
govern"ent.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 82 82
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
The petitionerOs 'lai" that the
value as appearing in the deeds of sale
in the three other par'els is not a
reliale inde3 of @ust 'o"pensation
Ie'ause owners usuall! undervalue the
selling pri'e of the propert! to lower the
e3penses the! would have to pa! for
'apital gains ta3 and do'u"entar! sta"ps
ta3I is pra'ti'all! an ad"ission that it did
not indi'ate the a'tual 'onsideration in
the three transa'tions where it was "ade
to appear that the pri'e per s6uare "eter
was onl! P12.1>. If this was the purpose
of the petitioner when it e3e'uted the :
deeds of sale$ then IT I% %-RE*G H)I%T
1)+ .G IT% )+1 PETARD. A1D RI/HT*G
%)$ 0)R IT CA11)T .E A**)+ED T)
PR)0IT 0R)4 IT% )+1 DECEPTI)1 A1D
C*AI4 THAT THE %-.8ECT PR)PERTG
%H)-*D .E A%%E%%ED AT THE HI/HER
RATE IT C*A1DE%TI1E*G A/REED -P)1
+ITH THE .-GER%.
The Court is disappointed that the
petitioner should de"and a higher pri'e
fro" the repuli'$ whi'h needs the land
for a puli' purpose$ when it was willing to
a''ept less fro" the three individual
u!ers who had onl! their private
interests to serve.
The fa't that the petitioner sold the
: other par'els of land at P12.1> per
s6uare "eter whi'h are ad"ittedl! of the
sa"e topograph! as that su@e't of this
'ase$ it i"pliedl! ad"itted that the pri'e
for the latter should e the sa"e as the
for"er. This rule of 'onsisten'! is est
e3pressed in the fa"iliar sa!ing$ surel!
not un#nown to the petitioner$ THAT +HAT
I% %A-CE 0)R THE /))%E I% A*%)
%A-CE 0)R THE /A1DER.
)ust 3ompensation is defined as the
full and fair e6uivalent of the proert!
sought to e e3propriated (Asso3iation of
Small Lando<ners vs. Se3retary of
Agrarian .eform, $6% SC.A ,60(. The
"easure is not the ta#erOs gain ut the
ownerOs loss. he 'o"pensation$ to e @ust$
"ust e fair not onl! to the owner ut
also to the ta#er.
To deter"ine @ust 'o"pensation$
the trial 'ourt should first as'ertain the
"ar#et value of the propert!$ to whi'h
should e added the 'onse6uential
enefits whi'h "a! arise fro" the
e3propriation.
The "ar#et value of the propert!
is the pri'e that "a! e agreed upon
! the parties willing ut not 'o"pelled
to enter into a 'ontra't of sale.
A"ong the fa'tors to e
'onsidered in arriving at the fair "ar#et
value are:
1. 'ost of a'6uisition(
;. the 'urrent value of li#e
proerties(
:. its a'tual or potential
uses(
<. parti'ular 'ase of lands(
9. their si?e$ shape$
lo'ation( and
E. the ta3 de'larations
thereon.
0inall!$ note that as held in the
'ase of Repuli' vs. %antos$ 1<1 %CRA
:C$ the "ar#et value as re'o""ended !
the oard of 'o""issioners appointed !
the 'ourt were at est onl! ADFI%)RG
A1D PER%-A%IFE A1D .G 1) 4EA1%
0I1A* )R .I1DI1/.
;. 1HA vs. Re!es$ 1;: %CRA ;<9
:. 4anoto# vs. CA$ 4a! ;1$12>D
<. EPBA vs. Dula!$ April ;2$l2>D
9. *agun?ad vs. CA$ 19< %CRA 122
+hen it is 'onsidered for Ipuli'
useI:
E. %u"ulong vs. /uererro$ 19< %CRA
<E1
D. Repuli' vs. CA$ 19< %CRA <;>
>.Cos'ulluela vs. CA$ 1E< %CRA :2:
9. Re6uisite of Ita#ingI in e"inent do"ain
'ases
Read:
1. Rep. vs. Castellvi$ 9> %CRA ::E
Re6uisites of ta#ing:
a. the e3propriator "ust enter the
propert!(
. the entran'e "ust not e for
@ust a "o"entar! period(
'. the entr! "ust e under
warrant of 'olor or title(
d. the propert! "ust e devoted
for puli' use( and
e. the owner "ust e ousted fro"
enefi'ial use of his land.
;. Igna'io vs. /uererro$ 19C %CRA :E2
:. /ar'ia vs. CA$ 1C; %CRA 92D
E. 1ot a valid e3er'ise of e"inent do"ain
Read:
1. Cit! of 4anila vs. Chinese
Co""unit!$ <C Phil. :<2 & A private
propert! whi'h is devoted to puli' use
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8* 8*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
"a! not e e3propriated for another
puli' purpose.A
;. De Pne'ht vs. .autista$ 1CC %CRA
EEC
REP-.*IC )0 THE PHI*IPPI1E% F%.
CRI%TI1A DE P1ECHT A1D THE C)-RT
)0 APPEA*%$ /.R. 1). >D::9$ 0eruar!
1;$ 12>2
E3propriation
/an'a!'o$ 8.

0a'ts:

1. )n 0eruar! ;C$ 12D2$ the Rep. of the
Philippines initiated an e3propriation
pro'eedings against the owners of the
houses standing along 0ernando Rein-Del
Pan streets$ a"ong the" Cristina de
Pne'ht together with Con'ep'ion
Caarrus$ and so"e other fifteen
defendants in Civil Case 1o. DCC1-P(
;. In 8une$ 12D2$ the Repuli' of the
Philippines pra!ed for the issuan'e of a
writ of possession of the propert! to e
e3propriated on the ground that it had
alread! deposited with the P1. 1CU of
the a"ount of 'o"pensation stated in the
'o"plaint( that on 8une 1<$ 12D2$ the
*ower Court issued a writ of possession
authori?ing the Repuli' to enter into the
properties 'onde"ned and 'reated a
'o""ittee to deter"ine @ust
'o"pensation(
:. )n 8ul! 1E$ 12D2$ De Pne'ht went to
the %upre"e Court on a petition for
'ertiorari and prohiition dire'ted against
the 8une 1<$ 12D2 order of the lower
'ourt(
<. )n )'toer :C$ 12>C$ the %upre"e
Court rendered its de'ision granting the
petition for 'ertiorari and prohiition and
dire'ting that the )rder of the respondent
8udge dated 8une 1<$ 12D2 e %ET A%IDE
and the respondent 8udge is per"anentl!
en@oined fro" ta#ing an! further a'tion on
Civil Case 1o. DCC1-P(
9. )n August >$ 12>1$ the defendants in
Civil Case 1o. DCC1- "oved for the
dis"issal of said 'ase sin'e the de'ision of
the %upre"e Court is alread! final(
E. )n %epte"er ;$ 12>:$ the Repuli'
"oved for the dis"issal of the 'ase due to
the en'at"ent of .P :<C e3propriating the
sa"e properties for the sa"e purpose. )n
the sa"e date$ the Court dis"issed the
'ase. The defendants "oved for a
re'onsideration whi'h the Court denied(
D. De Pne'ht appealed the )rder
dis"issing the 'ase to the Court of
Appeals who on De'e"er ;>$ 12>>
issued its de'ision setting aside the )rder
appealed fro" and dis"issing the
e3propriation pro'eedings efore the
lower 'ourt on the ground that the 'hoi'e
of the aove-"entioned streets as the line
through whi'h the ED%A should e
e3tended is aritrar! and should not
re'eive @udi'ial approval(
>. The Repuli' of the Philippines filed a
Petition for Review with the %upre"e
Court.
Issue:

+hether or not the legislature 'ould
still pass a law e3propriating the lots of
the private respondents despite the
e3isten'e of a final de'ision of the
%upre"e Court whi'h held that 'hoi'e of
their lot to e used as an e3tension of
ED%A is aritrar!J
Held:

It is true that there is alread! a final
de'ision of the %upre"e Court to the
effe't that the 'hoi'e of the 0ernando
Rein-Del Pan %treets is aritrar! and
should not re'eive @udi'ial approval.
However$ it is e6uall! true that the
Constitution and our laws "a!
e3propriate private properties after the
pa!"ent of @ust 'o"pensation. +hen on
0eruar! 1D$ 12>:$ the .atasang
Pa"ansa passed .P :<C e3propriating
the sa"e properties for the sa"e purpose$
IT APPEAR% THAT THE %A4E +A% .A%ED
)1 %-PERFE1I1/ EFE1T% THAT
)CC-RRED after the de'ision of the %C in
De Pne'ht vs. .autista in 12>C. The so'ial
i"pa't fa'tor whi'h persuaded the Court
to 'onsider this e3tension has disappeared
e'ause of the fa't that the residents of
the area have een relo'ated and dul!
'o"pensated and onl! DE P1ECHT now is
left while her propert! is onl! aout 9U of
the area to e e3propriated. The Repuli'
'ould 'ontinue it e3propriation
pro'eedings 'onsidering the supervening
events after the de'ision was rendered.
.P .ilang :<C THERE0)RE
E00ECTIFE*G %-PER%EDED THE
A0)RE%AID 0I1A* A1D EMEC-T)RG
DECI%I)1 )0 THE %-PRE4E C)-RT. M 3 3
THE C)-RT A/REE% I1 THE +I%D)4 A1D
1ECE%%ITG )0 E1ACTI1/ .P :<C. TH-%
THE A1TERI)R DECI%I)1 )0 THI% C)-RT
4-%T GIE*D T) THI% %-.%EN-E1T
*E/I%*ATIFE 0IAT.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 89 89
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Cru?$ 8.$ 'on'urring

%upervening events have 'hanged the
fa'tual asis of the %COs de'ision to @ustif!
the suse6uent ena't"ent of the statute.
If we are sustaining the legislation$ it is
not e'ause we 'on'ede that the
law"a#ers 'an nullif! the findings of the
Court in the e3er'ise of its dis'retion. It is
si"pl! e'ause we ourselves have found
that under the 'hanged situation$ the
present e3propriation is no longer
aritrar!.
I 4-%T ADD THAT THI% DECI%I)1 I%
1)T A REFER%A* )0 THE )RI/I1A* DE
P1ECHT CA%E$ +HICH +A% DECIDED
-1DER A DI00ERE1T %ET )0 0ACT%.
:. REP-.*IC )0 THE PHI*IPPI1E% F%.
CRI%TI1A DE P1ECHT A1D THE C)-RT
)0 APPEA*%$ /.R. 1). >D::9$ 0eruar!
1;$ 12>2
:-a. *i"itations of the power of
e3propriation$ : %CRA DCE
D. +hen shall we ase the 'o"putation of
the value of the propert! e3propriated: at
the ti"e of ta#ing or at the ti"e of the
institution of the e3propriation
pro'eedingsJ
>. E"inent do"ain 'ases$ in general
Read:
1. Cit! of .aguio vs. 1A+A%A$ 1CE
Phil. 1<<
;. /ar'ia vs. CA$ 1C; %CRA E;C
:. 4uni'ipalit! of Daet vs. CA$ 2:
%CRA 9C:
<. %alas vs. 8aren'io$ <E %CRA D:<
9. Ar'e vs. /enito$ 0e. ;D$ 12DE
E. /uido vs. RPA$ >< Phil. ><D
D. Rep. vs. .a!losis$ 2E Phil. <E1
>. 4ataas na *upa vs. Di"a!uga$ 1:C
%CRA :C
2. %an Diego vs. Faldellon$ >C %CRA
:C9
1C. Haguisan vs. E"ilia$ 1:1 %CRA 91D
11. Heirs of Ardona vs. Re!es$ 1;9
%CRA ;;C
1;. Co""issioner vs. .urgos$ 4ar'h
:1$12>C
1:. Repuli' vs. 8uan$ 2; %CRA ;2
CHAPTER CI G THE NONGIMPAIRMENT
CLAUSE
S"!to3 +0. No l/# 0&/$32 t1"
o;l2/to3 o4 !o3t$/!t< <1/ll ;"
&/<<"5.
1. Read:
1. Pailing$ et al.$ vs. 1HA$ De'e"er
1>$l2>D
;. Cle"ents vs. 1olting$ <; Phil. DC;
:. Co vs. P1.$ 11< %CRA ><;
<. *o?ano vs. 4artine?$1<E %CRA :;:
9. Rutter vs. Estean$2: Phil. E>
E. Ilusorio vs. CAR$ 1D %CRA ;9
D. )rtigas vs. 0eati .an#$ 2< %CRA 9::
>. /an?on vs. Insierto$ 1;: %CRA D1:
2. Del Rosario vs. De los %antos$
4ar'h ;1$ 12E>
1C. Aella vs. 1*RC$ 19; %CRA 1<C
11. PF.E- vs. PF.$ 1>2 %CRA 1<
CHAPTER CII G RIGHTS DURING
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Rights of a person under 5'ustodial
detention7 for one suspe'ted or arrested
as a terrorist.
1)TE: Appli'ale provisions of the Hu"an
%e'urit! A't,Anti-Terroris" *aw$ Repuli'
A't 1o. 2:D;$ Approved on 4ar'h E$ ;CCD
and effe'tive on 8ul! 19$ ;CCD &This *aw
shall e auto"ati'all! suspended one &1A
"onth efore and two &;A "onths after
the holding of an! ele'tionA
Se!tion '$. Rights of a person
under 'ustodial detention.- The "o"ent a
person 'harged with or suspe'ted of the
'ri"e of terroris" or the 'ri"e of
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris" is
apprehended or arrested and detained$ he
shall forthwith e infor"ed ! the
arresting poli'e or law enfor'e"ent
offi'ers to whose 'ustod! the person
'on'erned is rought$ of his or her right:
1. to e infor"ed of the nature
and 'ause of his arrest$ to re"ain silent
and to have 'o"petent and independent
'ounsel preferal! of his own 'hoi'e. If
the person 'annot afford the servi'es of
'ounsel of his or her 'hoi'e$ the poli'e or
law enfor'e"ent offi'ers 'on'erned shall
i""ediatel! 'onta't the free legal
assistan'e unit of the I.P or the Puli'
attorne!=s offi'e &PA)A. It shall e the
dut! of the free legal assistan'e unit of
the I.P or the PA)=s thus 'onta'ted to
i""ediatel! visit the person detained and
provide hi" with legal assistan'e. These
rights 'annot e waived e3'ept in writing
and in the presen'e of the 'ounsel of
'hoi'e(
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 88 88
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;. infor"ed of the 'ause or
'auses of his detention in the presen'e of
his legal 'ounsel(
:. allowed to 'o""uni'ate
freel! with his legal 'ounsel and to 'onfer
with the" at an! ti"e without restri'tion(
<. allowed to 'o""uni'ate
freel! and privatel! without restri'tions
with the "e"ers of his fa"il! or with his
nearest relatives and e visited ! the"(
and
9. allowed freel! to avail of the
servi'es of a ph!si'ian or ph!si'ians of
'hoi'e.
%e'tion ;:. Re6uire"ent for an
offi'ial 'ustodial logoo# and its 'ontents.-
The poli'e or other law enfor'e"ent
'ustodial unit in whose 'are and 'ontrol
the person 'harged with or suspe'ted of
the 'ri"e of terroria" or the 'ri"e of
'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris" has een
pla'ed under 'ustodial arrest and
detention shall #eep a se'urel! and
orderl! "aintained offi'ial logoo#$ whi'h
is here! de'lared as puli' do'u"ent and
opened and "ade availale for inspe'tion
and s'rutin! of the law!er or law!ers of
the person under 'ustod! or an! "e"er
of his fa"il! or relative ! 'onsanguinit!
within the fourth 'ivil degree or his
ph!si'ian at an! ti"e of the da! without
an! for" of restri'tion. The logoo# shall
'ontain a 'lear and 'on'ise re'ord of:
1. na"e$ des'ription$ and
address of the detained person(
;. date and e3a't ti"e of his
initial ad"ission for 'ustodial arrest and
detention(
:. the na"e and address of
the ph!si'ian,s who e3a"ined hi"
ph!si'all! and "edi'all!(
<. the state of his health and
his ph!si'al 'ondition a the ti"e of his
initial ad"ission for 'ustodial detention(
9. the date and ti"e of ea'h
re"oval of the detained person fro" his
'ell for interrogation or for an! purpose(
E. the date and ti"e of his
return to his 'ell(
D. na"e and address of the
ph!si'ian who e3a"ined hi" ph!si'all!
and "edi'all!(
>. su""ar! of the ph!si'al
and "edi'al findings after ea'h
interrogation(
2. na"es and addresses of the
"e"ers of his fa"il! and relatives(
1C. na"es and addresses of the
persons who visited hi"(
11. date and ti"e of su'h visits(
1;. date and ti"e when the
detained person re6uested to
'o""uni'ate or 'onfer with his law!er(
1:. the date and ti"e of visits
! his legal 'ounsel and the date and ti"e
of departure( and
1<. all other i"portant events
earing on all relevant details regarding
the treat"ent of the detained person
while under 'ustodial arrest or detention.
%e'tion ;<. 1o torture or 'oer'ion
in Investigation and interrogation. 1o
threat$ inti"idation$ or 'oer'ion$ and no
a't whi'h will infli't an! for" of ph!si'al
pain or tor"ent$ or "ental$ "oral$ or
ps!'hologi'al pressure on the detained
person whi'h shall vitiate his free will shall
e e"plo!ed in his investigation and
interrogation( otherwise$ the eviden'e
otained fro" said detained person Vshall
e in its entiret!$ asolutel! not
ad"issile and usale as eviden'e in an!
@udi'ial$ 6uasi-@udi'ial$ legislative$ or
ad"inistrative investigation$ in6uir!$
pro'eeding or hearing.
1. The su""ar! of the rights of an
a''used during 'ustodial investigation
&fro" the ti"e of arrestA
PEOPLE VS. MAHINAY'
F";$)/$y +' +,,,
Rights of the a''used during 'ustodial
investigation( oligations of the arresting
offi'ers and investigators during and after
arrest( effe't of non-'o"plian'e ! the
investigators
THE PE)P*E )0 THE PHI*IPPI1E% F%.
4AHI1AG$ /.R. 1o. 1;;<>9$ 0eruar! 1$
1222
En .an'
Per Curia":
Co3<5"$32 t1" 1"/6y &"3/lty
o4 5"/t1 /35 3 o$5"$ to "3<)$" t1/t
"65"3!" /2/3<t /3 /!!)<"5 #"$"
o;t/3"5 t1$o)21 l/#4)l 0"/3<' t1"
Co)$t' /< 2)/$5/3 o4 t1" $21t< o4 t1"
&"o&l"' l/y< 5o#3 t1" PROCEDURE'
GUIDELINES' AND DUTIES WHICH
THE ARRESTING' DETAINING'
INVITING OR INVESTIGATING
OFFICER OR HIS COMPANIONS MUST
O:SERVE AT THE TIME OF MAMING
THE ARREST AND AGAIN AT AND
DURING THE TIME OF THE
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION OR
INTERROGATION IN ACCORDANCE
#t1 t1" Co3<tt)to3' B)$<&$)5"3!"
/35 R"&);l! A!t No. .9*8. It < 121
t0" to "5)!/t" o)$ l/# "34o$!"0"3t
/2"3!"< #1o 3"2l"!t "t1"$ ;y
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8- 8-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
23o$/3!" o$ 3544"$"3!" t1" <oG
!/ll"5 M$/35/ $21t< #1!1 1/5
;"!o0" 3<)44!"3t /35 #1!1 t1"
!o)$t 0)<t )&5/t" 3 t1" l21t o4 3"#
l"2/l 5"6"lo&0"3t<.
1. The person arrested$ detained$
invited or under 'ustodial investigation
"ust e infor"ed in a language #nown to
and understood ! hi" of the reason for
the arrest and he "ust e shown a 'op!
of the warrant of arrest$ if an!( Ever!
other warnings$ infor"ation or
'o""uni'ation "ust e in a language
#nown to and understood ! said person(
;. He "ust e warned that he has
the right to re"ain silent and that an!
state"ent he "a#es "a! e used as
eviden'e against hi"(
:. He "ust e infor"ed that he
has the right to e assisted at all ti"es
and have the presen'e of an independent
and 'o"petent law!er$ preferal! of his
own 'hoi'e(
<. He "ust e infor"ed that if he
has no law!er or 'annot afford the
servi'es of a law!er$ one will e provided
for hi"( and that a law!er "a! also e
engaged ! an! person in his ehalf$ or
"a! e appointed ! the 'ourt upon
petition of the person arrested or one
a'ting in his ehalf(
9. That whether or not the person
arrested has a law!er$ $ he "ust e
infor"ed that no 'ustodial investigation in
an! for" shall e 'ondu'ted e3'ept in the
presen'e of his 'ounsel or after a valid
waiver has een "ade(
E. The person arrested "ust e
infor"ed that$ at an! ti"e$ he has the
right to 'o""uni'ate or 'onfer ! the
"ost e3pedient "eans---telephone$ radio$
letter or "essenger---with his law!er
&either retained or appointedA$ an!
"e"er of his i""ediate fa"il!( or an!
"edi'al do'tor$ priest or "inister 'hosen
! hi" or ! an! one fro" his i""ediate
fa"il! or ! his 'ounsel$ or e visited
!,'onfer with dul! a''redited national or
international non-govern"ental
organi?ation. IT %HA** .E THE
RE%P)1%I.I*ITG )0 THE )00ICER T)
E1%-RE THAT THI% I% ACC)4P*I%HED(
D. He "ust e infor"ed that he
has the right to waive an! of said rights
provided it is "ade voluntaril!$ #nowingl!
and intelligentl! and ensure that he
understood the sa"e(
>. In addition$ if the person
arrested waives his right to a law!er$ he
"ust e infor"ed that it "ust e done in
writing A1D in the presen'e of 'ounsel$
otherwise$ he "ust e warned that the
waiver is void even if he insist on his
waiver and 'hooses to spea#(
2. That the person arrested "ust
e infor"ed that he "a! indi'ate in an!
"anner at an! ti"e or state of the
pro'ess that he does not wish to e
6uestioned with the warning that on'e he
"a#es su'h indi'ation$ the poli'e "a! not
interrogate hi" if the sa"e had not !et
'o""en'ed$ or the interrogation has
egun(
1C. The person arrested "ust e
infor"ed that his initial waiver of his right
to re"ain silent$ the right to 'ounsel or
an! of his rights does not ar hi" fro"
invo#ing it at an! other ti"e during the
pro'ess$ regardless of whether he "a!
have answered so"e 6uestions or
volunteered so"e infor"ation or
state"ents(
11. He "ust e infor"ed that an!
state"ent )R EFIDE1CE$ as the 'ase "a!
e$ otained in violation of an! of the
foregoing$ whether in'ulpator! or
e3'ulpator!$ in whole or in part$ %HA** .E
I1AD4I%%I.*E I1 EFIDE1CE.
&1)TE: An! violation of the foregoing
rights of the a''used shall entitle hi" to
sue for da"ages against the arresting or
investigating offi'ers in a''ordan'e with
RAD<:>$ not to "ention the possile
'ri"inal liailit! of said persons under
e3isting lawsA.
LATEST CASES ON THE RIGHTS OF A
PERSON DURING CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
Rights during 'ustodial investigation(
when 'ustodial investigation is dee"ed to
have started( right to e infor"ed of the
nature and 'ause of a''usation against
hi".
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
(OSE TING LAN UY' (R.' "t /l.' 9.8
SCRA 298
Gnares-%antiago$ 8.
F/!t<D
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8. 8.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
0or allegedl! diverting and
'olle'ting funds of the 1ational Power
Corporation intended for the pur'hase of
-% Dollars fro" the -nited Co'onut
Planters .an# &-CP.A$ the a''used-
appellants were 'harged of 4alversation
through 0alsifi'ation of Co""er'ial
Do'u"ents as defined and penali?ed
under Arts. ;1D and 1D1 K>L in relation to
Arti'le <> of the Revised Penal Code. After
trial$ all a''used were 'onvi'ted ! the
%andigana!an.
+hile the Infor"ation 'harged the
a''used of #ll4)l /35 3t"3to3/l
!o00<<o3 o4 t1" /!t< !o0&l/3"5 o4
while the De'ision found the a''used
2)lty o4 3"A!)</;l" 3"2l2"3!".
A''used )'hoa interposed an
appeal and 'lai"ed that his 'onvi'tion was
ased on his alleged sworn state"ent and
the trans'ript of stenographi' notes of a
supposed interview with an 1PC personnel
and the report of the 1.I. He "aintains
that he signed the sworn state"ent while
'onfined a the Philippine heart 'enter and
upon assuran'e that it would not e used
against hi". He was not assisted !
'ounsel nor he was apprised of his
'onstitutional rights when he e3e'uted the
affidavit. He li#ewise 'lai"ed that his
'onstitutional rights to e infor"ed of the
nature and 'ause of a''usation against
and due pro'ess were violated.
H"l5D
+. Even if the infor"ation 'harges
willful "alversation$ 'onvi'tion for
"alversation through negligen'e "a! still
e ad@udged if the eviden'e ulti"atel!
proves that "ode of 'o""ission of the
offense. &Dia? vs. %andigana!an$ :C;
%CRA 11>A. This was the do'trine laid
down in the 'ase of %a"son vs. Court of
appeals$ 1C: Phil. ;DD.
2. The 'lai" that his affidavit is
inad"issile in eviden'e in a''ordan'e
with se'tion 1; K1L of the .ill of Rights is
not tenale. The 5investigation7 under said
provision refers to 5'ustodial investigation
where a suspe't has alread! een ta#en
into poli'e 'ustod! and that the
investigating offi'ers egin to as#
6uestions to eli'it infor"ation and
'onfessions or ad"issions fro" the
suspe't. %u''in'tl! stated$ 'ustodial
investigation refers to the 'riti'al pre-trial
stage when the investigation 'eases to e
a general in6uir! into an unsolved 'ri"e
ut has egan to fo'us on a parti'ular
person as a suspe't &People vs. Duenas$
8r.$ <;E %CRA EEEA. Clearl!$ therefore$ the
rights enu"erated ! the a''used are not
availale .E0)RE /)FER14E1T
I1FE%TI/AT)R% E1TER THE PICT-RE.
The prote'tive "antle of se'tion 1;$
arti'le III does not appl! to ad"inistrative
investigations &People vs. 8udge A!son$
1D9 %CRA ;1EA( 'onfession to a private
individual &Pi"po vs. CA$ ;:; %CRA 9:A(
veral ad"ission "ade to a radio
announ'er who was not a part of the
investigation &People vs. )rdono$ ::<
%CRA ED:A( or even to a 4a!or
approa'hed as a personal 'onfidante and
not in his offi'ial 'apa'it! &People vs.
Buela$ :;: %CRA 9>2A. In fa't$ even a
videotaped interview where the a''used
willingl! ad"it his guilt in the presen'e of
news"en is not 'overed ! the said
provision though the trial 'ourts were
warned ! the supre"e Court to ta#e
e3tre"e 'aution in ad"itting si"ilar
'onfessions e'ause of the distin't
possiilit! that the poli'e$ with the
'onnivan'e of uns'rupulous "edia
pra'titioners$ "a! atte"pt to legiti"i?e
'oer'ed e3tra@udi'ial 'onfessions and
pla'e the" e!ond the e3'lusionar! rule
! having an a''used ad"it an offense on
television (P"o&l" 6<. E353o' *8*
SCRA *0.%.
Clearl!$ the 'onfession of the a''used was
otained during an ad"inistrative
investigation ! 1PC and therefore$ the
sa"e was not 'overed ! %e'tion 1;$ Art.
III of the Constitution.
PEOPLE VS. FIGUEROA' **8
SCRA *9,
-nder Art. III$ %e'tion 1; K1L of
the Constitution$ a suspe't in 'ustodial
investigation "ust e:
1. infor"ed of his right to
re"ain silent(
;. warned that an!thing he
sa!s 'an e and will e used against hi"(
:. told that he has the
right to 'ounsel$ and that if he is indigent$
a law!er will e appointed to represent
hi".
In this 'ase$ a''used-appellant was
given no "ore than a perfun'tor!
re'itation of his rights$ signif!ing nothing
"ore than a feigned 'o"plian'e with the
'onstitutional re6uire"ents. (P"o&l" 6<.
S/0ol5"' ()ly *+' 2000%
It is alwa!s in'u"ent on the
prose'ution to prove at the trial that$ prior
to in-'ustod! 6uestioning$ the 'onfessant
was infor"ed of his 'onstitutional rights.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 88 88
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
The presu"ption of regularit! of offi'ial
a'ts does not prevail over the
'onstitutional presu"ption of inno'en'e.
Hen'e$ in the asen'e of proof that the
arresting offi'ers 'o"plied with the aove
'onstitutional safeguards$ e3tra@udi'ial
state"ents$ whether in'ulpator! or
e3'ulpator!$ "ade during the 'ustodial
investigation$ are inad"issile not onl!
against the DEC*ARA1T ut with "ore so
against :
rd
persons. THI% I% %) EFE1 I0
%-CH %TATE4E1T% ARE /)%PE* TR-TH
A1D F)*-1TARI*G /IFE1.
%u'h state"ents are useless
ECCEPT AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
VERY POLICE AUTHORITIES WHO
VIOLATED THE SUSPECTJS RIGHTS.
PEOPLE VS. :ARIEUIT' *9+
SCRA -00
W1"3 !)<to5/l 36"<t2/to3 <
5""0"5 to 1/6" <t/$t"5.
The prote'tion under %e'tion 1; $
Art. III of the Constitution egins when a
person is ta#en into 'ustod! for
investigation of his possile parti'ipation
in the 'o""ission of a 'ri"e$ or fro" the
ti"e he is singled out as a suspe't in the
'o""ission of the 'ri"e$ although not !et
in 'ustod!.
Custodial investigation egins
when it is no longer a general in6uir! into
an unsolved 'ri"e ut starts to fo'us on a
parti'ular person as a suspe't$ i.e.$ when
the poli'e investigator starts
i2nterrogating or e3a'ting 'onfession fro"
the suspe't in 'onne'tion with an alleged
offense.
THE PLACE OF INTERROGATION
IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE
ECISTENCE OR A:SENCE OF
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION :UT THE
TONE AND MANNER OF EUESTIONING
:Y THE POLICE AUTHORITIES. Thus$
there was 'ustodial investigation when the
poli'e authorities$ upon their arrest of
so"e of the a''used$ i""ediatel! as#ed
the" regarding their parti'ipation in the
'o""ission of the 'ri"e $ even while the!
were still wal#ing along the highwa! on
their wa! to the poli'e station. This is line
with the provisions of RA D<:> whi'h
"a#es it appli'ale even when a person is
"erel! invited for 6uestioning.
PEOPLE VS. DANO' G.R. NO.
++.-,0' **, SCRA 8+8' SEPT. +'
20007 PEOPLE VS. MAYORGA' G.R. NO.
+*8908' *9- SCRA 988' NOVEM:ER
2,' 2000.
However$ spontaneous state"ents
voluntaril! given$ as where appellant
orall! ad"itted #illing the vi'ti" efore
the aranga! 'aptain &who is neither a
poli'e offi'er nor a law enfor'e"ent
agentA$ do not fall under 'ustodial
investigation. %u'h ad"ission$ even
without the assistan'e of a law!er$ does
not violate appellant=s 'onstitutional rights
A1D THERE0)RE AD4I%%I.*E I1
EFIDE1CE.
PEOPLE VS. DANO' G.R. NO.
++.-,0' **, SCRA 8+8' SEPT. +'
20007 PEOPLE VS. SAMOLDE' G.R. NO.
+2888+' **- SCRA -*2' (UL. *+'
2000.
To e ad"issile in eviden'e$ an
e3tra@udi'ial 'onfession "ust e: &iA
voluntar!( &iiA "ade with the assistan3e of
3ompetent and independent 3ounsel( &iiiA
e3press( and &ivA in writing.
A suspe't=s 'onfession$ whether
veral or non-veral$ when ta#en without
the assistan'e of 'ounsel$ without a valid
waiver of su'h assistan'e$ regardless of
the asen'e of 'oer'ion or the fa't that it
had een voluntaril! given$ is inad"issile
in eviden'e$ even if appellant=s 'onfession
were gospel truth.

;. /uidelines for poli'e investigation
Read:
1.Es'oedo vs. Illinois$ :D> -% <D>
;. 4iranda vs. Ari?ona$ :>< -% <:E
:. P. vs. Duero$ 1C< %CRA :D2
;-a. Duties of the Poli'e or Arresting
)ffi'ers
Read:
1. P. vs. 4atos-Fidu!a$ %ept. 11$
122C
1-a. P vs. 1i'andro$ 1<1 %CRA ;>2
;. P vs. Duhan$ 1<; %CRA 1CC
:. P vs. Caguioa$ 29 %CRA ;
<. P vs. Ra"os$ 1;; %CRA :1;
:. To e infor"ed of the Right to re"ain
silent( 'ases in parti'ular
Read:
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 8, 8,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
1. Constitutional right to re"ain
silent$1C< %CRA :21
1-a. People vs. 4ar'os 8i"ene?$
De'. 1C$ 1221
E3tra@udi'ial 'onfession( 'ounsel of 'hoi'e
Right to 'ounsel during 'ustodial
investigation( while "a#ing an
e3tra@udi'ial 'onfession
PEOPLE VS. PATUNGAN' *89 SCRA
9+*
The a''used was under 'oer'ive
and un'ounselled 'ustodial investigation
! the poli'e without a law!er for ; and a
half da!s . Then$ he was rought to the
I.P )ffi'e where a law!er would assist
hi" in his e3tra@udi'ial 'onfession.
W" /$" 3!l3"5 to ;"l"6" t1/t
#1"3 1" #/< ;$o)21t to t1" I:P
O44!"' 1< ;o5y /35 1< #ll #"$" 3
3o &o<to3 to $/<" /3y o;B"!to3
0)!1 l"<< to !o0&l/3t to t1" I:P
l/#y"$ /;o)t #1/t 1" 1/< 2o3"
t1$o)21. I3 4/!t' t1" I:P l/#y"$ #/<
#o$I32 o3 /3 /&&"/l 3 /3ot1"$ !/<"
#1l" t1" "At$/B)5!/l !o34"<<o3 #/<
;"32 t/I"3.
The "ere presen'e of a law!er is
not suffi'ient 'o"plian'e with the
'onstitutional re6uire"ent of assistan'e of
'ounsel. Assistan'e of 'ounsel "ust e
effe'tive$ vigilant and independent. A
law!er who 'ould @ust hear the
investigation going on while wor#ing on
another 'ase hardl! satisfies the "ini"u"
re6uire"ents of effe'tive assistan'e of
'ounsel. 1ot onl! was the a''used
su@e'ted to 'ustodial investigation
without 'ounsel$ he was li#ewise denied
effe'tive assistan'e of 'ounsel during the
ta#ing of his e3tra-@udi'ial 'onfession.
PEOPLE V. (IMENE?
G.R.No. 82-09. D"!"0;"$ +0' +,,+

1ARFA%A$ 8.:
0ACT%:
-----------
)n August 1:$ 12>9$ poli'e
authorities$ a'ting upon a report$ 'a"e
upon the 'orpse of Pelagio 8i"ene? elow
a 'liff near a alite tree. The poli'e
investigators learned that 4ar'os$ the son
of the de'eased Pelagio 8i"ene? told his
"other that his father had not 'o"e ho"e
the previous night: that the sear'h for the
de'eased$ who was living separatel! fro"
the"$ 'o"""en'ed a da! earlier ut it
was not until the "orning of the following
da!$ August 1:$ 12>9$ that de'eased
Pelagio was finall! found dead. The! also
learned fro" the persons the! interviewed
of 'ir'u"stan'es that drew their suspi'ion
to the son$ 4ar'os and Roert$ su'h as(
the athing at the artisian well Ias if
washing awa! stains of loodI(the
de'easedOs violent 6uarrels with his
'hildren and o''asions that he had een
o3ed and hit ! his 'hildren. The poli'e
had invited the de'easedOs widow and her
sons for 6uestioning aout the #illing.
Adraft of the 'onfession was prepared !
the investigating offi'er ut 4ar'os was
not ale to sign the sa"e due to the
asen'e of the @udge efore who" it is
suppoed to e sworn and signed. 4ar'os
agreed to 'o"e a'# and sign his
state"ent$ ut upon his return$ he$
assisted ! a for"er @udge whose
presen'e was re6uested ! the poli'e
authorities$ refused to sign his state"ent.
%use6uentl!$ an infor"ation for parri'ide
was filed against the widow and her sons$
4ar'os$ Roert$ and +il#ins. In an order
dated 8ul! ;1$ 12>E$ the trial 'ourt
asolved the widow and +il#ins of an!
parti'ipation in the filling for la'# of proof.
)n De'e"er 1;. 12>E$ the trial 'ourt
found 4ar'os and Roert guilt! e!ond
reasonale dout of the 'ri"e of parri'ide$
noting that the unsigned 'onfession is
ad"issile in eviden'e inas"u'h as
eviden'e aliunde 'orroorated su'h
'onfession. .oth a''used 'ontest su'h
ruling. Hen'e this appeal.
I%%-E:
----------
Is the e3tra@udi'ial 'onfession of
4ar'os ad"issile in eviden'eJ
HE*D:
---------
1o. De'ision reversed.
%e'tion 1; &1A$ Arti'le III )0 THE
12>D Constitution de'lares that a person
eing investigated ! the poli'e as a
suspe't in an offense has the right$ a"ong
others$ &1A to have a 'o"petent and
independent 'ounsel of his own 'hoi'e and
if he 'annot afford the servi'es of 'ounsel$
he "ust e provided with one( and that
&;A said right 'annot e waived e3'ept in
writing and in the presen'e of 'ounsel.
The law!er who assists the suspe't
under 'ustodial interrogation should e of
the latterOs own 'hoi'e$ not one foisted on
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,0 ,0
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
hi" ! the poli'e investigators or other
parties. In this 'ase$ the for"er @udge
whose assistan'e was re6uested ! the
poli'e was evidentl! not of 4ar'os
8i"ene?O own 'hoi'e( she was the poli'e
offi'ersO own 'hoi'e( she did not as#
4ar'os if was is willing to have her
represent hi". This is not the "ode of
soli'itation of legal assistan'e
'onte"plated ! the 'onstitution.
0urther"ore$ the for"er @udge was
not present when 4ar'os was eing
interrogated ! the poli'e. +hile she
as#ed hi" if he had voluntaril! given the
state"ents 'ontained in the t!pewritten
do'u"ent$ this is far fro" eing
sustantial 'o"plian'e with the
'onstitutional dut! of poli'e investigators
during 'ustodial interrogation.
The t!pewritten 'onfession is
unsigned and was in fa't e3pressl!
re@e'ted ! 4ar'os. Hen'e$ the supposed
waiver "ade therein of his 'onstitutional
right to 'ounsel of his own 'hoi'e.
1either 'an the 'onfession
pre@udi'e his 'o-a''used$ his rother
Roert$ not onl! e'ause it was otained
in violation of the 'onstitution ut also
e'ause of the prin'iple of res inter alios
a'ta.
The interrogation of 4ar'os
8i"ene? having een 'ondu'ted without
the assistan'e of 'ounsel$ and no valid
waiver of su'h right to 'ounsel have een
"ade$ not onl! the 'onfession ut also
an! ad"issile otained in the 'ourse
therof are inad"issile against hi" or his
'o a''used. In view of the inad"issiilit!
in eviden'e of the 'onfession$ the rest of
the eviden'e of the prose'ution is
inade6uate to over'o"e the presu"ption
of inno'en'e raised ! the funda"ental
law in favor of oth the a''used.
E3tra@udi'ial 'onfession without the
assistan'e of 'ounsel$ inad"issile as
eviden'e( e3'eption
PEOPLE VS. PANFILO CA:ILES' 289
SCRA +,,7 PEOPLE VS. TAN' 28- SCRA
20.
4elo$ 8.
Even if the 'onfession of the
a''used spea#s the truth$ if it was "ade
without the assistan'e of 'ounsel$ it is
inad"issile in eviden'e regardless of the
asen'e of 'oer'ion or even if it was
voluntaril! given.
In order that a 'onfession is
ad"issile$ the following re6uisites "ust
e present:
a. the 'onfession "ust e
voluntar!(
. the 'onfession "ust e "ade
with the assistan'e of a 'o"petent and
independent 'ounsel(
'. the 'onfession "ust e
e3press( and
d. the 'onfession "ust e in
writing.
The aove re6uire"ents$ however$
are not appli'ale when the suspe't
"a#es an spontaneous state"ent$ not
eli'ited through 6uestioning ! the
authorities$ .-T /IFE1 I1 A1 )RDI1ARG
4A11ER +HERE.G THE ACC-%ED )RA**G
AD4ITTED HAFI1/ C)44ITTED THE
CRI4E. This was the de'ision of the
%upre"e Court in the 'ase of PE)P*E F%.
A1DA1$ 4ar'h :$ 122D when the a''used
"ade a voluntar! and veral 'onfession to
the 4uni'ipal 4a!or that he 'o""itted
the 'ri"e i"puted to hi". As su'h$ his
un'ounselled 'onfession is /50<<;l" 3
"65"3!".
PEOPLE VS. O:RERO' **2 SCRA +,0
4endo?a$ 8.
There are two &;A #inds of
involuntar! or 'oer'ed 'onfessions under
Art. III$ %e'tion 1; of the Constitution.
These are:
a. 'onfession whi'h are the
produ't of third degree "ethods su'h as
torture$ for'e$ violen'e$ threat$
inti"idation( and
. those whi'h are given without
the enefit of 4iranda +arnings.
There is no 'o"plian'e of the
'onstitutional re6uire"ent of 'o"petent
and independent 'ounsel to assist an
a''used during 'ustodial investigation
when the a''used was assisted ! the
%tation Co""ander of the +PD$ Att!. De
los Re!es$ while eing investigated !
other poli'e"en of the sa"e poli'e station
e'ause the interest of the poli'e is
naturall! adverse to the a''used. In fa't$
the %C in the 'ase of PE)P*E F%.
8A1-ARI)$ ;ED %CRA EC> held that a
law!er appl!ing for a position in the 1.I
'ould not validl! assist an a''used eing
investigated then ! the 1.I.
1-. P. vs. Aspili$ 1ove"er ;1$
122C
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,+ ,+
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
1-'. P"o&l" 6<. ()52" Ay<o3'
+.8 SCRA 2+-
1-d. P. vs. Pinla'$ 1E9 %CRA ED9
1-e. People vs. *overia$ 1>D %CRA
<D
1-f. /a"oa vs. 8udge Cru?$ 1E;
%CRA ED9
;. P. vs. /alit$ 1:9 %CRA <E9
:. P vs. Alegre$ 2< %CRA 1C2
<. Dra'ulan vs. Donato$ >9 %CRA ;EE
9. P. vs. .orro"eo$ 8une ;2$l2>:
E. P vs. Ca"alog$ /R 1o. DD11E$
8anuar! :1$ 12>2
&In'luding the dut! of Poli'e )ffi'ers
in 'onne'tion with said rightA
D. P vs. Cui$ 8r.$ 1E; %CRA ;;C
:-a. How aout if the a''used gives an
spontaneous state"ent efore he 'ould e
advised of his right to re"ain silentJ
Read:
Aalle vs. People$ 1>: %CRA 12E
:-. +hen shall the 'onstitutional rights of
the a''used as "entioned aove
de"andaleJ During poli'e line-upJ
Read:
1. P vs. -s"an Hassan$ 19D %CRA ;E1
;. /a"oa vs. 8udge Cru?$ 1E; %CRA
E<;
2 :. DE *A T)RRE F%. CA$ ;2< %CRA
12E
<. PE)P*E F%. HATT)1
The right to 'ounsel(
PEOPLE VS. (ERE?' 288 SCRA *,*
A law!er provided ! the investigators to
the a''used during the 'ustodial
investigation is dee"ed engaged ! the
a''used where he never raised an!
o@e'tion against the for"er=s
appoint"ent during the 'ourse of the
investigation A1D THE ACC-%ED
THEREA0TER %-.%CRI.E% T) THE
FERACITG )0 HI% %TATE4E1T .E0)RE
THE %+EARI1/ )00ICER.
&1)TE: In the 'ase of PEOPLE VS.
(UANERIO' F";$)/$y .' +,,.$ the %C
held that a law!er who was at the 1.I
)ffi'e appl!ing for a position therein and
who was appointed as 'ounsel for a
suspe't eing then investigated ! the
1.I 'ould not e 'onsidered as the
'o"petent and independent 'ounsel
referred to in the Constitution espe'iall!
so that later on$ said law!er was
appointed ! the 1.I as one of its
agents.A
Read also:
1. The right to 'ounsel$ 9D %CRA <>1
1-a. P vs. 1olas'o$ 1E: %CRA E;:
1-. P vs. Hernande?$ 1E; %CRA <;;
1-'. P. vs. A"po-an$ 8ul! <$ 122C
1-d. P. vs. %aludar$ 8ul! :1$ 122C
1-e. P. vs. Pidagan$ August ;C$
122C
1-f. Esta'io vs. %andigana!an$
1>: %CRA 1;
1-g. P. vs. .uenaflor$ 1>1 %CRA
;;9
;. P vs. Ta"pus$ 2E %CRA E;<
:. P vs. Ta!laran$ 1C> %CRA :D:
<. P vs. Tawat$ 1;2 %CRA <:1
9. P vs. 4ar'os$ 1<D %CRA ;C< &1ote
that this de'ision is widel! 'riti'i?ed !
'onstitutionalistsA
E. P vs. *adrera$ 19C %CRA 11:
D. P. 1ulla$ 19: %CRA <D1
>. P vs. 4ar6ue?$ 19: %CRA DCC
2. P vs. )lvis$ 19< %CRA 91:
1C. P vs. Caguioa$ 8anuar! 1D$ 12>C
ll. P vs. Pe'ardal$ 1<9 %CRA E;<
1;. P vs. *asa'$ 1<> %CRA E;<
1:. P vs. Pena$ >C %CRA 9>2
1<. P vs. 8ara$ 1<< %CRA 91E

How aout if the law!er who
assisted hi" during 'ustodial investigation
is a puli' attorne! who was not 'hosen
! the a''used hi"self ut given to hi"
free of 'hargeJ
Read:
P. vs. Alegria$ %epte"er
;>$ 122C
Could the 0is'al also represent the
a''used during 'ustodial investigation to
satisf! the re6uire"ent of the Constitution
that the a''used is assisted ! 'ounselJ
Read:
P. vs. 4atos-Fidua!a$ %epte"er
11$ 122C
9. Right to re"ain silent and to 'ounsel
and the right to e infor"ed of su'h
rights( 'ases in general,when does these
rights de"andaleJ Effe't of its non-
oservan'e ! the investigator
Read:
1. P vs. Alofera$ 19; %CRA 1;:
1-a. P vs. *asanas$ 19; %CRA ;D
1-. P vs. )lvis$ 19< %CRA 91:
1-'. P vs. Capitin$ 1E9 %CRA <D
1-a. /a"oa vs. Cru?$ 1E; %CRA E<;
1-. P vs. Hi?on$ 1E: %CRA DEC
1-'. P vs. Felas'o$ 11C %CRA :12
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,2 ,2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;. Dio#no vs. Enrile$ 11C %CRA 1<C
:. 4orales vs. Pon'e Enrile$ 1;1 %CRA
9:>
<. P vs. Ro@as$ 8anuar! >$ l2>D
9. P vs. %antiago$ 8anuar! D$12>D
E. P vs. De'ierdo$ 1<2 %CRA <2E
9-a. Is the right to 'ounsel indispensale
in non-'ri"inal pro'eedingsJ
Read:
1. 1era vs. Auditor /enral$ 1E< %CRA
1
E. Presu"ptions on e3tra@udi'ial
'onfessions&that offi'ial a'ts were
regularl! perfor"ed as against the
presu"ption against waiver of
'onstitutional rightsA
Read:
1. P vs. Duero$ 1C< %CRA :D2
;. P vs. 8ara$ 1<< %CRA 91E
:. P vs. Aano$ 1<9 %CRA 999
<. P vs. Tolentino$ 1<9 %CRA 92D
9. P vs. %alig$ 1:: %CRA 92
E. P vs. Cru?$ 1:: %CRA <;E
D. P vs. Prudente$$ 1:: %CRA E91
> P vs. Trinidad$ 1E; %CRA D1<$ when
the presu"ption of regularit! does
not appl!
D. +ho 'an o@e't to the ad"issiilit! of
an e3tra@udi'ial 'onfessionJ
Read:
1. %tonehill vs. Dio#no$ supra
;. P vs. 8ara$ 1<< %CRA 9DE
:. P. vs. loveria$ 8ul! ;$ 122C
>. Inad"issile as eviden'e
a. The do'trine of the Ifruit of the
poisoned treeI
PEOPLE VS. ROLANDO FELICMINIA y
CAMACHO
GR No. +28***' M/$!1 20' 2002
En .an'
0a'ts:
1. In the "orning of %epte"er
12$ 1229$ a''used-appellant and his
'ousin$ R)11IE /ARCIA were drin#ing gin
in a 'anteen in -rdaneta$ Pangasinan(
;. At around 1C a.". of the sa"e
da!$ Rosita 4anguna! saw oth persons
wal#ing along A"rosio %t.$ in the
pola'ion and noti'ed that the! s"elled
li6uor when the! greeted her(
:. In the earl! afternoon of the
sa"e da!$ a''used-appellant and his
'ousin went to loo# for E-!ear old 4aria
*ourdes /alinato$ also #nown as Tisa! and
found her pla!ing inside a @eepne! and
too# her(
<. At around ;:<9 p.". of the
sa"e da!$ 4anguna! again saw the
a''used-appellant wal#ing along A"rosio
%t.$ 'arr!ing Tisa! who was 'r!ing and
struggling. %he 'lai"ed that she 'learl!
saw the a''used-appellant sin'e the! were
wal#ing towards ea'h other 'o"ing fro"
opposite dire'tions(
9. .efore : to < p.".$ prose'ution
witness 1atividad .ernardo$ saw a''used-
appellant pass their house 'arr!ing a 'hild
who loo#ed aout 9-E !ears old.
E. At aout the sa"e ti"e$
witness *eah 4agno saw the a''used-
appellant 'arr!ing a 'hild was seen
heading towards the wooded area in the
4a'along River(
D. .! 9 p.". to E::C p.". of that
sa"e da!$ 4agno saw a''used-appellant
wal#ing alone to town 'o"ing fro" the
dire'tion of the 4a'along River(
>. 4eanwhile$ the parents of Tisa!
were franti'all! sear'hing for their 'hild
and when their sear'h proved futile$ the!
reported the "atter to the .aranga!
Captain and to the Poli'e(
2. -pon re'eipt of the infor"ation
that the 'hild was last seen with the
a''used-appellant$ the poli'e together
with the .aranga! Captains of Ca"antiles
and .a!aoas$ -rdaneta$ Pangasinan$
pro'eeded to the house of the a''used-
appellant(
1C. As the! approa'hed the house$
the a''used-appellant @u"ped out of the
window 'arr!ing a la'# ag. The poli'e
authorities gave 'hase and finall! 'aught
hi" after twent! &;CA e3hausting hours(
11. After his arrest$ a''used-
appellant was rought to the -rdaneta
Poli'e %tation where he ad"itted that he
raped$ #illed and uried 4aria *ourdes
near the 4a'along River in .aranga! %an
Fi'ente$ -rdaneta$ Pangasinan$ while
-1DER I1FE%TI/ATI)1 +ITH)-T THE
A%%I%TA1CE )0 A *A+GER. I1DEED$ THE
.)DG )0 TI%AG +A% 0)-1D I1 THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,* ,*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
P*ACE +HICH HE DE%CRI.ED D-RI1/
HI% C-%T)DIA* I1FE%TI/ATI)1.
1;. After trial$ the trial 'ourt &RTC
<9 presided over ! 8-D/E 8)FE1
C)%TA*E%A rendered a @udg"ent of
'onvi'tion and i"posing the penalt! of
death to the a''used-appellant. The 'ourt
ad"itted as eviden'e the e3tra@udi'ial
'onfession of the a''used-appellant and
used the sa"e as one of the grounds in
support of the @udg"ent of 'onvi'tion.
I % % - E % I % % - E %
1. Is the e3tra@udi'ial 'onfession of
the a''used Rappellant ad"issile in
eviden'eJ
;. +hether the lower 'ourt erred in
'onvi'ting in 'onvi'ting the a''used-
appellantJ
Held:
1
The alleged e3tra@udi'ial 'onfession
of the a''used while under 'ustodial
investigation and without the assistan'e of
'ounsel is inad"issile in eviden'e despite
the fa't that he was allegedl! appraised of
his 'onstitutional rights to re"ain silent
and to 'ounsel.
This is so e'ause under the 12>D
Constitution$ the said rights 'ould not e
waived e3'ept in the presen'e of 'ounsel.
As su'h$ in a''ordan'e with the do'trine
of the Qfruit of the poisoned tree=$ the
sa"e is inad"issile in eviden'e.
An! infor"ation or ad"ission given
! a person while in 'ustod! whi'h "a!
appear har"less or inno'uous at the ti"e
without the 'o"petent assistan'e or an
independent 'ounsel should e stru'#
down as inad"issile.
Though the e3tra@udi'ial 'onfession
of the a''used-appellant is inad"issile as
eviden'e$ his 'onvi'tion ! the trial 'ourt
is 'orre't. This is so e'ause K1L the
'o"pro"ising 'ir'u"stan'es were dul!
proven whi'h were 'onsistent with ea'h
other and whi'h lead with "oral 'ertaint!
to the 'on'lusion that he was guilt! of the
'ri"e 'harged( and K;L the totalit! of su'h
'ir'u"stan'es eli"inated e!ond dout
the possiilit! of his inno'en'e. In People
vs. 4ahina!$ it was held that 'onvi'tion
"a! e had on 'ir'u"stantial eviden'e
provided the following re6uisites are
present: KaL there is "ore than one
'ir'u"stan'e( KL the fa'ts fro" whi'h the
inferen'es are derived are proven( and K'L
the 'o"ination of all 'ir'u"stan'es is
su'h as to produ'e a 'onvi'tion e!ond
reasonale dout.
The eviden'e in this 'ase
are "ore than suffi'ient to prove the
a''used-appellant=s e!ond reasonale
dout. Cir'u"stantial eviden'e is not a
wea#er for" of eviden'e vis-\-vis dire't
eviden'e and 'ases have re'ogni?ed that
'ir'u"stantial eviden'e in its weight and
proative for'e$ "a! surpass dire't
eviden'e in its effe't upon the %upre"e
Court.
&NOTE: The inde"nifi'ation for the death
of a person in a rape with Ho"i'ide 'ases
was in'reased fro" P9C$CCC.CC to
P1;9$CCC.CC. The said inde"nit! shall
also e appli'ale where the death penalt!
is authori?ed ! appli'ale a"endator!
lawsAA
. The e3'lusionar! rule$ 1<9 %CRA
DCC
Read:
1. P vs. .urgos$ 1<< %CRA 91E
;. P vs. Al'ara?$1:E %CRA D<
:. Does it also in'lude the 'onfession
of a witness$ not the a''usedJ
Read:
1. P vs. .o"esa$ 1E; %CRA <C;
;. p. vs. Gutu'$ 8ul! ;E$ 122C
2. %e'. 1;&;A
Read:
1. Di?on vs. /en. Eduardo$ 4a! :$12>>
;. P vs. Eligino$ August 11$12>>
:. Contado vs. Tan$ April 19$ 12>>
1C. E3tra@udi'ial 'onfession( when
ad"issile or inad"issile
Read:
1. The ad"issiilit! of an e3tra@udi'ial
'onfession in a 'ri"inal prose'ution$1<;
%CRA 11C
;. Ad"issiilit! of an e3tra@udi'ial
'onfession$1:9 %CRA <12 and 1C
%CRA 9;C
:. Inad"issiilit! of an ad"ission
otained ! for'e$ 11< %CRA
;:<
<. Confession as eviden'e against the
a''used$ 2E %CRA E:D
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,9 ,9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
Read:
9. P vs. Ca"alog$ 8anuar! :1$ 12>2
9-a. P vs. Capulong$ 1EC %CRA 9::
9-. P vs. *agahan$ De'e"er >$ 12>>
9-'. P vs. Dino$ 1EC %CRA 12D
9-d. P vs. Cara"onte$ 2< %CRA 19C
9-e. P vs. En'iso$ 1EC %CRA D;>
9-d. P vs. Aano$ 1<9 %CRA 9E9
9-e. P vs. Nui?on$ 1<; %CRA :E;
9-f. P vs. )lvis$ 19< %CRA 91:
9-g. P vs. Roles$ 1C< %CRA <9C
9-h. P vs. Eligino$ 1E< %CRA ;EC
9-i. P vs. Ae@ero$ 4a! 1D$l2>C
9-@. P. vs. .agano$ 1>1 %CRA :<
9-#. P. vs. Estevan$ 1>E %CRA 1><
9-l. P. vs. Ra"os$ 1>E %CRA 1><
9-". P. vs. 0lores$ 1>E %CRA :C:
9-n. P. vs. 8ung'o$ 1>E %CRA D1<
9-o. P. vs. Arsenio$ 1>< %CRA ;C9
E. P vs. Fillanueva$ 1;> %CRA <>>
D. P vs. De@ares'o$ 1;2 %CRA 9DE
>. P vs. Tuvera$ 1:C %CRA 1E2
2. P vs. 4aternal$ 1:C %CRA E;9
1C. P vs. 1ilos$ 1;D %CRA ;CD
11. P vs. %an'he?$ 1:; %CRA 1C:
1;. P vs. Pi?arro$ 1:1 %CRA <1>
1:. P vs. %ailano$ 1:; %CRA >:
1<. P vs. Feloso$ 1<> %CRA EC
19. 4agtoto vs. 4anguera$ E: %CRA <
1E. P vs. /apasin$ 1<9 %CRA 1D>
1D. P vs. Palo$ 1<D %CRA 1D>
1>. P. vs. De 8esus$ 1<9 %CRA 9;1
12. P vs. Pia$ 1<9 %CRA 9>1
;C. P vs. En'ipiado$ 1<E %CRA <D>
;1. P vs. Canu"a!$ 1:C %CRA :C1
;;. P vs. 4arino$ 1:C %CRA 929
;:. P vs. 1atipravat$ 1<9 %CRA <>:
;<. P vs. Cru?$ 1:: %CRa <;E--when
'onfession is valid
;9. P. vs. De *a Cru?$ 1>: %CRA DE:---
when 'onfession is inad"issile ut
a''used is still liale
11. Eviden'e of la'# of 'voluntariness
Read:
1. P vs. 8ara$ 1<< %CRA 91E
;. P vs. Aa!on$ 11< %CRA 12D
1;. Is the testi"on! of the arresting
offi'er on the alleged oral 'onfession of
the a''used ad"issileJ
Read:
1. P vs. D!$ 19> %CRA 111
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
CHAPTER CIII G THE CHAPTER CIII G THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO :AIL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO :AIL
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1. The right to ail$ 1C< %CRA :D;
;. .ail$ >1 %CRA 1>>
M35< o4 ;/l7 #1"3 3ot /&&l!/;l".
Re'ogni?an'e,ail for a 'onvi't
ATTY. (ULIANA ADALIMGWHITE
VS. (UDGE ARNULFO :UGTAS' RTC 2
:ORONGAN' SAMAR' 9.8 SCRA +.8
Austria-4artine?$ 8.
0a'ts:
4anuel .agaporo$ 8r. was 'onvi'ted
of frustrated "urder and was senten'ed
four !ears and two "onths to eight !ears
and one da! of i"prison"ent. He started
serving his senten'e and suse6uentl!$ he
filed an appli'ation for release on
re'ogni?an'e. In support of his
appli'ation$ the Provin'ial 8ail +arden
issued a 'ertifi'ation that .agaoporo has
een 'onfined at the Provin'ial 8ail sin'e
0eruar! 2$ 122E and is alread! entitled to
parole. Another 'ertifi'ation was issued !
the %upervising Parole and Proation
)ffi'er showing that .agaporo applied for
parole in lieu of the D)8=s 4aagang
Pagla!a Progra".
.! virtue of the aove
'ertifi'ations$ respondent @udge ordered
the release of .agaporo upon
re'ogni?an'e of the Provin'ial 8ail +arden
of Eastern %a"ar. He li#ewise @ustified the
sa"e ased on the rule that 5ail is
dis'retionar! upon 'onvi'tion ! the RTC
of an offense not punishale ! death$
re'lusion perpetua or life i"prison"ent.
Held:
Respondent 8udge is guilt! of gross
ignoran'e of the law for ordering the
release of .agaporo pending the approval
of his appli'ation for parole and efore the
'o"pletion of the "ini"u" period of the
senten'e i"posed upon hi".
It is patentl! erroneous to release
a 'onvi't on re'ogni?an'e. %e'tion ;<$
Rule 11< provides that there shall no ail
for a 'onvi't after final @udg"ent. The
onl! e3'eption is when the 'onvi't applies
for Proation efore he 'o""en'es to
serve his senten'e and that the offense
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,8 ,8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
and the penalt! for the offense is within
the purview of the Proation *aw.
%e'tions 9 and 1E of Rule 11< of
the Rules of Court &on the different #inds
of ailA APPLIES ONLY TO AN ACCUSED
UNDERGOING PREVENTIVE
IMPRISONMENT DURING TRIAL OR
ON APPEAL. THEY DO NOT APPLY TO
A PERSON CONVICTED :Y FINAL
(USGMENT AND ALREADY SERVING
SENTENCE.
8udge .ugtas was therefore fined
P<C$CCC.CC for gross ignoran'e of the law
and sternl! warned that a repetition of the
sa"e or si"ilar a't shall e dealt with
"ore severel!.
:. Read:
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
E3'essive ail:
1. De la Ca"ara vs. Enage$ <1 %CRA 1
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1-a. Pestano vs. 8udge Felas'o$
8ul! :$ 122C
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
+aiver of the right to ail:
1-. P. vs. Donato$ 8une 9$ 1221
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
;. Al"eda vs. Fillalu?$ EE %CRA :>
:. 4ar'os vs. Cru?$ ED and DC Phil.
<. Fillasenor vs. Aano$ ;1 %CRA :1;
9. P vs. IAC$ 8anuar! 1C$12>D$ 1<D
%CRA ;12
E. 4anoto' vs. CA$ 4a! :C$12>E
D. /ar'ia vs. Do"ingo$ 9; %CRA 1<:
>. P vs. %an Diego$ ;E %CRA 9;;
<. %ee %e'tion 1C$ Rule 11<$ 12>9 Rules
on Cri"inal Pro'edure
3 a. Pro'edure when prose'utor does
not o@e't to the petition for ail in 'apital
offenses:
PE)P*E F%. A/.AGA1I$ ;>< %CRA
:19
:/l 3 EAt$/5to3 !/<"<.
UNITED STATES VS. (UDGE
PURUGGANAN R MARM (UMENE?
1ove"er$ ;CC;
A &"$<o3 4/!32 "At$/5to3
&$o!""532< < 3ot "3ttl"5 to ;/l
"6"3 4 t1" !$0" 1" #/< !1/$2"5 o4 3
/ 4o$"23 !o)3t$y < ;/l/;l". T1< <
<o ;"!/)<" t1" !o3<tt)to3/l
&$o6<o3 o3 t1" $21t to ;/l )35"$
A$t. III o4 t1" +,8. Co3<tt)to3
/&&l"< o3ly to !$03/l !/<"<' 3ot 3
"At$/5to3 &$o!""532<.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Right to noti'e and hearing efore the
issuan'e of a warrant of arrest in
e3tradition 'ase
ED-ARD) R)DRI/-EB F%. THE
PRE%IDI1/ 8-D/E$ RTC 1D$ 4A1I*A$ <>:
%CRA ;2C
Nuisu"ing$ 8.
In SECRETARY OF (USTICE VS.
(UDGE LANTION' *22 SCRA +-0 &The
4ar# 8i"ene? CaseA $ the %upre"e Court
on a 2-E vote held that the e3traditee is
entitled to noti'e and hearing even when a
re6uest for e3tradition ! another 'ountr!
is still eing evaluated. However$ on
4otion for Re'onsideration in the sa"e
'ase$ in a 2-E de'ision$ the %upre"e
Court held that the prospe'tive e3traditee
is not entitled to noti'e and hearing while
his 'ase is still under evaluation e'ause
this would defeat the purpose of the arrest
warrant sin'e it 'ould give warning that
respondents would e arrested and even
en'ourage the" to flee ut entitled to
noti'e and hearing if the 'ase is alread!
filed in 'ourt.
It is a different "atter if at first$
the e3traditee was allowed ail. The
'an'ellation of his ail ond "a! e "ade
onl! after noti'e and hearing. )therwise$
his right to due pro'ess of law will e
violated.
&1)TE: In the 'ase of -% vs. 8udge
Purugganan$ :>2 %CRA E;:A$ the
%upre"e Court held that the e3traditee is
not entitled to post a ond even if the
'ri"e he was 'harged of aroad is a
ailale offense. This is so e'ause of the
possiilit! of flight.A
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
CHAPTER CIV G DUE PROCESS
IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1. In general:
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,- ,-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
1. P vs. Terroias$ 1C: %CRA :;1
:. Presu"ption of inno'en'e prevails
over the presu"ption of regularit! in the
perfor"an'e of offi'ial duties of the poli'e
authorities and Presu"ption of inno'en'e
resulting in a'6uittal as a result on
'onfli'ting and in'onsistent testi"onies of
the prose'ution=s witnesses:

(UNIE MALLILLIN Y. LOPE?' VS.
PEOPLE' G.R. No. +.2,8* '
A&$l *0' 2008
THE 0ACT%:
)n the strength of a warrant of
sear'h and sei?ure issued ! the RTC of
%orsogon Cit!$ .ran'h 9;$ a tea" of five
poli'e offi'ers raided the residen'e of
petitioner in .aranga! Tugos$ %orsogon
Cit! on < 0eruar! ;CC:. The tea" was
headed ! P,Insp. Catalino .olanos
&.olanosA$ with P): Roerto Esternon
&EsternonA$ %P)1 Pedro Do'ot$ %P)1
Danilo *asala and %P); Ro"eo /allinera
&/allineraA as "e"ers. The sear'hT
'ondu'ted in the presen'e of +arangay
kaga<ad Delfin *i'up as well as petitioner
hi"self$ his wife %heila and his "other$
1or"aTallegedl! !ielded two &;A plasti'
sa'hets of sha+u and five &9A e"pt!
plasti' sa'hets 'ontaining residual "orsels
of the said sustan'e.
A''ordingl!$ petitioner was 'harged with
violation of %e'tion 11$ Arti'le II of
Repuli' A't 1o. 21E9$ otherwise #nown
as The Co"prehensive Dangerous Drugs
A't of ;CC;.
That on or aout the <
th
da! of 0eruar!
;CC:$ at aout >:<9 in the "orning in
.aranga! Tugos$ %orsogon Cit!$
Philippines$ the said a''used did then and
there willfull!$ unlawfull! and feloniousl!
have in his possession$ 'ustod! and
'ontrol two &;A plasti' sa'hets of
"etha"pheta"ine h!dro'hloride KorL
5sha+u7 with an aggregate weight of
C.CD<: gra"$ and four e"pt! sa'hets
'ontaining 5sha+u7 residue$ without
having een previousl! authori?ed ! law
to possess the sa"e.
C)1TRARG T) *A+.
Petitioner entered a negative plea. At the
ensuing trial$ the prose'ution presented
.olanos$ Arro!o and Esternon as
witnesses.
Ta#ing the witness stand$ .olanos$ the
leader of the raiding tea"$ testified on the
'ir'u"stan'es surrounding the sear'h as
follows: that he and his "en were allowed
entr! into the house ! petitioner after
the latter was shown the sear'h warrant(
that upon entering the pre"ises$ he
ordered Esternon and +arangay kaga<ad
*i'up$ whose assistan'e had previousl!
een re6uested in e3e'uting the warrant$
to 'ondu't the sear'h( that the rest of the
poli'e tea" positioned the"selves outside
the house to "a#e sure that nood! flees(
that he was oserving the 'ondu't of the
sear'h fro" aout a "eter awa!( that the
sear'h 'ondu'ted inside the edroo" of
petitioner !ielded five e"pt! plasti'
sa'hets with suspe'ted sha+u residue
'ontained in a deni" ag and #ept in one
of the 'ainets$ and two plasti' sa'hets
'ontaining sha+u whi'h fell off fro" one of
the pillows sear'hed ! EsternonTa
dis'over! that was "ade in the presen'e
of petitioner.
9<K1CL
)n 'ross e3a"ination$
.olanos ad"itted that during the sear'h$
he was e3plaining its progress to
petitioner=s "other$ 1or"a$ ut that at the
sa"e ti"e his e!es were fi3ed on the
sear'h eing 'ondu'ted ! Esternon.
Esternon testified that the deni" ag
'ontaining the e"pt! plasti' sa'hets was
found 5ehind7 the door of the edroo"
and not inside the 'ainet( that he then
found the two filled sa'hets under a pillow
on the ed and forthwith 'alled on
/allinera to have the ite"s re'orded and
"ar#ed.
99K1;L
)n 'ross$ he ad"itted that it
was he alone who 'ondu'ted the sear'h
e'ause .olanos was standing ehind hi"
in the living roo" portion of the house
and that petitioner handed to hi" the
things to e sear'hed$ whi'h in'luded the
pillow in whi'h the two sa'hets of sha+u
were #ept(
9EK1:L
that he rought the sei?ed
ite"s to the .alogo Poli'e %tation for a
5true inventor!$7 then to the trial 'ourt
9DK1<L
and thereafter to the laorator!.
9>K19L

%upt. *orlie Arro!o &Arro!oA$ the forensi'
'he"ist who ad"inistered the
e3a"ination on the sei?ed ite"s$ was
presented as an e3pert witness to identif!
9<
K1CL
T%1$ ;; April ;CC:$ pp. E-2.
99
K1;L
T%1$ ;: 8ul! ;CC:$ pp. E-D$ 1C.
56K1:L
Id. at 1E-1D.
57K1<L
T%1$ ;: 8ul! ;CC:$ pp. 1:-19.
58K19L
Id. at 2.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,. ,.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
the ite"s su"itted to the laorator!. %he
revealed that the two filled sa'hets were
positive of sha+u and that of the five
e"pt! sa'hets$ four were positive of
'ontaining residue of the sa"e
sustan'e.
92K1EL
%he further ad"itted that
all seven sa'hets were delivered to the
laorator! ! Esternon in the afternoon of
the sa"e da! that the warrant was
e3e'uted e3'ept that it was not she ut
rather a 'ertain 4rs. )felia /ar'ia who
re'eived the ite"s fro" Esternon at the
laorator! .
L

The eviden'e for the defense fo'used on
the irregularit! of the sear'h and sei?ure
'ondu'ted ! the poli'e operatives.
Petitioner testified that Esternon egan
the sear'h of the edroo" with *i'up and
petitioner hi"self inside. However$ it was
"o"entaril! interrupted when one of the
poli'e offi'ers de'lared to .olanos that
petitioner=s wife$ %heila$ was tu'#ing
so"ething inside her underwear.
0orthwith$ a lad! offi'er arrived to 'ondu't
the sear'h of %heila=s od! inside the
sa"e edroo". At that point$ ever!one
e3'ept Esternon was as#ed to step out of
the roo". %o$ it was in his presen'e
that %heila was sear'hed ! the lad!
offi'er. Petitioner was then as#ed ! a
poli'e offi'er to u! 'igarettes at a near!
store and when he returned fro" the
errand$ he was told that nothing was
found on %heila=s od!.
ECK1>L
%heila was
ordered to transfer to the other edroo"
together with her 'hildren.
Petitioner asserted that on his return fro"
the errand$ he was su""oned !
Esternon to the edroo" and on'e inside$
the offi'er 'losed the door and as#ed hi"
to lift the "attress on the ed. And as he
was doing as told$ Esternon stopped hi"
and ordered hi" to lift the portion of the
headoard. In that instant$ Esternon
showed hi" 5sa'het of shau7 whi'h
a''ording to hi" 'a"e fro" a pillow on
the ed.
E1K;CL
Petitioner=s a''ount in its
entiret! was 'orroorated in its "aterial
respe'ts ! 1or"a$ +arangay kaga<ad
*i'up and %heila in their testi"onies.
1or"a and %heila positivel! de'lared that
92
K1EL
T%1$ ;> 4a! ;CC:$ p. 1<. The
results of the 'he"i'al anal!sis are
e"odied in Che"istr! Report 1o. D-C:D-
C:. %ee re'ords$ p. 1>.
EC
K1>L
T%1$ ; De'e"er ;CC:$ pp. E-
1C.
61K;CL
Id. at 11-1;.
petitioner was not in the house for the
entire duration of the sear'h e'ause at
one point he was sent ! Esternon to the
store to u! 'igarettes while %heila was
eing sear'hed ! the lad! offi'er. *i'up
for his part testified on the 'ir'u"stan'es
surrounding the dis'over! of the plasti'
sa'hets. He re'ounted that after the five
e"pt! sa'hets were found$ he went out of
the edroo" and into the living roo" and
after aout three "inutes$ Esternon$ who
was left inside the edroo"$ e3'lai"ed
that he had @ust found two filled sa'hets.
L

)n ;C 8une ;CC< the trial 'ourt rendered
its De'ision de'laring petitioner guilt!
e!ond reasonale dout of the offense
'harged. Petitioner was 'onde"ned to
prison for twelve !ears &1;A and one &1A
da! to twent! &;CA !ears and to pa! a fine
of P:CC$CCC.CC. The trial 'ourt reasoned
that the fa't that sha+u was found in the
house of petitioner was prima fa3ie
eviden'e of petitioner=s animus possidendi
suffi'ient to 'onvi't hi" of the 'harge
inas"u'h as things whi'h a person
possesses or over whi'h he e3er'ises a'ts
of ownership are presu"ptivel! owned !
hi". It also noted petitioner=s failure to
as'rie ill "otives to the poli'e offi'ers to
fari'ate 'harges against hi".
Hen'e$ this Appeal.
HE*D:
Prose'utions for illegal possession of
prohiited drugs ne'essitates that the
ele"ental a't of possession of a prohiited
sustan'e e estalished with "oral
'ertaint!$ together with the fa't that the
sa"e is not authori?ed ! law. The
dangerous drug itself 'onstitutes the ver!
3orpus deli3ti of the offense and the fa't
of its e3isten'e is vital to a @udg"ent of
'onvi'tion. Essential therefore in these
'ases is that the identit! of the prohiited
drug e estalished e!ond dout
.
.e
that as it "a!$ the "ere fa't of
unauthori?ed possession will not suffi'e to
'reate in a reasonale "ind the "oral
'ertaint! re6uired to sustain a finding of
guilt. 4ore than @ust the fa't of
possession$ the fa't that the sustan'e
illegall! possessed in the first pla'e is the
sa"e sustan'e offered in 'ourt as e3hiit
"ust also e estalished with the sa"e
unwavering e3a'titude as that re6uisite to
"a#e a finding of guilt. The 'hain of
'ustod! re6uire"ent perfor"s this
fun'tion in that it ensures that
unne'essar! douts 'on'erning the
identit! of the eviden'e are re"oved.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,8 ,8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
As a "ethod of authenti'ating eviden'e$
the 'hain of 'ustod! rule re6uires that the
ad"ission of an e3hiit e pre'eded !
eviden'e suffi'ient to support a finding
that the "atter in 6uestion is what the
proponent 'lai"s it to e. It would
in'lude testi"on! aout ever! lin# in the
'hain$ fro" the "o"ent the ite" was
pi'#ed up to the ti"e it is offered into
eviden'e$ in su'h a wa! that ever! person
who tou'hed the e3hiit would des'rie
how and fro" who" it was re'eived$
where it was and what happened to it
while in the witness= possession$ the
'ondition in whi'h it was re'eived and the
'ondition in whi'h it was delivered to the
ne3t lin# in the 'hain. These witnesses
would then des'rie the pre'autions ta#en
to ensure that there had een no 'hange
in the 'ondition of the ite" and no
opportunit! for so"eone not in the 'hain
to have possession of the sa"e.
Indeed$ the li#elihood of ta"pering$ loss
or "ista#e with respe't to an e3hiit is
greatest when the e3hiit is s"all and is
one that has ph!si'al 'hara'teristi's
fungile in nature and si"ilar in for" to
sustan'es fa"iliar to people in their dail!
lives.
E;K<1L
4raham vs. State
E:K<;L
positivel!
a'#nowledged this danger. In that 'ase
where a sustan'e later anal!?ed as
heroinTwas handled ! two poli'e offi'ers
prior to e3a"ination who however did not
testif! in 'ourt on the 'ondition and
whereaouts of the e3hiit at the ti"e it
was in their possessionTwas e3'luded
fro" the prose'ution eviden'e$ the 'ourt
pointing out that the white powder sei?ed
'ould have een indeed heroin or it 'ould
have een sugar or a#ing powder. It
ruled that unless the state 'an show !
re'ords or testi"on!$ the 'ontinuous
whereaouts of the e3hiit at least
etween the ti"e it 'a"e into the
possession of poli'e offi'ers until it was
tested in the laorator! to deter"ine its
'o"position$ testi"on! of the state as to
the laorator!=s findings is inad"issile.
E<
K<:L
A uni6ue 'hara'teristi' of nar'oti'
sustan'es is that the! are not readil!
identifiale as in fa't the! are su@e't to
s'ientifi' anal!sis to deter"ine their
'o"position and nature. The Court 'annot
62K<1L
4raham v. State$ ;99 1.E;d
E9;$ E99.
63K<;L
4raham v. State$ ;99 1.E;d
E9;.
E<
K<:L
4raham v. State$ ;99 1.E;d
E9;$ E99.
relu'tantl! 'lose its e!es to the li#elihood$
or at least the possiilit!$ that at an! of
the lin#s in the 'hain of 'ustod! over the
sa"e there 'ould have een ta"pering$
alteration or sustitution of sustan'es
fro" other 'asesT! a''ident or
otherwiseTin whi'h si"ilar eviden'e was
sei?ed or in whi'h si"ilar eviden'e was
su"itted for laorator! testing. Hen'e$ in
authenti'ating the sa"e$ a standard "ore
stringent than that applied to 'ases
involving o@e'ts whi'h are readil!
identifiale "ust e applied$ a "ore
e3a'ting standard that entails a 'hain of
'ustod! of the ite" with suffi'ient
'o"pleteness if onl! to render it
i"proale that the original ite" has
either een e3'hanged with another or
een 'onta"inated or ta"pered with.
A "ere fleeting glan'e at the re'ords
readil! raises signifi'ant douts as to the
identit! of the sa'hets of sha+u allegedl!
sei?ed fro" petitioner. )f the people who
'a"e into dire't 'onta't with the sei?ed
o@e'ts$ onl! Esternon and Arro!o testified
for the spe'ifi' purpose of estalishing the
identit! of the eviden'e. /allinera$ to
who" Esternon supposedl! handed over
the 'onfis'ated sa'hets for re'ording and
"ar#ing$ as well as /ar'ia$ the person to
who" Esternon dire'tl! handed over the
sei?ed ite"s for 'he"i'al anal!sis at the
'ri"e laorator!$ were not presented in
'ourt to estalish the 'ir'u"stan'es under
whi'h the! handled the su@e't ite"s.
An! reasonale "ind "ight then as# the
6uestion: Are the sa'hets of sha+u
allegedl! sei?ed fro" petitioner the ver!
sa"e o@e'ts laorator! tested and
offered in 'ourt as eviden'eJ
The prose'ution=s eviden'e is in'o"plete
to provide an affir"ative answer.
Considering that it was /allinera who
re'orded and "ar#ed the sei?ed ite"s$ his
testi"on! in 'ourt is 'ru'ial to affir"
whether the e3hiits were the sa"e ite"s
handed over to hi" ! Esternon at the
pla'e of sei?ure and a'#nowledge the
initials "ar#ed thereon as his own. The
sa"e is true of /ar'ia who 'ould have$
ut nevertheless failed$ to testif! on the
'ir'u"stan'es under whi'h she re'eived
the ite"s fro" Esternon$ what she did
with the" during the ti"e the! were in
her possession until efore she delivered
the sa"e to Arro!o for anal!sis.
/iven the foregoing deviations of poli'e
offi'er Esternon fro" the standard and
nor"al pro'edure in the i"ple"entation
of the warrant and in ta#ing post-sei?ure
'ustod! of the eviden'e$ the lind relian'e
! the trial 'ourt and the Court of Appeals
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ,, ,,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
on the presu"ption of regularit! in the
'ondu't of poli'e dut! is "anifestl!
"ispla'ed. The presu"ption of regularit!
is "erel! @ust thatTa "ere presu"ption
disputale ! 'ontrar! proof and whi'h
when 'hallenged ! the eviden'e 'annot
e regarded as inding truth.
E9K9;L
%uffi'e
it to sa! that this presu"ption 'annot
preponderate over the presu"ption of
inno'en'e that prevails if not overthrown
! proof e!ond reasonale dout.
EEK9:L
In
the present 'ase the la'# of 'on'lusive
identifi'ation of the illegal drugs allegedl!
sei?ed fro" petitioner$ 'oupled with the
irregularit! in the "anner ! whi'h the
sa"e were pla'ed under poli'e 'ustod!
efore offered in 'ourt$ strongl! "ilitates
a finding of guilt.
In our 'onstitutional s!ste"$ asi' and
ele"entar! is the presupposition that the
urden of proving the guilt of an a''used
lies on the prose'ution whi'h "ust rel! on
the strength of its own eviden'e and not
on the wea#ness of the defense. The rule
is invariale whatever "a! e the
reputation of the a''used$ for the law
presu"es his inno'en'e unless and until
the 'ontrar! is shown.
EDK9<L
@n du+io pro
reo. +hen "oral 'ertaint! as to 'ulpailit!
hangs in the alan'e$ a'6uittal on
reasonale dout inevital! e'o"es a
"atter of right.
P$"<)0&to3 o4 33o!"3!" l"/5< to t1"
/!!)<"5J< /!H)tt/l 5)" to 3!o3<<t"3t
t"<t0o3"< o4 &$o<"!)to3J< #t3"<<"<
ELY AGUSTIN VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES' G.R. No. +88.88' A&$l *0'
2008
0ACT%:
)n )'toer 1$ 1229$ at D:;C in the evening$
ar"ed "en roed the house of spouses
/eorge and Rose"arie /ante in .aranga!
Pug-os$ Caugao$ Ilo'os %ur$ for'il! ta#ing
with the" several valuales$ in'luding 'ash
a"ounting to PECC$CCC.CC.
E>K:L
0orthwith$ the
spouses reported the "atter to the poli'e$
who$ in turn$ i""ediatel! applied for a sear'h
65K9;L
*eople v. Am+rosio$ /.R. 1o.
1:9:D>$ 1< April ;CC<$ <;D %CRA :1;$
:1> 'iting *eople v. 5an$ :>; %CRA <12
&;CC;A.
66K9:L
*eople v. Am+rosio$ /.R. 1o.
1:9:D>$ 1< April ;CC<$ <;D %CRA :1;$
:1> 'iting *eople v. 5an$ :>; %CRA <12
&;CC;A.
ED
K9<L
*eople v. La8a$ id.
E>
warrant with the 4uni'ipal Trial Court &4TCA of
Caugao$ Ilo'os %ur.
E2K<L
The 4TC issued
%ear'h +arrant 1o. 9-29$
DCK9L
dire'ting a
sear'h of the ite"s stolen fro" the vi'ti"s$ as
well as the firear"s used ! the perpetrators.
)ne of the target pre"ises was the residen'e
of petitioner$ na"ed as one of the several
suspe'ts in the 'ri"e.
)n )'toer E$ 1229$ ar"ed with the warrant$
poli'e"en sear'hed the pre"ises of
petitionerOs house lo'ated in %itio Padual$
.aranga! Pug-os$ Caugao$ Ilo'os %ur. The
sear'h resulted in the re'over! of a firear"
and a""unitions whi'h had no li'ense nor
authorit! to possess su'h weapon$ and$
'onse6uentl!$ the filing of a 'ri"inal 'ase$
do'#eted as Cri"inal Case 1o. 1E91-P$ for
violation of P.D. 1o. 1>EE or Illegal Possession
of 0irear"s$ against petitioner efore the RTC.
Thereafter$ trial ensued. The
prose'ution presented eight witnesses na"el!:
&1A P,Insp. Ansel"o .aldovino
D1KDL
&P,Insp.
.aldovinoA$ a poli'e investigator and the
appli'ant for the sear'h warrant( &;A
Rose"arie /ante &/anteA$ the vi'ti" of the
roer! and private 'o"plainant( &:A Igna'io
Gaes &GaesA$ a 4uni'ipal *o'al /overn"ent
)perations )ffi'er of the Depart"ent of
Interior and *o'al /overn"ent who was the
'ivilian witness to the sear'h( &<A P,%upt.
.onifa'io Aian
D;K>L
&P,%upt. AianA$ Deput!
Provin'ial Dire'tor of the Philippine 1ational
Poli'e and part of the sear'h tea"( &9A %P)<
4arino Pene!ra &%P)< Pene!raA( &EA %P)1
0ran#lin Caa!a &%P)1 Caa!aA( &DA %P)1
8a"es 8ara &%P)1 8araA( and &>A %P);
0lorentino Renon &%P); RenonA.
The prose'utionOs 'ase 'entered "ainl!
on eviden'e that during the enfor'e"ent of
the sear'h warrant against petitioner$ a .:>
'alier revolver firear" was found in the
latterOs house.
D:K2L
In parti'ular$ %P)1 Caa!a
testified that while po#ing at a 'losed rattan
'ainet near the door$ he saw a firear" on the
lower shelf.
D<

K1CL
The gun is a .:> 'alier
revolver
D9

K11L
with five live a""unitions$
DE

K1;L


whi'h he i""ediatel! turned over to his
superior$ P,Insp. .aldovino.
DDK1:L

Petitioner an'hored his defense on
denial and fra"e-up. The petitioner and his
wife *orna assert that petitioner does not own
E2
DC
D1
D;
D:
D<
D9
DE
DD
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +00 +00
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
a gun.
D>K1<L
*orna testified that she saw a
5"ilitar!7 "an planting the gun.
D2K19L
After trial$ the RTC rendered its De'ision
>CK1EL
dated 8ul! D$ 1222$ finding petitioner guilt!
e!ond reasonale dout.
Petitioner filed an appeal with the CA$
whi'h rendered the assailed De'ision
>1K1>L
dated 8anuar! ;;$ ;CC:$ affir"ing with
"odifi'ation the de'ision of the trial 'ourt$
thus:
+HERE0)RE$ e3'ept for the
4)DI0ICATI)1 redu'ing and 'hanging the
"a3i"u" of the prison ter" i"posed to 0ive
&9A Gears 0our &<A 4onths and Twent! &;CA
Da!s$ the appealed De'ision is otherwise
A00IR4ED.
Hen'e$ the instant Petition for Review$
on the prin'ipal ground that the CA gravel!
erred in finding that the guilt of petitioner has
een proven e!ond reasonale dout( and
"ore spe'ifi'all!$ in giving weight and
'reden'e to the testi"onies of the poli'e
offi'ers who sear'hed the house of the
petitioner whi'h are replete with "aterial and
irre'on'ilale 'ontradi'tions and in giving %P)1
Caa!a the presu"ption of regularit! in the
perfor"an'e of dut! despite the 'lai" of *orna
that the .:> 'alier revolver was planted.
Petitioner insists that the trial 'ourt and
the CA 'o""itted reversile error in giving
little 'reden'e to his defense that the firear"
found in his residen'e was planted ! the
poli'e"en. He also alleges "aterial
in'onsisten'ies in the testi"onies of the
poli'e"en as witnesses for the prose'ution$
whi'h a"ounted to failure ! the prose'ution
to prove his guilt e!ond reasonale dout.
HELDD
The petition has "erit.
The para"ount issue in the present
'ase is whether the prose'ution estalished
the guilt of petitioner e!ond reasonale
dout( and in the deter"ination thereof$ a
fa'tual issue$ that is$ whether a gun was found
in the house of petitioner$ "ust ne'essaril! e
resolved.
It is a well-entren'hed rule that appeal
in 'ri"inal 'ases opens the whole 'ase wide
open for review.
>;K;CL
D>
D2
>C
>1
>;
In 'onvi'ting petitioner$ the RTC relied
heavil! on the testi"on! of %P)1 Caa!a$ who
testified that he dis'overed the su@e't firear"
in a 'losed 'ainet inside the for"erOs house.
The trial 'ourt rushed aside petitionerOs
defense of denial and protestations of fra"e-
up. The RTC @ustified giving full 'reden'e to
Caa!aOs testi"on! on the prin'iples that the
latter is presu"ed to have perfor"ed his
offi'ial duties regularl!( that he had no ill
"otive to fra"e-up petitioner( and that his
affir"ative testi"on! is stronger than
petitionerOs negative testi"on!.
>:K;1L

+eighing these findings of the lower
'ourts against the petitionerOs 'lai" that the
prose'ution failed to prove its 'ase e!ond
reasonale dout due to the "aterial
in'onsisten'ies in the testi"onies of its
witnesses$ the Court finds$ after a "eti'ulous
e3a"ination of the re'ords that the lower
'ourts$ indeed$ 'o""itted a reversile error in
finding petitioner guilt! e!ond reasonale
dout of the 'ri"e he was 'harged with. The
RTC and the CA have overloo#ed 'ertain fa'ts
and 'ir'u"stan'es that would have inter@e'ted
serious apprehensions asolutel! i"pairing the
'rediilit! of the witnesses for the prose'ution.
The 'onfli'ting testi"onies of the
prose'ution witnesses as to who a'tuall!
entered the house and 'ondu'ted the sear'h$
who 5dis'overed7 the gun$ and who witnessed
the 5dis'over!7 are "aterial "atters e'ause
the! relate dire'tl! to a fa't in issue( in the
present 'ase$ whether a gun has een found in
the house of petitioner( or to a fa't to whi'h$
! the pro'ess of logi'$ an inferen'e "a! e
"ade as to the e3isten'e or non-e3isten'e of a
fa't in issue.
><K;<L
As held in United States v.
2straKa$
>9K;9L
a "aterial "atter is the "ain fa't
whi'h is the su@e't of in6uir! o$ /3y
!$!)0<t/3!" #1!1 t"35< to &$o6" t1/t
4/!t o$ /3y 4/!t o$ !$!)0<t/3!" #1!1
t"35< to !o$$o;o$/t" o$ <t$"32t1"3 t1"
t"<t0o3y $"l/t6" to t1" <);B"!t o4
3H)$y o$ #1!1 l"2t0/t"ly /44"!t< t1"
!$"5t o4 /3y #t3"<< #1o t"<t4"<.
The eviden'e of prose'ution is severel!
wea#ened ! several 'ontradi'tions in the
testi"onies of its witnesses. Espe'iall!
da"aged is the 'rediilit! of %P)1 Caa!a$
none of whose de'larations on "aterial points
@ies with those of the other prose'ution
witnesses. In the fa'e of the vehe"ent and
'onsistent protestations of fra"e-up !
petitioner and his wife$ the trial 'ourt and the
CA erred in overloo#ing or "isappre'iating
these in'onsisten'ies. The in'onsisten'ies are
"aterial as the! delve into the ver! otto" of
>:
><
>9
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +0+ +0+
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
the 6uestion of whether or not %P)1 Caa!a
reall! found a firear" in the house of
petitioner.
%P)1 Caa!a testified that he entered
the house with four other poli'e"en$ a"ong
who" were %P)1 8ara$ %P)< Pene!ra$ %P):
.ernae )'ado &%P): )'adoA and another
one whose na"e he does not re"e"er.
>E

K;EL


+hile sear'hing$ he dis'overed the firear" in
the #it'hen$ inside a 'losed 'ainet near the
door.
>DK;DL
He said that %P)1 8ara was
standing right ehind hi"$ at a distan'e of @ust
one "eter$ when he &Caa!aA saw the
firear"(
>>K;>L
and that he pi'#ed up the gun$
held it and showed it to %P)1 8ara.
>2K;2L
He
asserted that %P); Renon was not one of
those who went inside the house.
2CK:CL

However$ %P)1 8ara$ the est witness who
'ould have 'orroorated %P)1 Caa!aOs
testi"on!$ related a different stor! as to the
'ir'u"stan'es of the firear"Os dis'over!.
%P)1 8ara testified that he "erel! 'ondu'ted
peri"eter se'urit! during the sear'h and did
not enter or parti'ipate in sear'hing the
house.
21

K:;L
%P)1 8ara testified that he
re"ained outside the house throughout the
sear'h$ and when %P)1 Caa!a shouted and
showed a gun$ he was seven to eight "eters
awa! fro" hi".
2;

K::L
He 'ould not see the
inside of the house and 'ould see Caa!a onl!
fro" his 'hest up.
2:K:<L
He did not see the
firear" at the pla'e where it was found$ ut
saw it onl! when Caa!a raised his ar" to
show the gun$ whi'h was a revolver.
2<K:9L
H"
< !"$t/3 t1/t 1" #/< 3ot #t1 C/;/y/ /t
t1" t0" t1" l/tt"$ 5<!o6"$"5 t1"
4$"/$0.
29K:EL
He further testified that %P):
)'ado$ who$ a''ording to %P)1 Caa!a was
one of those near hi" when he &Caa!aA
dis'overed the firear"$ sta!ed outside and did
not enter or sear'h the house.
2EK:DL

P,Insp. .aldovino testified that onl! %P);
Renon 'ondu'ted the sear'h and entered the
house together with %P)1 Caa!a$
2D

K:>L
dire'tl!
'ontradi'ting %P)1 Caa!aOs testi"on! that
he$ together with %P)1 8ara$ %P)< Pene!ra$
%P): )'ado$ and another one whose na"e he
'annot re'all$ were inside the house when he
>E
>D
>>
>2
2C
21
2;
2:
2<
29
2E
2D
dis'overed the gun
2>

K:2L
and that %P); Renon
did not enter the house of petitioner.
22K<CL
The testi"onies of the other prose'ution
witnesses further "uddled the prose'ution
eviden'e with "ore in'onsisten'ies as to
"atters "aterial to the deter"ination of
whether a gun had in fa't een found in the
house of petitioner. %P)< Pene!ra testified
that Gaes sta!ed outside of the during the
sear'h(
1CC

K92L
whereas %P)1 8ara testified that
Gaes was inside$ at the sala$ ut the latter
saw the gun onl! when %P)1 Caa!a raised
it.
1C1KECL

Although the Court has held that
fra"e-up is inherentl! one of the wea#est
defenses$
1C;KE1L as it is oth easil! 'on'o'ted and diffi'ult to prove$1C:KE;L
in the present 'ase$
the lower 'ourts
seriousl! erred in
ignoring
the wea#ness of the prose'utionOs eviden'e and its failure to prove the
guilt of petitioner
e!ond reasonale dout
.

T1" $)l"


$
"H)$32 / !l/0 o4 4$/0"G)& to ;" <)&&o$t"5 ;y !l"/$ /35 !o363!32
"65"3!"

+09

=-*>

#/< 3"6"$ 3t"35"5 to <14t
to t1" /!!)<"5
t1" ;)$5"3 o4 &$oo4 3 / !$03/l !/<".
As
the Court held
in *eople
of the *hilippines v. Am+ih:
1C9KE<L
K+Lhile the lone defense of the a''used that
he was the vi'ti" of a fra"e-up is easil!
fari'ated$ this 'lai" assu"es i"portan'e
when fa'ed with the rather sha#! nature of the
prose'ution eviden'e. It is well to re"e"er
that the prose'ution "ust rel!$ not on the
wea#ness of the defense eviden'e$ ut rather
on its own proof whi'h "ust e strong enough
to 'onvin'e this Court that the prisoner in the
do'# deserves to e punished. T1"
!o3<tt)to3/l &$"<)0&to3 < t1/t t1"
/!!)<"5 < 33o!"3t "6"3 4 1< 5"4"3<" <
#"/I /< lo32 /< t1" &$o<"!)to3 < 3ot
<t$o32 "3o)21 to !o36!t 10.
1CEKE9L
&E"phasis suppliedA
In *eople of the *hilippines v.
4on?ales$
1CDKEEL
the Court held that where there
was "aterial and une3plained in'onsisten'!
etween the testi"onies of two prin'ipal
prose'ution witnesses relating not to
in'onse6uential details ut to the alleged
transa'tion itself whi'h is su@e't of the 'ase$
the inherent i"proale 'hara'ter of the
testi"on! given ! one of the two prin'ipal
prose'ution witnesses had the effe't of
vitiating the testi"on! given ! the other
2>
22
1CC
1C1
1C;
1C:
1C<
1C9
1CE
1CD
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +02 +02
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
prin'ipal prose'ution witness.
1C>KEDL
The Court
ruled that it 'annot @ust dis'ard the i"proale
testi"on! of one offi'er and adopt the
testi"on! of the other that is "ore
plausile.
1C2KE>L
In su'h a situation$ oth
testi"onies lose their proative value. The
Court further held:
+h! should two &;A poli'e offi'ers give two &;A
'ontradi'tor! des'riptions of the sa"e sale
transa'tion$ whi'h allegedl! too# pla'e efore
their ver! e!es$ on the sa"e ph!si'al lo'ation
and on the sa"e o''asionJ +e "ust 'on'lude
that a reasonale dout was generated as to
whether or not the Iu!-ustI operation ever
too# pla'e.
11CKE2L
In the present 'ase$ to repeat$ the glaring
'ontradi'tor! testi"onies of the prose'ution
witnesses generate serious dout as to
whether a firear" was reall! found in the
house of petitioner. The prose'ution utterl!
failed to dis'harge its urden of proving that
petitioner is guilt! of illegal possession of
firear"s e!ond reasonale dout. The
'onstitutional presu"ption of inno'en'e of
petitioner has not een de"olished and
therefore petitioner should e a'6uitted of the
'ri"e he was with.
Read also:
P. vs. .ernardino$ 8anuar! ;>$
1221
1-a. P vs. 0lores$ 1E9 %CRA D1
1-. Aguirre vs. P.$ 199 %CRA ::D
1-'. P. vs. /uinto$ 1>< %CRA ;>D
1-d. P. vs. %olis$ 1>; %CRA 1>;
1-e. P. vs. Capilitan$ 1>; %CRA :1:
;. Alonso vs. IAC$ 191 %CRA 99;
:. P vs. *ope?$ D< %CRA ;C9
<. P vs. Nuiason$ D> %CRA 91:
9. P vs. 8ose$ :D %CRA <9C
E. P vs. Polador$ DE %CRA E:<
D. Du"lao vs. Co"ele'$ 29 %CRA
:2;
:. Presu"ption of inno'en'e in general
and in the order of trial
PEOPLE VS. DE LOS SANTOS' *88
SCRA 9+8
PEOPLE VS. SATURNO' *88 SCRA 8.8
+hat is the EEUIPOISE RULEU
A. If the eviden'e in a
'ri"inal 'ase is evenl! alan'ed$ the
'onstitutional presu"ption of inno'en'e
tilts the s'ale of @usti'e in favor of the
1C>
1C2
11C
a''used and he should e a'6uitted fro"
the 'ri"e 'harged.
+here the in'ulpator! fa'ts and
'ir'u"stan'es are 'apale of two or "ore
interpretations one of whi'h is 'onsistent
with the inno'en'e of the a''used and the
other 'onsistent with his guilt$ then the
eviden'e does not fulfill the test of "oral
'ertaint! and is not suffi'ient to support a
'onvi'tion.
Read:
1. Ale@andro vs. Pepito$ 2E %CRA :;;
<. %a'a! vs. %andigana!an$ 8ul!
1C$l2>E
SACAY VS. SANDIGAN:AYAN
/.R. 1o. *-EE<2D-2>$8ul! 1C$ 12>E
FACTSD
1. At the initial hearing$ the testi"on! of
the prose'ution witnesses was interrupted
when the a''used$ through 'ounsel$
ad"itted that he shot the de'eased ut
'lai"ed that it was done in self-defense
and fulfill"ent of dut!. The prose'ution
then "oved that the reverse pro'edure e
adopted in view of the ad"ission that the
a''used shot the de'eased. 1o o@e'tion
was interposed ! the a''used or his
'ounsel.
;. )n appeal with the %.C. after he was
'onvi'ted the a''used later 'lai"s that
there was a violation of the order of trial
provided for in %e'. :$ Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court. He also 'ites the 'ase of
Ale@andro vs. Pepito$ 2E %CRA :;;$
wherein the %.C. ruled that : IIt ehooved
the respondent 8udge to have followed the
se6uen'e of trial set forth 3 3 3 the for"
of a trial is also a "atter of puli' order
and interest( the orderl! 'ourse of
pro'edure re6uires that the prose'ution
should go forward and present all of its
proof in the first instan'e.I
HELDD
The 'ase of Ale@andro vs. Pepito is not
appli'ale inas"u'h as the a''used in the
'ase at ar did not o@e't to the
pro'edure followed. In fa't in the said
Ale@andro 'ase$ the Court also stated:
IIt is true that in the 'ase of U.S.
6<. G/o$/3' +. P1l. 909 (l,+0%' relied
upon ! the prose'ution and the trial
Court$ the defense has produ'ed its proofs
efore the prose'ution presented its 'ase$
and it was held that no sustantial rights
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +0* +0*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
of the a''used were pre@udi'ed. There is
one radi'al differen'e$ however$ sin'e in
that 'ase no o@e'tion was entered in the
Court elow to the pro'edure followed in
the presentation of proof. In this 'ase$ the
'hange in the order of trial "ade !
respondent 8udge was pro"ptl! and
ti"el! o@e'ted to ! the defense.I
In fa't it should e noted that under
the newl! adopted 12>9 Rules of Cri"inal
Pro'edure &%e'. :eA$ Rule 112Athe said
pro'edure is now e3pressl! san'tioned.
Thus:
IHowever$ when the a''used
ad"its the a't or o"ission 'harged in the
'o"plaint or infor"ation ut interposes a
lawful defense$ the order of trial "a! e
"odified a''ordingl!.I
:.%e'. :&:A$ Rule 112 $ 12>9 Rules on
Cri"inal Pro'edure $ as a"ended.
<. )ther 'ases -
Read:
1. P vs. )pida$ 8une 1:$12>E
;. P vs. Te"pong#o$ )'toer ;$12>E
:. P vs. Dra""a!o$ <; %CRA 92
<. P vs. 0ernando$ 1<9 %CRA 191
9. P vs. Tolentino$ 1<9 %CRA 92D
E. Castillo vs. 0ilte3$ %epte"er
:C$12>:
D. Du"lao vs. C)4E*EC$ supra
9. Right to 'ounsel-during trial
1. Reason ehind the re6uire"ent
;. )ligation of the @udge to an
a''used who appears in 'ourt
without a law!er to assist hi"
Read:
1. P vs. Holgado$>9 Phil. D9;
;. Delgado vs. CA$ 1<9 %CRA :9D
:. P vs. Cuison$ 12: Phil. ;2E
9-a. The right to e heard ! hi"self and
'ounsel during trial
8)H1 HI*ARI) F%. PE)P*E )0 THE
PHI*IPPI1E%$ /.R. 1o. 1E1CDC$ April 1<$
;CC>
THE 0ACT%:
Petitioner$ together with one /ilert
Ali@id &Ali@idA$ was 'harged with two 'ounts
111K:L
of 4urder in the Regional Trial Court &RTCA$
111 K:L
Do'#eted as Cri"inal Case
1os. N-CC-21E<D-<>.
.ran'h DE$ Nue?on Cit! to whi'h petitioner$
assisted ! 'ounsel de parte$ pleaded not
guilt!.
During trial$ Att!. Raul Rivera of the
Puli' Attorne!Os )ffi'e &PA)A$ 'ounsel of Ali@id$
too# over representing petitioner in view of the
death of the latterOs 'ounsel.
)n De'e"er 9$ ;CC1$ the RTC rendered its
De'ision
11;K<L
finding petitioner and his 'o-
a''used Ali@id guilt! e!ond reasonale dout
of the 'ri"e of ho"i'ide and senten'ing the"
to suffer i"prison"ent of eight &>A !ears and
one &1A da! of prision mayor to fourteen &1<A
!ears and eight &>A "onths of re3lusion
temporal in ea'h 'ount.
)n 4a! 1C$ ;CC;$ petitioner$ this ti"e
unassisted ! 'ounsel$ filed with the RTC a
Petition for Relief
11:K9L
fro" the De'ision dated
De'e"er 9$ ;CC1 together with an affidavit of
"erit. In his petition$ petitioner 'ontended
that at the ti"e of the pro"ulgation of the
@udg"ent$ he was alread! 'onfined at Nue?on
Cit! 8ail and was dire'ted to e 'o""itted to
the 1ational Penitentiar! in 4untinlupa( that
he had no wa! of personall! filing the noti'e of
appeal thus he instru'ted his law!er to file it on
his ehalf( that he had no 'hoi'e ut to repose
his full trust and 'onfiden'e to his law!er( that
he had instru'ted his law!er to file the
ne'essar! "otion for re'onsideration or noti'e
of appeal( that on 4a! ;$ ;CC;$ he was
alread! in'ar'erated at the 1ew .iliid Prisons$
4untinlupa Cit! and learned fro" the
grapevine of his i"pending transfer to the
Iwahig Penal Colon!$ Palawan( that elieving
that the noti'e of appeal filed ! his 'ounsel
prevented the De'ision dated De'e"er 9$
;CC1 fro" e'o"ing final to warrant his
transfer$ he instru'ted his representative to get
a 'op! of the noti'e of appeal fro" the RTC(
that no noti'e of appeal was filed ! his law!er
in defian'e of his 'lear instru'tions( and that
the RTC De'ision showed that it was re'eived
! his 'ounsel on 0eruar! 1$ ;CC; and !et
the 'ounsel did not infor" hi" of an! a'tion
ta#en thereon.
I % % - E:
+hether or not the dela! in appealing
the instant 'ase due to the defian'e or failure
of the petitionerOs 'ounsel de ofi3io to
seasonal! file a 1oti'e of Appeal$ 'onstitutes
e3'usale negligen'e to entitle the
undersigned detention prisoner, petitioner to
pursue his appealJ
+hether or not pro ha3 vi3e$ the "ere
112 K<L
Penned ! 8udge 4onina A.
Benarosa$ rollo$ pp. :E-9;.
113 K9L
Id. at 9:-EC.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +09 +09
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
invo'ation of @usti'e warrants the review of a
final and e3e'utor! @udg"entJ
HE*D:
Petitioner 'ontends that the negligen'e
of his 'ounsel de ofi3io 'annot e inding on
hi" for the latterOs defian'e of his instru'tion to
appeal auto"ati'all! rea#s the fidu'iar!
relationship etween 'ounsel-'lient and 'annot
e against the 'lient who was pre@udi'ed( that
this rea'h of trust 'annot easil! e 'on'o'ted
in this situation 'onsidering that it was a
'ounsel de ofi3io$ a law!er fro" PA)$ who
ro#e the fidu'iar! relationship( that the
assailed CA Resolutions oth harped on
te'hni'alities to uphold the dis"issal ! the
RTC of his petition for relief( that relian'e on
te'hni'alities to the pre@udi'e of petitioner who
is serving 1< !ears i"prison"ent for a 'ri"e
he did not 'o""it is an affront to the poli'!
pro"ulgated ! this Court that dis"issal
purel! on te'hni'al grounds is frowned upon
espe'iall! if it will result to unfairness( and that
it would have een for the est interest of
@usti'e for the CA to have dire'ted the
petitioner to 'o"plete the re'ords instead of
dis"issing the petition outright.
In his Co""ent$ the )%/ argues that
the "ere invo'ation of @usti'e does not warrant
the review of an appeal fro" a final and
e3e'utor! @udg"ent( that perfe'tion of an
appeal in the "anner and within the period
laid down ! law is not onl! "andator! ut
@urisdi'tional and failure to perfe't the appeal
renders the @udg"ent sought to e reviewed
final and not appealale( and that petitionerOs
appeal after the finalit! of @udg"ent of
'onvi'tion is an e3er'ise in futilit!$ thus the RTC
properl! dis"issed petitionerOs petition for
relief fro" @udg"ent. The )%/ further 'lai"s
that noti'e to 'ounsel is noti'e to 'lients and
failure of 'ounsel to notif! his 'lient of an
adverse @udg"ent would not 'onstitute
e3'usale negligen'e and therefore inding on
the 'lient.
+e grant the petition.
A litigant who is not a law!er
is not e3pe'ted to #now the rules of pro'edure.
In fa't$ even the "ost e3perien'ed law!ers get
tangled in the we of pro'edure.
11<K1;L
+e
have held in a 'ivil 'ase that to de"and as
"u'h fro" ordinar! 'iti?ens whose onl!
3ompelle intrare is their sense of right would
turn the legal s!ste" into an inti"idating
"onstrosit! where an individual "a! e
stripped of his propert! rights not e'ause he
has no right to the propert! ut e'ause he
114 K1;L
%ee 5elan v. Court of
Appeals$ /.R. 1o. 29C;E$ )'toer
<$ 1221$ ;C; %CRA 9:<$ 9<1.
does not #now how to estalish su'h right.
119
K1:L
This finds appli'ation spe'iall! if the liert!
of a person is at sta#e. As we held in 5elan v.
Court of Appeals:
The right to 'ounsel in 'ivil 'ases e3ists @ust as
for'efull! as in 'ri"inal 'ases$ spe'iall! so
when as a 'onse6uen'e$ life$ liert!$ or
propert! is su@e'ted to restraint or in danger
of loss.
I3 !$03/l !/<"<' t1" $21t o4 /3 /!!)<"5
&"$<o3 to ;" /<<<t"5 ;y / 0"0;"$ o4 t1"
;/$ < 00)t/;l". Ot1"$#<"' t1"$"
#o)l5 ;" / 2$/6" 5"3/l o4 5)" &$o!"<<.
T1)<' "6"3 4 t1" B)520"3t 1/5 ;"!o0"
43/l /35 "A"!)to$y' t 0/y <tll ;"
$"!/ll"5' /35 t1" /!!)<"5 /44o$5"5 t1"
o&&o$t)3ty to ;" 1"/$5 ;y 10<"l4 /35
!o)3<"l.
3 3 3 3
Even the "ost e3perien'ed law!ers get
tangled in the we of pro'edure. The de"and
as "u'h fro" ordinar! 'iti?ens whose onl!
3ompelle intrare is their sense of right would
turn the legal s!ste" into an inti"idating
"onstrosit! where an individual "a! e
stripped of his propert! rights not e'ause he
has no right to the propert! ut e'ause he
does not #now how to estalish su'h right.
The right to 'ounsel is asolute and "a! e
invo#ed at all ti"es. 4ore so$ in the 'ase of an
on-going litigation$ it is a right that "ust e
e3er'ised at ever! step of the wa!$ with the
law!er faithfull! #eeping his 'lient 'o"pan!.
No /$$/32"0"3t o$ 3t"$&$"t/to3 o4 l/#
!o)l5 ;" /< /;<)$5 /< t1" &o<to3 t1/t
t1" $21t to !o)3<"l "A<t< o3ly 3 t1" t$/l
!o)$t< /35 t1/t t1"$"/4t"$' t1" $21t
!"/<"< 3 t1" &)$<)t o4 t1" /&&"/l.
11EK1<L
&E"phasis suppliedA
To repeat the ruling in 5elan$ no
arrange"ent or interpretation of law 'ould e
as asurd as the position that the right to
'ounsel e3ists onl! in the trial 'ourts and that
thereafter$ the right 'eases in the pursuit of the
appeal.
11DK19L
It is even "ore i"portant to note
that petitioner was not assisted ! 'ounsel
when he filed his petition for relief fro"
@udg"ent with the RTC.
It 'annot e overstressed therefore$ that in
'ri"inal 'ases$ as held in 5elan $ the right of an
a''used person to e assisted ! a "e"er of
the ar is i""utale( otherwise$ there would
e a grave denial of due pro'ess.
115 K1:L
Id.
116K1<L
Id. at 9<C-9<1.
117 K19L
Id. at 9<1.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +08 +08
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
Cases should e deter"ined on the
"erits after full opportunit! to all parties for
ventilation of their 'auses and defenses$ rather
than on te'hni'alit! or so"e pro'edural
i"perfe'tions. In that wa!$ the ends of @usti'e
would e served etter.
11>K1EL
+hile as a general rule$ the failure of
petitioner to file his "otion for re'onsideration
within the 19-da! regle"entar! period fi3ed !
law rendered the resolution final and
e3e'utor!$ we have on so"e o''asions rela3ed
this rule. Thus$ in Barnes v. *adilla
112K1DL
we
held:
However$ this Court has rela3ed this rule in
order to serve sustantial @usti'e 'onsidering
&aA "atters of life$ liert!$ honor or propert!$
&A the e3isten'e of spe'ial or 'o"pelling
'ir'u"stan'es$ &'A the "erits of the 'ase$ &dA a
'ause not entirel! attriutale to the fault or
negligen'e of the part! favored ! the
suspension of the rules$ &eA a la'# of an!
showing that the review sought is "erel!
frivolous and dilator!$ and &fA the other part!
will not e un@ustl! pre@udi'ed there!.

Invarial!$ rules of pro'edure should
e viewed as "ere tools designed to fa'ilitate
the attain"ent of @usti'e. Their stri't and rigid
appli'ation$ whi'h would result in te'hni'alities
that tend to frustrate rather than pro"ote
sustantial @usti'e$ "ust alwa!s e es'hewed.
Even the Rules of Court refle'ts this prin'iple.
The power to suspend or even disregard rules
'an e so pervasive and 'o"pelling as to alter
even that whi'h this Court itself had alread!
de'lared to e final.
In De /u?"an v. %andigana!an$ this Court$
spea#ing through the late 8usti'e Ri'ardo 8.
0ran'is'o$ had o''asion to state:
The Rules of Court was 'on'eived and
pro"ulgated to set forth guidelines in the
dispensation of @usti'e ut not to ind and
'hain the hand that dispenses it$ for otherwise$
'ourts will e "ere slaves to or roots of
te'hni'al rules$ shorn of @udi'ial dis'retion.
That is pre'isel! wh! 'ourts in rendering
@usti'e have alwa!s een$ as the! ought to e
guided ! the nor" that when on the alan'e$
te'hni'alities ta#e a a'#seat against
sustantive rights$ and not the other wa!
around. Trul! then$ te'hni'alities$ in the
appropriate language of 8usti'e 4a#alintal$
Ishould give wa! to the realities of the
situation.
118 K1EL
4ar3ia v. *hilippine Airlines$
@n3.$ supra note 11$ at D>1.
119 K1DL
/.R. 1o. 1ECD9:$
%epte"er :C$ ;CC<$ <:2 %CRA
ED9.

Indeed$ the e"erging trend in the rulings of
this Court is to afford ever! part! litigant the
a"plest opportunit! for the proper and @ust
deter"ination of his 'ause$ free fro" the
'onstraints of te'hni'alities.
1;CK1>L
4oreover$ in Bas3o v. Court of
Appeals,
1;1K12L
we also held:
1onetheless$ pro'edural rules were
'on'eived to aid the attain"ent of @usti'e. If a
stringent appli'ation of the rules would hinder
rather than serve the de"ands of sustantial
@usti'e$ the for"er "ust !ield to the latter.
Re'ogni?ing this$ %e'tion ;$ Rule 1 of the Rules
of Court spe'ifi'all! provides that:
%ECTI)1 ;. Constru3tion. T These rules
shall e lierall! 'onstrued in order to pro"ote
their o@e't and to assist the parties in
otaining @ust$ speed!$ and ine3pensive
deter"ination of ever! a'tion and
pro'eeding.
1;;K;CL


Rules of pro'edure are "ere tools designed to
e3pedite the de'ision or resolution of 'ases
and other "atters pending in 'ourt. A stri't
and rigid appli'ation of rules that would result
in te'hni'alities that tend to frustrate rather
than pro"ote sustantial @usti'e "ust e
avoided.
1;:K;1L
Even if the @udg"ent had e'o"e final and
e3e'utor!$ it "a! still e re'alled$ and the
a''used afforded the opportunit! to e heard
! hi"self and 'ounsel.
1;<K;;L
However$
instead of re"anding the 'ase to the CA for a
de'ision on the "erits$ we opt to resolve the
sa"e so as not to further dela! the final
disposition of this 'ase.
In all 'ri"inal prose'utions$ the
a''used shall have the right to appeal in the
"anner pres'ried ! law. The i"portan'e
and real purpose of the re"ed! of appeal has
een e"phasi?ed in Castro v. Court of
Appeals
1;9K;DL
where we ruled that an appeal is
an essential part of our @udi'ial s!ste" and
trial 'ourts are advised to pro'eed with 'aution
120 K1>L
Id. at E>E-E>D.
121 K12L
:2; Phil. ;91 &;CCCA.
122K;CL
Id. at ;EE.
123 K;1L
Cusi9ernande? v. Spouses
Dia?$ :2C Phil. 1;<9$ 1;9; &;CCCA.
124 K;;L
5elan v. Court of Appeals$
supra note 1;$ at 9<C-9<1( *eople
of the *hilippines v. 9olgado$ >9
Phil. D9;$ D9E-D9D &129CA( Glores
v. )udge .ui?$ 1D2 Phil. :91$ :99
&12D2A( Delgado v. Court of
Appeals, ;;2 Phil. :E;$ :EE
&12>EA.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +0- +0-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
so as not to deprive a part! of the right to
appeal and instru'ted that ever! part!-litigant
should e afforded the a"plest opportunit! for
the proper and @ust disposition of his 'ause$
freed fro" the 'onstraints of te'hni'alities.
W1l" t1< $21t < <t/t)to$y' o3!" t <
2$/3t"5 ;y l/#' 1o#"6"$' t< <)&&$"<<o3
#o)l5 ;" / 6ol/to3 o4 5)" &$o!"<<' /
$21t 2)/$/3t""5 ;y t1" Co3<tt)to3.
Thus$ the i"portan'e of finding out whether
petitionerOs loss of the right to appeal was due
to the PA) law!erOs negligen'e and not at all
attriuted to petitioner.
PEOPLE VS. NADERA' (R.' *29 SCRA PEOPLE VS. NADERA' (R.' *29 SCRA
9,0 9,0
4endo?a$ 8.
The 'avalier attitude of Att!. 4anolo
.rotonel of the PA) 'annot go unnoti'ed.
It is dis'ernile in KaL his refusal to 'ross-
e3a"ine )le! 1adera &the 'o"plainant
for RAPEA( KL the "anner in whi'h he
'ondu'ted 4ari'ris 1adera=s 'ross-
e3a"ination( and K'L his failure not onl!
to present eviden'e for the a''used ut to
infor" the a''used of his right to do so$ if
he desires. )nl! the faithful perfor"an'e
! 'ounsel of his dut! towards his 'lient
'an give "eaning and sustan'e to the
a''used=s right to due pro'ess and to e
presu"ed inno'ent until proven otherwise.
Hen'e$ a law!er=s dut!$ espe'iall! that of a
defense 'ounsel$ "ust not e ta#en
lightl!. It "ust e perfor"ed with all the
?eal and vigor at his 'o""and to prote't
and safeguard the a''used=s funda"ental
rights.
It "a! e so that the defense
'ounsel reall! found )le!=s testi"on! to
e elievale. 1onetheless$ he had the
ounden dut! to s'rutini?e private
'o"plainant=s testi"on! to ensure that
the a''used=s 'onstitutional right to
'onfront and e3a"ine the witnesses
against hi" was not rendered for naught.
It ears pointing out that in rape 'ases$ it
is often the words of the 'o"plainant
against the a''used$ the two eing the
onl! persons present during the
'o""ission of the 'ri"e. This is so
e'ause the 'o"plainant=s testi"on!
'annot e a''epted with pre'ipitate
'redulit! without den!ing the a''used=s
'onstitutional right to e presu"ed
inno'ent. This is where 'ross-e3a"ination
e'o"es essential to test the 'rediilit! of
the witnesses$ e3pose falsehoods or half-
truths$ un'over the truth whi'h rehearsed
dire't e3a"ination testi"onies "a!
1;9
su''essfull! suppress$ and de"onstrate
in'onsisten'ies in sustantial "atters
whi'h 'reate reasonale dout as to the
guilt of the a''used and thus give
sustan'e to the 'onstitutional right of
the a''used to 'onfront the witnesses
against hi". 0or unless proven otherwise
to e guilt! e!ond reasonale dout$ the
a''used is presu"ed inno'ent.
&1)TE: 0or !our *egal H 8udi'ial Ethi'sA
Att!. .rotonel as 'ounsel de ofi'io$
had the dut! to defend his 'lient and
prote't his rights$ no "atter how guilt! or
evil he per'eives a''used-appellant to e.
The perfor"an'e of this dut! was all the
"ore i"perative e'ause the life of the
a''used-appellant hangs in the alan'e.
His dut! was no less e'ause he was
'ounsel de ofi'io.
The De'ision of the RTC 'onvi'ting
the a''used is %ET A%IDE and the 'ase is
re"anded for further pro'eedings
'onsistent with this de'ision.
Read:
1. P vs. Dis'hoso$ 2E %CRA 29D
;. Read also:
PEOPLE VS. YAM:OT' G.R. NO.
+20*80' *9* SCRA 20' OCT. *0' 20007
PEOPLE VS. :ANIHIT' G.R. NO.
+*2098' **, SCRA 8-' AUG. 28' 2000.
Right to e Heard ! hi"self and
'ounsel and to present eviden'e for his
defense.
In this 'ase$ the non-appearan'e of
'ounsel for the a''used on the s'heduled
hearing was not 'onstrued as waiver !
the a''used of his right to present
eviden'e for his defense. Denial of due
pro'ess 'an e su''essfull! invo#ed where
no valid waiver of rights had een "ade
as in this 'ase.
In another 'ase$ the a''used-
appellant validl! waived his right to
present eviden'e. This is in 'onsonan'e
with the do'trine that ever!one has a
right to waive the advantage of a law or
rule "ade solel! for the enefit and
prote'tion of the individual in his private
'apa'it!$ if it 'an e dispensed with and
relin6uished without infringing on an!
puli' right$ and without detri"ent to the
'o""unit! at large.
E. The right to e present during trial
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +0. +0.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
Read:
1. A6uino vs. 4ilitar! Co""ission$ E:
%CRA 9<E
;. P vs. 8udge$ 1;9 %CRA ;E2
:. +aiver of the defendantOs presen'e
in a 'ri"inal prose'ution$DD %CRA
<:C
D. The right to a speed! trial
(AIME :ERNAT VS. SANDIGAN:AYAN'
M/y 20' 2009
Right to speed! disposition of 'ase.
0a'ts:
1. )n August 1<$ 1221$ the
petitioner and several others were
'harged of violation of %e'tion : KeL of RA
:C12$ otherwise #nown as the Anti-graft
and Corrupt Pra'ti'es A't(
;. )n August ;:$ 122< after the
presentation of the parties= eviden'e$ the
'ase was dee"ed su"itted for de'ision
efore the ;
nd
Division(
:. Thereafter$ the 'ase was
unloaded to the newl! 'reated 9
th
Division$
parti'ularl! to 8usti'e /odofredo *egaspi
and later re-assigned to 8usti'e 4a.
Cristina Corte?-Estrada upon her
assu"ption of offi'e on 1ove"er :$
122>.
<. In the earl! part of ;CC; while
8usti'e Estrada was writing the de'ision of
the 'ase$ she found out that the
1ove"er ;E$ 122: trans'ript of
stenographi' notes$ whi'h was the 'ross-
e3a"ination of the petitioner$ was "issing
so she 'alled the parties for a 'onferen'e
on April 12$ ;CC; to dis'uss the "atter.
9. Instead of attending the
'onferen'e$ petitioner filed a "otion to
dis"iss the 'ase ased on the alleged
violation of his right to speed! trial. The
Court denied the sa"e as well as the
suse6uent 4otion for Re'onsideration.
Hen'e$ this Petition.
Issue:
+as there violation of the
petitioner=s right to a speed! disposition of
his 'ase when the sa"e was not de'ided
for al"ost > !ears fro" the ti"e it was
5dee"ed su"itted for de'isionJ7
Held:
1o. The right is violated onl! if the
pro'eedings were attended ! ve3atious$
'apri'ious and oppressive dela!s. The
deter"ination of whether the dela!s are of
said nature is relative and 'annot e
ased on "ere "athe"ati'al re'#oning of
ti"e. Parti'ular regard to the fa'ts and
'ir'u"stan'es of the 'ase. As held in the
'ase of DE *A PE1A F%. %A1DI/A1.AGA1$
'ertain fa'tors shall e 'onsidered and
alan'ed to deter"ine if there is dela!$ as
follows:
+. L"32t1 o4 t1" 5"l/y7
2. R"/<o3< 4o$ t1" 5"l/y7
*. A<<"$to3 o$ 4/l)$" to
/<<"$t <)!1 $21t ;y t1" /!!)<"57 /35
9. P$"B)5!"5 !/)<"5 ;y t1"
5"l/y.
There is no violation of the right to speed!
disposition of his 'ase e'ause petitioner
failed to assert his 'onstitutional right to a
speed! disposition of his 'ase. During the
>-!ear period prior to April 12$ ;CC;$
petitioner did not 'o"plain aout the long
dela! in de'iding his 'ase.
a. Read Ad"in. Cir'ular 1o. < of the
%upre"e Court dated %epte"er
;;$ 12>>
. Depart"ent of 8usti'e Cir'ular 1o.
;D$ dated %epte"er 1E$ 12>>
'. +hen shall this right starts
Read:
1. P vs. )rsal$ 11: %CRA ;;E
d. To what pro'eedings is this right
availale
Read:
1. Caallero vs. Alfonso$ 19: %CRA
19:
e. In general
Read:
1. The right to speed! trial$ ;> %CRA
EC1
;. Conde vs. Rivera$ 92 Phil. E9C
:. Fentura vs. People$ 1ov. E$12DE
<. 4artin vs. Fer$ 8ul! ;9$ 12>:
9. .er"isa vs. CA$ 2; %CRa
E. *uneta vs. 4il. Co".$ 1C; %CRA 9E
D. P vs. .alad@a!$ 11: %CRA ;><
>. P vs. Araula$ 111 %CRA 92>
2. Regaspi vs. Castillo$ E2 %CRA 1EC
1C. A'evedo vs. %ar"iento$ :E %CRA
;<D
11. 1epu"u'eno vs. %e'retar!$1C>
%CRA E9>
1;. Tatad vs. %.$ 192 %CRA DC
1:. P vs. C0I of Ri?al$ 1E1 %CRA ;<2
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +08 +08
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
1<. P vs. *a!a$ 1E1 %CRA :;D
19. %al'edovs. 4endo?a$ >> %CRA >11
1E. D-TERTE F%. %A1DI/A1.AGA1$
;>2 %CRA D;1
1>. A1/CHA1/C) F%. )4.-D%4A1$
;E2 %CRA :C1
%-4.A1/ F%. /E1. C)-RT 4ARTIA*$
/.R. 1). 1<C1>>$ ::D %CRA ;;D$ A-/. :$
;CCC( .*A1C) F%. %A1DI/A1.AGA1$
/.R. 1)%. 1:ED9D R 9>$ :<E %CRA 1C>$
1)F. ;D$ ;CCC( %)*AR TEA4
E1TERTAI14E1T$ I1C. H)1. H)+$ /.R.
1). 1<C>E:$ ::> %CRA 91$ A-/. ;;$
;CCC.
S&""5y D<&o<to3 o4 C/<"<.
&iA The deter"ination of whether
an a''used had een denied the right to
speed! trial depends on the surrounding
'ir'u"stan'es of ea'h 'ase. Although it
too# aout > !ears efore the trial of this
'ase was resu"ed$ su'h dela! did not
a"ount to violation of petitioner=s right to
speed! trial 'onsidering that su'h dela!
was not ! attriutale to the prose'ution.
0a'tors to 'onsider in deter"ining
whether or not su'h right has een
violated:
1. length of dela!$
;. reasons for su'h
dela!$ and
:. assertion or
failure to assert su'h rights ! the
a''used and the pre@udi'e 'aused ! the
dela!.
&iiA %peed! Trial A't of 122>. The
authorit! of the %e'retar! of 8usti'e to
review resolutions of his suordinates
even after an infor"ation has alread!
een filed in 'ourt does not present an
irre'on'ilale 'onfli't with the :C-da!
period pres'ried in %e'. D of the %peed!
Trial A't of 122>.
>. The right to an i"partial trial
Read:
1. P vs. )pida$ 8une 1:$12>E
1-a. P vs. Tua?on$ 192 %CRA :1D
;. )laguer vs. Chief of %taff$ 4a! ;;$
12>D
:. 4ateo$ 8r. vs. Fillalu?$2C %CRA 1E
<. P vs. %enda!diego$ >1 %CRA 1;C
9. Di"a'uha vs. Con'ep'ion$ 11D
%CRA E:C
2. Right to a puli' trial
Read:
1. /ar'ia vs. Do"ingo$ 8ul! ;9$12D:
;. P vs. Ta"pus$ 4ar'h ;>$12>C
E. The right to e infor"ed of the
nature and 'ause of a''usation.
THE PE)P*E )0 THE PHI*IPPI1E% F%.
8ERRG 1ABARE1)$ /.R. 1o. 1EDD9E$ April
>$ ;CC>
THE 0ACT%:
)n 4ar'h 1D$ 1222$ appellant 8err!
1a?areno was indi'ted for violation of
Arti'le ;EE-A of the Revised Penal Code in
Cri"inal Case 1o. ;E:> for the alleged
rape of ...$ his daughter. The
infor"ation reads:
That so"eti"e and ;"t#""3
(/3)/$y +,,2 )& to D"!"0;"$ 0-'
+,,8' 3 1aranga? Co5o3'
M)3!&/lty o4 S/3 A35$"<' P$o63!"
o4 C/t/35)/3"<' P1l&&3"<$ and within
the @urisdi'tion of this Honorale Court$
the aove-na"ed a''used ! "eans of
for'e$ violen'e and inti"idation did then
and there willfull!$ unlawfull!$ feloniousl!
and repeatedl! "ade se3ual inter'ourse
with his daughter ... at the age of D
through 1< !ears old against her will.
C)1TRARG T) *A+.
1;EK1DL
)n 4a! :$ 1222$ another Infor"ation
do'#eted as Cri"inal Case 1o. ;E9C$ for
the rape of AAA$ another daughter$ was
levelled against appellant. The
Infor"ation is worded thus:
That fro" so"eti"e in 8anuar!
122C up to De'e"er 122> in Barangay
Codon$ "uni'ipalit! of %an Andres$
Catanduanes$ and within the @urisdi'tion
of the Honorale Court$ the said a''used$
eing the father of the 'o"plainant$ did
then and there willfull!$ feloniousl! and
'ri"inall! repeatedl! had se3ual
inter'ourse with her daughter AAA$ then
five !ears old up to the ti"e when she
was 19-!ears-old against her will.
C)1TRARG T) *A+.
1;DK1>L
After trial $ the a''used was found
guilt! of 6ualified rape in oth 'ases. He
appealed his 'onvi'tion to the Court of
Appeals in a''ordan'e with the People vs.
4ateo Do'trine ut the Court of Appeals
126K1DL
.ollo, p. ;1.
127K1>L
Re'ords$ Fol. II$ p. 1>.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +0, +0,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
affir"ed the RTC De'ision. Hen'e$ this
Petition efore the %upre"e Court.
I S S U ED

Is the 'onstitutional right of the
petitioner to e infor"ed of the nature
and 'ause of a''usation against hi"
violated sin'e the infor"ation failed to
spe'if! with 'ertaint! the appro3i"ate
date of the 'o""ission of the offenses for
rape whi'h is a fatal defe't.
H E L DD
The argu"ent is spe'ious. An
infor"ation is intended to infor" an
a''used of the a''usations against hi" in
order that he 'ould ade6uatel! prepare his
defense. Feril!$ an a''used 'annot e
'onvi'ted of an offense unless it is 'learl!
'harged in the 'o"plaint or infor"ation.
Thus$ to ensure that the 'onstitutional
right of the a''used to e infor"ed of the
nature and 'ause of the a''usation
against hi" is not violated$ the
infor"ation should state the na"e of the
a''used( the designation given to the
offense ! the statute( a state"ent of the
a'ts or o"issions so 'o"plained of as
'onstituting the offense( the na"e of the
offended part!( the appro3i"ate ti"e and
date of the 'o""ission of the offense(
and the pla'e where the offense has een
'o""itted.
1;>K;DL
0urther$ it "ust e"od!
the essential ele"ents of the 'ri"e
'harged ! setting forth the fa'ts and
'ir'u"stan'es that have a earing on the
'ulpailit! and liailit! of the a''used$ so
that he 'an properl! prepare for and
underta#e his defense.
1;2K;>L
However$ it is not ne'essar! for the
infor"ation to allege the date and ti"e of
the 'o""ission of the 'ri"e with
e3a'titude unless ti"e is an essential
ingredient of the offense.
1:CK;2L
In *eople
128K;DL
*eople v. Muitlong, :9< Phil. :D;$
:>> &122>A$ 'iting Rules of Cri"inal
Pro'edure &;CCCA$ Rule 11C$ %e's. E and
>.
129K;>L
Id.
130K;2L
*eople v. Santos, :2C Phil. 19C$ 1E1
&;CCCA( Rules of Cri"inal Pro'edure
&;CCCA$ Rule 11C$ %e'. 11 reads:
%e'. 11. Date of 3ommission
of the offense. R It is not ne'essar!
to state in the 'o"plaint or
infor"ation the pre'ise date the
offense was 'o""itted e3'ept when
it is a "aterial ingredient of the
offense. The offense "a! e alleged
to have een 'o""itted on a date
as near as possile to the a'tual
v. Bugayong$
1:1K:CL
the Court held that
when the ti"e given in the infor"ation is
not the essen'e of the offense$ the ti"e
need not e proven as alleged( and that
the 'o"plaint will e sustained if the proof
shows that the offense was 'o""itted at
an! ti"e within the period of the statute
of li"itations and efore the
'o""en'e"ent of the a'tion.
In *eople v. 4ianan$
1:;K:1L
the Court ruled
that the ti"e of the 'o""ission of rape is
not an ele"ent of the said 'ri"e as it is
defined in Arti'le ::9 of the Revised Penal
Code. The grava"en of the 'ri"e is the
fa't of 'arnal #nowledge under an! of the
'ir'u"stan'es enu"erated therein$ i.e.:
&1A ! using for'e or inti"idation( &;A
when the wo"an is deprived of reason or
otherwise un'ons'ious( and &:A when the
wo"an is under twelve !ears of age or is
de"ented. In a''ordan'e with Rule 11C$
%e'tion 11 of the ;CCC Rules of Cri"inal
Pro'edure$ as long as it alleges that the
offense was 'o""itted 5at an! ti"e as
near to the a'tual date at whi'h the
offense was 'o""itted$7 an infor"ation is
suffi'ient.
The do'trine was reiterated with greater
fir"ness in *eople v. Salalima
1::K:;L
and in
*eople v. Li?ada.
1:<K::L

In the 'ase under review$ the
infor"ation in Cri"inal Case 1o. ;E:>
alleged that the rape of ... transpired
5so"eti"e and etween 8anuar! 122; up
to De'e"er E$ 122> in Barangay Codon$
4uni'ipalit! of %an Andres$ Provin'e of
Catanduanes.7 In Cri"inal Case 1o. ;E9C$
the infor"ation averred that 5fro"
so"eti"e in 8anuar! 122C up to
De'e"er 122> in Barangay Codon$
4uni'ipalit! of %an Andres$ Provin'e of
Catanduanes$7 AAA was raped !
appellant. To the "ind of the Court$ the
re'itals in the infor"ations suffi'ientl!
'o"pl! with the 'onstitutional
re6uire"ent that the a''used e infor"ed
of the nature and 'ause of the a''usation
against hi".
date of its 'o""ission.
131K:CL
/.R. 1o. 1;E91>$ De'e"er ;$ 122>$
;22 %CRA 9;>.
132K:1L
/.R. 1os. 1:9;>>-2:$ %epte"er 19$
;CCC$ :<C %CRA <DD.
133K:;L
/.R. 1os. 1:D2E2-D1$ August 19$
;CC1$ :E: %CRA 12;.
134K::L
/.R. 1os. 1<:<E>-D1$ 8anuar! ;<$
;CC:$ :2E %CRA E;.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++0 ++0
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
In *eople v. 4ar3ia$
1:9K:<L
the Court
upheld a 'onvi'tion for ten 'ounts of rape
ased on an Infor"ation whi'h alleged
that the a''used 'o""itted "ultiple rapes
5fro" 1ove"er 122C up to 8ul! ;1$
122<.7 In *eople v. 2spe7on$
1:EK:9L
the
Court found the appellant liale for rape
under an infor"ation 'harging that he
perpetrated the offense 5so"eti"e in the
!ear 12>; and dates suse6uent thereto7
and 5so"eti"e in the !ear 1229 and
suse6uent thereto.7
In the 'ase under review$ the
infor"ation in Cri"inal Case 1o. ;E:>
alleged that the rape of ... transpired
5so"eti"e and etween 8anuar! 122; up
to De'e"er E$ 122> in Barangay Codon$
4uni'ipalit! of %an Andres$ Provin'e of
Catanduanes.7 In Cri"inal Case 1o. ;E9C$
the infor"ation averred that 5fro"
so"eti"e in 8anuar! 122C up to
De'e"er 122> in Barangay Codon$
4uni'ipalit! of %an Andres$ Provin'e of
Catanduanes$7 AAA was raped !
appellant. To the "ind of the Court$ the
re'itals in the infor"ations suffi'ientl!
'o"pl! with the 'onstitutional
re6uire"ent that the a''used e infor"ed
of the nature and 'ause of the a''usation
against hi".
Indeed$ this Court has ruled that
allegations that rapes were 'o""itted
5efore and until )'toer 19$ 122<$7
1:DK:EL
5so"eti"e in the !ear 1221 and the da!s
thereafter$7
1:>K:DL
and 5on or aout and
so"eti"e in the !ear 12>>7
1:2K:>L
'onstitute suffi'ient 'o"plian'e with Rule
11C$ %e'tion 11 of the ;CCC Rules of
Cri"inal Pro'edure.
4ore than that$ the Court notes
that the "atter of parti'ularit! of the
dates in the infor"ation is eing raised for
the first ti"e on appeal. The rule is well-
entren'hed in this @urisdi'tion that
o@e'tions as to "atter of for" or
sustan'e in the infor"ation 'annot e
"ade for the first ti"e on appeal.
1<CK:2L
Appellant failed to raise the issue of
defe'tive infor"ations efore the trial
135K:<L
/.R. 1o. 1;CC2:$ 1ove"er E$ 122D$
;>1 %CRA <E:.
136K:9L
/.R. 1o. 1:<DED$ 0eruar! ;C$ ;CC;$
:DD %CRA <1;.
137K:EL
*eople v. Bugayong, supra note :C.
138K:DL
*eople v. !ag+anua, /.R. 1o.
1;>>>>$ De'e"er :$ 1222$ :12 %CRA
D12.
139K:>L
*eople v. Santos, /.R. 1os. 1:11C:
H 1<:<D;$ 8une ;2$ ;CCC$ ::< %CRA E99.
140K:2L
*eople v. .a?ona+le, :>E Phil. DD1$
D>C &;CCCA.
'ourt. He 'ould have "oved to 6uash the
infor"ations or at least for a ill of
parti'ulars. He did not. Clearl!$ he
slu"ered on his rights and awa#ened too
late.
Too$ appellant did not o@e't to the
presentation of the eviden'e for the
People 'ontending that the offenses were
'o""itted 5so"eti"e and etween
8anuar! 122; up to De'e"er E$ 122>7
for Cri"inal Case 1o. ;E:; and 5so"eti"e
in 8anuar! 122C$ up to De'e"er 122>7 in
Cri"inal Case 1o. ;E9C. )n the 'ontrar!$
appellant a'tivel! parti'ipated in the trial$
offering denial and alii as his defenses.
%i"pl! put$ he 'annot now e heard to
'o"plain that he was unale to defend
hi"self in view of the vagueness of the
re'itals in the infor"ations.
Read:
1. %ales vs. CA$ 1E< %CRA D1D
1-a. P vs. Crisologo$ 19C %CRA E9:
1-. P vs. Corral$ 19D %CRA ED>
1-'. P vs. Resavaga$ 192 %CRA <;E
1-d. 0or"ille?a vs. %.$ 192 %CRA
;. P vs. *aado$ 2> %CRA D:C
:. Po .u *in vs. CA$ 11> %CRA 9D:
<. P. vs. Caale$ 1>9 %CRA 1<C
9. People vs. Regala$ April ;D$
12>;
11. The right to "eet witnesses fa'e to
fa'e or the right of 'onfrontation
Read:
1. P. vs. Talingdan$ 1ov. 2$ 122C
1-a. P vs. Fillalu?$ )'toer ;C$ 12>:
;. P vs. Falero$ 11; %CRA EE1
:. P vs. .undalian$ 11D %CRA D1>
<. Talino vs. %andigana!an$ 4ar'h
1E$12>D
9. P vs. %eneris$ 22 %CRA 2;
E. )rtigas$ 8R. vs. *ufthansa$ E< %CRA
E1C
D. Toledo vs. People$ ;C %CRA 9<
>. P vs. .arda@e$ 22 %CRA :>>
2. P vs. %antos$ 1:2 %CRA :>:
1C. %oli"an vs. %andigana!an$ 1<9
%CRA E<C
11. P vs. *a'una$ >D %CRA :E<
1;. P vs. Clores$ 1CC %CRA ;;D
1:. Carredo vs. People$ 1>: %CRA
;D:
1<. 0ulgado vs. CA$ 1>; %CRA >1
1;. Trial in asentia
Read:
1. .or@a vs. 4endo?a$ DD %CRA <;C
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +++ +++
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;. 1olas'o vs. Enrile$ 1:2 %CRA 9C;
:. P vs. %alas$ 1<: %CRA 1E:( 1ote
the purpose
of this provisionA
<. P vs. 8udge Prieto$ 8ul! ;1$12D>
9. /i"ene? vs. 1a?areno$ 1EC %CRA 1
E. Carredo vs. People$ 1>: %CRA
;D:
1:. Right to se'ure witnesses and
produ'tion of eviden'e.
Read:
1. Cavili vs. Hon. 0lorendo$ 19< %CRA
E1C
;. 0a@ardo vs. /ar'ia$ 2> %CRA 91<
1<. Dut! of the @udge to the a''used
efore trial
PE)P*E F%. A/.AGA1I$ ;>< %CRA :19
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
CHAPTER CV G HA:EAS CORPUS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Read:
1@n the matter of the *etition for
9a+eas Corpus of Gerdinand !ar3os,
et3, 4. ;o. 00'6#, !ay $0, $#0#
and August N :3to+er, $#0#.
1-a. Harve! vs. %antiago$ supra
;. Cru? vs. 8uan Pon'e Enrile$ April
19$12>>
:. Aadilla vs. 0idel Ra"os$ De'e"er
1$12>D
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
C9A*52. O/@ 592 .@495
A4A@;S5 S2LG@;C.@!@;A5@:;
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1. %elf-in'ri"ination$ ;< %CRA E2;
;. Read
1. Chave? vs. CA$ ;< %CRA EE:
;. /al"an vs. Pa"aran$ 1:> %CRA
;2<$ read in'luding the
'on'urring and dissenting opinions
:. Fillaflor vs. %u""ers$ <1 Phil. E;
<. .eltran vs. %a"son$ 9C Phil. 9DC
9. .agadiong vs. /on?ales$ 2< %CRA
2CE
E. .A%EC) vs. PC//$ supra
D. Isaela %ugar vs. 4a'adaeg$ 2>
Phil. 229
>. 0ernando vs. 4aglano'$ 29 Phil. <:1
2. -% vs. Tang Teng$ ;: Phil. 1<9
1C. P vs. )tadora$ >E Phil. ;<<
11. P vs. )lvis$ 19< %CRA 91:
1;. P vs. .oholst-A"adore$ 19; %CRA
;E:
1:. P vs. Rosas$ 1<> %CRA <E<
1<. P vs. Ruallo$ 19; %CRA E:9
19. P vs. Poli'arpio$ 19> %CRA
>9& Co"pare with the Rosas H
.oholst 'asesA
1E. P vs. *u"a!o#$ 1:2 %CRA 1
1D. Caal vs. Papunan$ 8r.
De'e"er ;2$ 12E;
PEOPLE VS. :ANIHIT' G.R. NO.
+*2098' **, SCRA 8-' AUG. 28' 20007
PEOPLE VS. CONTINENTE' G.R. NOS.
+0080+G 02' **, SCRA +' AUG. 28'
2000.
The essen'e of this right against
self-in'ri"ination is testi"onial
'o"pulsion or the giving of eviden'e
against oneself through a testi"onial a't.
Hen'e$ an a''used "a! e 'o"pelled to
su"it to ph!si'al e3a"ination and have a
sustan'e ta#en fro" his od! for "edi'al
deter"ination as to whether he was
suffering fro" a disease that was
'ontra'ted ! his vi'ti" without violating
this right.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
C9A*52. O/@@ 592 .@495 A4A@;S5
@;/:LU;5A.= S2./@5UD2
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1. Read:
1. A'lara'ion vs. /at"aitan$ E< %CRA
1:1
;. Caun'a vs. %ala?ar$ supra
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
C9A*52. O/@@@ .@495 A4A@;S5
C.U2L A;D U;USUAL
*U;@S9!2;5
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
a. Is the Death Penalt! alread! aolished
! the 12>D ConstitutionJ
Read:
1. P vs. /avarra$ 199 %CRa :;D
;. P vs. 4asang#a!$ 199 %CRA 11:
:. P vs. Aten'io$ 19E %CRA ;<;
<. P vs. Intino$ %epte"er ;E$ 12>>
9. People vs. 4uno?$ 1DC %CRA
1CD
. Is death as a penalt! a 'ruel or
unuasual punish"entJ
Read:
1. P vs. Estoista$ 2: Phil. E<D
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++2 ++2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;. P vs. Fillanueva$$ 1;> %CRA <>>
:. Feniegas vs. People$ 119 %CRA D2
<. P vs. Ca"ano$ 119 %CRA E>>
;. )n the death penalt! whether it was
aolished or not
Read:
a. P vs. Idna!$ 1E< %CRA :9>
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
C9A*52. O@O .@495 A4A@;S5
1)1-I4PRI%)14E1T 0)R DE.T
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1. Read:
$# 2o@ano A"# 5artine@6 $.( SCRA
,',
;. A@eno vs. In'ierto$ D1 %CRA 1EE
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
C9A*52. OO 592 .@495
A4A@;S5 D:UBL2 )2:*A.D=
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1. Re6uisites present efore this right 'an
e invo#ed
PEOPLE VS. ALMARIO' *88 SCRA + PEOPLE VS. ALMARIO' *88 SCRA +
There is doule @eopard! when
there is:
K1L valid indi't"ent(
K;L efore a 'o"petent 'ourt(
K:L after arraign"ent(
K<L when a valid plea has een
entered( and
K9L when the defendant was
'onvi'ted or a'6uitted$ or the 'ase was
dis"issed or otherwise ter"inated without
the e3press 'onsent of the a''used.
If the dis"issal is through the
instan'e of the a''used or with his
e3press 'onsent$ there is no doule
@eopard!. However$ this rule ad"its of two
&;A e3'eptions:
1A the "otion to dis"iss is ased
on insuffi'ien'! of eviden'e( and
;A the "otion to dis"iss is ased
on the denial of the a''used=s right to
speed! trial.
It "ust e pointed out$ however$ that in
PEOPLE VS. TAMPAL' 299 SCRA 202
/35 PEOPLE VS. LEVISTE' 288 SCRA
2*8$ the %C reversed the dis"issal of the
'ri"inal 'ase ! the trial 'ourt ased on
5speed! trial7 sin'e the sa"e was not
predi'ated 5on the 'lear right of the
a''used to speed! trial.7 It is onl! when
there is a 'lear violation of the a''used=s
right to speed! trial that the dis"issal
results in doule @eopard!.
:. Doule @eopard!$ 1C; %CRA << and
1; %CRA 9E1
<. +hen the a't is punished ! oth a
law and an ordinan'e:
PEOPLE VS. RELOVA' +98 SCRA 2,2
If the a''used was 'harged of
5theft of ele'tri'it!7 ased on the Cit!
)rdinan'e of .atangas and not ased on
the Revised Penal Code and later on the
'ase is dis"issed ! the @udge due to the
fa't that the 'ri"e has pres'ried$ the
govern"ent 'an no longer 'harge the
a''used of the sa"e 'ri"e under the
Revised Penal Code sin'e doule @eopard!
has set in.
Read:
1. P vs. Duero$ 1C< %CRA :D2
;. C-DIA F%. CA$ ;>< %CRA 1D:
:. C-I%)1 F%. CA$ ;>2 %CRA 192
;. P vs. 8ara$ 1<< %CRA 91E
:. P vs. Aano$ 1<9 %CRA 999
<. P vs. Tolentino$ 1<9 %CRA 92D
9. P vs. %alig$ 1:: %CRA 92
E. P vs. Cru?$ 1:: %CRA <;E
D. P vs. Prudente$$ 1:: %CRA E91
> P vs. Trinidad$ 1E; %CRA D1<$ when
the presu"ption of regularit!
doesD$ 12EE
;. P vs. Cit! Court$19< %CRA 1D9
:. /al"an vs. Pa"aran$ 1<< %CRA <:
<. P vs. 4olero$ 1<< %CRA :2D
9. P vs. Nuiate$ 1:1 %CRA >1
E. P vs. )ania$ 8une ;2$12E>
D. Dionaldo vs. Da'u!'u!$ 1C> %CRA
D:E
>. P vs. 8udge Hernando$ 1C> %CRA
1;1
2. Es"ena vs. 8udge Pogo!$ 1C; %CRA
>E1
1C. 4a?o vs. 4un. Court$ 11: %CRA
;1D
11. Andres vs. Ca'da'$ 11: %CRA ;1D
1;. .uerano vs. CA$ 119 %CRA >;
1:. P vs. 4ilitante$ 11D %CRA 21C
1<. P vs. 0uenteella$ 1CC %CRA ED;
19. *a?aro vs. P$ 11; %CRA <:C
1E. 0lores vs. Enrile$ 119 %CRA ;:E
1D. .ernarte vs. %e'. $11E %CRA <:
1>. Po .u *in vs. CA$ 11> %CRA 9D:
12. P vs. Duran$ 1CD9 %CRA 2D2
;C. P vs. Cuevo$ 1C< %CRA :1;
;1. 8i"ene? vs. 4ilitar! Co""ission$
1C; %CRA :2
;;. P vs. *iwanag$ D: %CRA <D:
;:. P vs. Araula$ 8anuar! :C$ 12>;
;<. P vs. .alad@a!$ 4ar'h :C$ 12>;
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++* ++*
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;9. P vs. Cit! Court of %ila!$ D< %CRA
;<D
;>. P vs. Pilpa$ D2 %CRA >1
;2. P vs. /loria$ De'e"er ;2$ 12DD
:C. P vs. /alano$ D9 %CRA 12:
:1. Ta'as vs. Carias'o$ D; %CRA 9;D
:;. P vs. *edes"a$ D: %CRA DD
::. P vs. Consulta$ DC %CRA ;DD
:<. P vs. Inting$ DC %CRA ;>2
:9. De /u?"an vs. Es'alona$ 2D %CRA
E12
:E. P vs. Palo$ 2> %CRA ;>2
:D. Cru? vs. Enrile$ 1EC %CRA DCC
:>. Tangan vs. P$ 199 %CRA <:9
:2. P vs. Nue?ada$ 1EC %CRA 91E
<C. Cani?ano vs. P$ 192 %CRA 922
<1. .usta"ante vs. 4a'eren$ <> %CRA
1<<
There is no doule @eopard! in this
'ase:
PEOPLE VS. MOLERO
/.R 1o. *-ED><;$ %epte"er ;<$ 12>E
FACTSD
1. 4olero was 'harged for having raped
his daughter. The original 'o"plaint was
dated 4ar'h ;;$ 12DD$ the 'o"plainant
'harged 4olero of having raped her on the
I1:th da! of 0eruar! 12DEI.
;. 4olero was arraigned and pleaded
I1ot /uilt!I(
:. During the trial$ the 'o"plainant
testified that she was raped ! her father
on 0eruar! 9$ 12DE and not 0eruar! 1:$
12DE as alleged in the 'o"plaint(
<. The 0is'al filed a "otion for leave to
a"end the 'o"plaint. The "otion was
granted ut was suse6uentl!
re'onsidered. The lower 'ourt in its order
dis"issed the original 'o"plaint$ ut
ordered the 0is'al to 'ause the filing of a
new 'o"plaint 'harging the proper
offense of rape 'o""itted on or efore
0eruar! 9$ 12DE(
9. A new 'o"plaint was therefore filed
dated 4ar'h :C$ 12D>
E. 4olero 'lai"s that the new 'o"plaint
pla'es hi" in doule @eopard!.
HELDD
There is no doule @eopard!.
a. Dis"issal of the first 'ase
'onte"plated ! the rule against doule
@eopard! presupposes a definite and
un'onditional dis"issal whi'h ter"inates
the 'ase.((/!/ 6<. :l/3!o' 8- P1l. 9827
P"o&l" 6<. M/3l/&/<' 8 SCRA 88*7
P"o&l" 6<. Mo2ol' +*+ SCRA 2,-% A35
P4o$ 5<0<</l to ;" / ;/$ )35"$ t1"
B"o&/$5y !l/)<" o4 t1" Co3<tt)to3' t
0)<t 1/6" t1" "44"!t o4 /!H)tt/l.
(P"o&l" 6<. A2o3!llo' 90 SCRA 8.,%7
. It is 6uite 'lear that the order of the
trial 'ourt dis"issal the original 'o"plaint
was without pre@udi'e to the filing of a
new 'o"plaint and,or infor"ation
'harging 4olero with the proper offense.
The said dis"issal did not therefore
a"ount to an a'6uittal.
'. In fa't there was no need for the trial
'ourt to have adopted su'h a 'u"erso"e
pro'edure. It 'ould have "erel! ordered
an a"end"ent of the 'o"plaint. %e'. 1;$
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court
applies when there is a "ista#e in
'harging the proper offense$ ut not when
an honest error of a few da!s is sought to
e 'orre'ted and the 'hange does not
affe't the rights of the a''used.
d. The pre'ise ti"e of the 'o""ission of
the 'ri"e is not an essential ele"ent of
the offense of rape. The a"end"ent of
the 'o"plaint 'hanging the date of the
'o""ission of the 'ri"e of rape fro"
0eruar! 1:$ 12DE to 0eruar! 9$ 12DE $ a
differen'e of > da!s was onl! a "atter of
for" under the fa'ts of this 'ase and did
not pre@udi'e the rights of the a''used.
e. The relian'e of the a''used on the
'ase of P"o&l" 6<. O&"0/' ,8 P1l.
-,8 < 3ot #"llGt/I"3. I3 t1" </5 !/<"
t1" &$o&o<"5 /0"350"3t #/< t1"
!1/3232 o4 t1" 5/t" o4 t1"
!o00<<o3 o4 t1" !$0" 4$o0 ()3"
+8' +,82 to ()ly +,9.' o$ / 544"$"3!"
o4 8 y"/$<. T1" S.C. 1"l5 t1/t t1"
/0"350"3t t1/t #o)l5 !1/32" t1"
5/t" o4 t1" !o00<<o3 o4 t1" o44"3<"
4$o0 +,9. to +,82 < !"$t/3ly 3ot /
0/tt"$ o4 4o$0.
f. The dis"issal of the first 'o"plaint did
not a"ount to the appellantOs a'6uittal. In
effe't$ the order of dis"issal does not
'onstitute a proper asis for a 'lai" of
doule @eopard!. (P"o&l" 6<. :o!/$' +*8
SCRA +--%
9. 4a! the govern"ent appeal a @udg"ent
of a'6uittal or for the in'rease of the
penalt! i"posedJ
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++9 ++9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
PEOPLE VS. HON. VELASCO' G.R. NO.
+2.999' *90 SCRA 20.' SEPT. +*'
2000.
Doule 8eopard!. Evolution of
do'trine. Appeal ! the /overn"ent fro"
verdi'ts of a'6uittal.
As "andated ! the Constitution$
statutes and 'ognate @urispruden'e$ an
a'6uittal is final and unappealale on the
ground of doule @eopard!$ whether it
happens at the trial 'ourt of a @udg"ent of
a'6uittal rought efore the %upre"e
Court on 'ertiorari 'annot e had unless
there is a finding of "istrial$ as in
Baman A"# Sandigan0a?an#
Read:
1. Central .an# of the Philippines vs.
CA$ /R 1o. <1>92$ 4ar'h >$ 12>2
1-a. P vs. 4onte"a!or$ 8anuar! :C$
12E2$ ;E %CRA E>D
;. P vs. Rui?$>1 %CRA <99
:. -% vs. Ga" Tung +a!$ ;1 Phil. ED
<. P vs. Ang ho Pio$ 29 Phil. <D9
E. The I%upervening 0a't Do'trine.I
Read:
1. DE %CRA <E2
;. P vs. Taro#$ D: Phil. ;EC
:. P vs. Fillasis$ <E )./. ;E>
<. 4elo vs. People$ >9 Phil. DEE
9. P vs. .uling$ 1CD Phil. D1;
9-a. P vs. Adil$ DE %CRA <E;
9-. P. vs. Ta'-an$ 1>; %CRA EC1
E. P vs. Cit! Court of 4anila$ 1;1 %CRA
E:D
D. Read also %e'. D$ Rule 11D$ 12>9
Rules on Cri"inal Pro'edure
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
C9A*52. OO@
.@495 A4A@;S5 2O*:S5 GAC5: LAJ,
B@LL :G A55A@;2., 25C.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Read:
1. 1une? vs. %andigana!an$ 111
%CRA <::
;-*AC%)1 F%. %A1DI/A1.AGA1$ 8anuar!
;C$ 1222
PANFILO M. LACSON VS. THE
ECECUTIVE SECRETARY' THE
SANDIGAN:AYAN' ET AL.
ROMEO ACOP R FRANCISCO ?U:IA'
(R.' P"tto3"$<GI3t"$6"3o$<
G.R. No. +280,-' (/3)/$y 20' +,,,
T1" &"tto3"$ <""I< to <to& t1"
S/352/3;/y/3 4$o0 t$y32 t1"
0)lt&l" 0)$5"$ !/<" /2/3<t 10
/35 2- ot1"$ &ol!" o44!"$< 4o$ t1"
5"/t1 o4 ++ M)$/to32 :/l"l"32
0"0;"$< 3 t1" "/$ly 0o$332 o4 M/y
+8' +,,8 /t Co00o3#"/lt1 A6"3)"'
E)"Oo3 Cty. T1" &ol!" o44!"$<
!l/0"5 t1/t t #/< / <1ootGo)t
;"t#""3 t1"0 /35 t1" M)$/to32
:/l"l"32 M"0;"$< #1l" SPO2
E5)/$5o 5" lo< R"y"< !l/0"5 t #/< /
<)00/$y "A"!)to3 o$ $);Go)t.
The preli"inar! investigation
'ondu'ted ! the Deput! )"uds"an for
4ilitar! Affairs resulted in the dis"issal of
the 'ases after finding that the in'ident
was 5a legiti"ate poli'e operation.7
However$ the Review .oard led ! Deput!
)"uds"an 0ran'is'o Filla resulted in the
filing of "ultiple "urder 'ases against the
petitioner and his 'o"panion where he
was indi'ted as a prin'ipal.
-pon "otion ! the petitioner and
his 'o-poli'e offi'ers with leave fro" the
%andigana!an$ a 4otion for
Re'onsideration was filed with the )ffi'e
of the )"uds"an who A4E1DED the 11
infor"ation=s on 4ar'h 1$ 122E 'harging
the petitioner $ R)4E) AC)P and
0RA1CI%C) B-.IA$ 8R.$ as "ere
a''essories.
)n 4ar'h 9-E$122E$ the a''used
6uestioned the @urisdi'tion of the
%andigana!an over the 11 'ri"inal 'ases
sin'e under Repuli' A't 1o. D2D9$
parti'ularl! %e'tion ;$ paragraphs KaL and
K'L$ the said 'ourt has @urisdi'tion onl! if
one or "ore of the prin'ipal a''used has a
ran# of .rigadier /eneral &Chief
%uperintendentA or higher and sin'e the
highest P1P offi'er 'harged as a prin'ipal
a''used is "erel! Chief Inspe'tor$ the
Regional Trial Court of Nue?on Cit! has
@urisdi'tion to tr! and de'ide the sa"e.
)n 4a! >$ 122E$ the
%andigana!an issued a Resolution
transferring the 'ase to the RTC of Nue?on
Cit! whi'h has original and e3'lusive
@urisdi'tion over the 'ases under RA D2D9.
)n 4a! 1D$ 122E$ the )ffi'e of the %pe'ial
Prose'utor "oved for a Re'onsideration
and insisted that the 'ases should re"ain
with the %andigana!an whi'h was
opposed ! the petitioner and his 'o-
a''used.
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++8 ++8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
+hile the 4otions for
Re'onsideration were pending efore the
%andigana!an$ Congress passed into law
Repuli' A't 1o. >;<2 whi'h was
approved ! the President on 0eruar! 9$
122D entitled 5A1 ACT 0-RTHER
DE0I1I1/ THE 8-RI%DICTI)1 )0 THE
%A1DI/A1.AGA1$ A4E1DI1/ 0)R THI%
P-RP)%E PD 1ECE$ A% A4E1DED$
PR)FIDI1/ 0-1D% THERE0)R7 whi'h
deleted the word 5PRI1CIPA*7 in %e'tion
;$ paragraphs KaL and K'L of RA D2D9
there! giving @urisdi'tion to the
%andigana!an 'ri"inal 'ases involving
poli'e generals li#e the petitioners even
though the! are not 'harged as prin'ipals
ut "erel! a''essories or a''o"pli'es.
The new law further provides that it shall
e appli'ale to all 'ases whi'h are
pending in 'ourt efore the passage of the
sa"e provided trial has not egun at the
ti"e of its approval.
)n 4ar'h 9$ 122D$ the
%andigana!an issued its Resolution
den!ing the 4otion for Re'onsideration of
the )ffi'e of the %pe'ial Prose'utor and
ruled that it 5stands pat in its Resolution
dated 4a! >$ 122E7 ordering the transfer
of the 11 'ri"inal 'ases to the RTC of
Nue?on Cit!. )n the sa"e da!$ however$
the %andigana!an issued an ADDE1D-4
to its 4ar'h 9$ 122D Resolution where it
that with the passage of RA >;<2$ 5the
'ourt ad"itted the a"ended infor"ation=s
in these 'ases and ! the unani"ous vote
of < with 1 neither 'on'urring nor
dissenting$ retained @urisdi'tion to tr! and
de'ide the 'ases7.
The petitioner 6uestioned the said
Resolution of the %andigana!an to the
%upre"e Court on the following grounds:
1. their right to due pro'ess of law
and e6ual prote'tion of the law was
violated as a result of the appli'ation of
the new law ! whi'h restored to the
%andigana!an @urisdi'tion over their
'ases espe'iall! so that the
%andigana!an has foot-dragged for 2
"onths the resolution of the pending
in'ident involving the transfer of these
'ases to the RTC of Nue?on Cit! and
waited for the passage of the law to
overta#e su'h resolution and there!
rendering their vested rights under the old
%andigana!an law "oot(
;. the retroa'tive appli'ation of
the new law violates their 'onstitutional
right against e3-post fa'to law(
:. the title of the law is "isleading
in that it 'ontains the aforesaid inno'uous
provisions in %e'tions < and D whi'h
a'tuall! e3pands rather than defines the
old %andigana!an law there! violating
the one title one su@e't re6uire"ent of
%e'tion ;E K1L Arti'le FI of the
Constitution.
The petitioners-intervenors 'lai"ed that
while the law &%e'tions < and DA
inno'uousl! appears to have "erel!
e3panded the @urisdi'tion of the
%andigana!an$ it is in fa't a 'lass
legislation and an e3-post fa'to law
statute intended spe'ifi'all! to appl! to all
the a''used in the Puratong .aleleng 'ase
pending efore the %andigana!an.
0inall!$ if their 'ase will e tried ! the
%andigana!an$ the! will e deprived of
their 5two-tiered7 appeal to the
%andigana!an whi'h the! a'6uire under
RA D2D9 efore re'ourse to the %upre"e
Court 'ould e "ade.
Held:
1. The 'ontention that the law violates
petitioner=s right to due pro'ess and e6ual
prote'tion of the law is too shallow to
deserve "erit. It is an estalished pre'ept
in 'onstitutional law that the guarant! of
the e6ual prote'tion of the laws is not
violated ! a legislation ased on
reasonale 'lassifi'ation. The 'lassifi'ation
is reasonale and not aritrar! when there
is 'on'urren'e of four ele"ents$ na"el!:
a. it "ust rest on real and
sustantial distin'tions(
. it "ust e ger"ane to
the purposes of the law(
'. "ust not e li"ited to
e3isting 'onditions onl!( and
d. "ust appl! e6uall! to all
"e"ers of the sa"e 'lass-
all of whi'h are present in this 'ase.
The 'lassifi'ation etween those
pending 'ases involving 'on'erned puli'
offi'ials whose trial has not !et
'o""en'ed and whose 'ases 'ould have
een affe'ted ! the a"end"ents of the
%andigana!an @urisdi'tion under RA
>;<2$ as against those whose 'ases where
trial has alread! started as of the approval
of the law rests on sustantial distin'tion
that "a#es real differen'es. In the 1
st
instan'e$ eviden'e against the" were not
!et presented$ whereas in the latter the
parties have alread! su"itted their
respe'tive proofs$ e3a"ined witnesses
and presented do'u"ents. %in'e it is
within the power of Congress to define the
@urisdi'tion of the 'ourts$ it 'an e
reasonal! anti'ipated that an alteration
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++- ++-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
of that @urisdi'tion ne'essaril! affe't
pending 'ases$ whi'h is wh! it has to
provide for a re"ed! in the for" of a
transitor! provision. The transitor!
provision does not onl! 'over 'ases whi'h
are in the %andigana!an ut also in 5an!
'ourt7. It @ust happened that the Puratong
.aleleng 'ases are one of those affe'ted
! the law. 4oreover$ those 'ases where
trial has alread! egun are not affe'ted !
the transitor! provision under %e'tion D of
the new law &RA >;<2A.
;. The petitioners= argu"ent that the
retroa'tive appli'ation of the new law to
the Puratong .aleleng 'ases 'onstitutes
an e3 post fa'to law for the! are deprived
of their right to due pro'ess as the! 'an
no longer avail of the two-tiered appeal
whi'h the! had allegedl! a'6uired under
RA D2D9 is without "erit.
In order that a law is an e3 post
fa'to law$ the sa"e "ust e oneT
/. whi'h "a#es an a't
done 'ri"inal efore the passing of the
law and whi'h was inno'ent when
'o""itted$ and punishes su'h a'tion(
;. whi'h aggravates a
'ri"e or "a#es it greater than when it
was 'o""itted(
!. whi'h 'hanges the
punish"ent and infli'ts a greater
punish"ent than the law anne3ed to the
'ri"e when it was 'o""itted(
5. whi'h alters the legal
rules of eviden'e and re'eives less or
different testi"on! than the law re6uired
a the ti"e of the 'o""ission of the
offense in order to 'onvi't the defendant(
". ever! law whi'h$ in
relation to the offense or its
'onse6uen'es$ alters the situation of a
person to his disadvantage(
4. that whi'h assu"es to
regulate 'ivil rights and re"edies ut in
effe't i"poses a penalt! or deprivation of
a right whi'h when done was lawful(
2. deprives a person
a''used of a 'ri"e of so"e lawful
prote'tion to whi'h he has e'o"e
entitled$ su'h as the prote'tion of a
for"er 'onvi'tion or a'6uittal$ or a
pro'la"ation of a"nest! (MAY VILLEGAS
MAMI' *8 SCRA 92,7 ME(IA VS.
PAMARAN' +-0 SCRA 98.7 TAN VS.
:ARRIOS' +,0 SCRA -8-7 PEOPLE VS.
SANDIGAN:AYAN' 2++ SCRA 29+%.
E3 post fa'to law prohiits the
retrospe'tivit! of penal laws. RA >;<2 is
not a penal law. It is a sustantive law on
@urisdi'tion whi'h is not penal in 'hara'ter.
The other 'ontention that their right to a
two-tiered appeal whi'h the! a'6uired
under RA D2D9 has een diluted ! the
ena't"ent of RA >;<2 is in'orre't. The
sa"e 'ontention had een re@e'ted ! the
'ourt several ti"es in the 'ases of
R)DRI/-EB F%. %A1DI/A1.AGA1$ ;C9
Phil. 9ED( A*FIAR F%. %A1DI/A1.AGA1$
1:D %CRA E:( 1-1EB F%.
%A1DI/A1.AGA1$ 111 %CRA <::( DE
/-B4A1 F%. PE)P*E$ De'e"er 19$ 12>;
'onsidering that the right to appeal is not
a natural right ut statutor! in nature that
'an e regulated ! law. The "ode of
pro'edure provided for in the statutor!
right of appeal is not in'luded in the
prohiition against e3 post fa'to laws.
4oreover$ the new law did not alter the
rules of eviden'e or the "ode of trial.
:. The 'ontention that the new
%andigana!an law violates the one title-
one su@e't provision of the Constitution is
without "erit. The petitioners 'lai" that
the new does not define the @urisdi'tion of
the %andigana!an ut e3pands the sa"e.
.ut even assu"ing that that is true$ the
e3pansion of the @urisdi'tion$ does not
have to e e3pressl! stated in the title of
the law e'ause su'h is the ne'essar!
'onse6uen'e of the a"end"ents. The
re6uire"ent that ever! ill "ust onl! have
one su@e't e3pressed in the title is
satisfied if the title is 'o"prehensive
enough$ as in this 'ase$ to in'lude
su@e'ts related to the general purpose
whi'h the statute see#s to a'hieve. The
Congress$ in e"plo!ing the word 5define7
in the title of the law$ a'ted within its
power sin'e %e'tion ;$ Arti'le FIII of the
Constitution itself e"powers the
legislative od! to 5define$ pres'rie and
apportion the @urisdi'tion of various
'ourts.
&1)TE: Though the %upre"e Court
re@e'ted all the aove argu"ents raised
! the petitioner and the intervenors who
are against the trial of their 'ases with the
%andigana!an and prefer to have their
'ases e tried and de'ided ! the RTC of
Nue?on Cit!$ the! got what the! want in
the end e'ause it was held that the 11
'ri"inal infor"ation=s failed to alleged that
the! 'o""itted the 'ri"es in relation to
their puli' offi'e whi'h is a @urisdi'tional
re6uire"ent in order that the sa"e e
tried ! the %andigana!an.
0inall!$ so"eti"e in 4a!$ 1222$ the
Nue?on Cit! RTC to who" the said 'ases
were raffled DI%4I%%ED the 11 "urder
'ases as a result of the retra'tion "ade !
the e!ewitnesses. The sa"e was revived
! the D)8 in April$ ;CC1. The sa"e was
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++. ++.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
returned to the NC RTC to deter"ine if the
;-!ear provisional rule under the ;CCC
Rules on Cri"inal Pro'edure is appli'aleA
;.a. Pa! Fillegas Pa"i$ :9 %CRA <;2
:. %eville@a vs. C)4E*EC$ 1CD %CRA
1<1
<. P vs. 0errer$ <E H 9E %CRA
9. Tan vs. .arrios$ )'toer 1>$
122C
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
C9A*52. OO@@C@5@P2;S9@* C9A*52. OO@@C@5@P2;S9@*
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1. Effe't of naturali?ation in another
'ountr!
Read:
a. Ra"on *ao$ 8r. vs. Co"ele'$
8ul! :$ 122;
a.-1 RA5O4 2A1O JR# 3S#
CO5E2EC6 BR 4o# %(+(.6 Augu"t
$6 $&%&
RAMON LA:O' (R. VS. THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND
LUIS LARDI?A:AL' G.R. NO. 8-8-9'
A)2)<t +' +,8,
Citi?enship( renun'iation of( who ta#es
the pla'e of a dis6ualified winner in an
ele'tion( res @udi'ata
-nani"ous en an' de'ision
&1)TE: This is also i"portant in !our
Re"edial *awA
Cru?$ 8.
0a'ts:

1. The petitioner was pro'lai"ed "a!or-
ele't of the Cit! of .aguio on 8anuar! ;C$
12>>(
;. )n 8anuar! ;E$ 12>>$ the private
respondent filed a 6uo warranto 'ase
against the petitioner ut no filing fee was
paid(
:. )n 0eruar! 1C$ 12>> or ;1 da!s after
the petitioner was pro'lai"ed$ the private
respondent paid the filing fee of P:CC.CC(
<. %in'e the filing fee was paid e!ond the
regle"entar! period$ the petitioner 'lai"s
that the petition was late e'ause the
pa!"ent of the filing fee is essential to the
ti"eliness of an appeal$ 'iting 4an'hester
vs. CA$ 1<2 %CRA 9E;(
9. The private respondent 'lai"ed he filed
the petition on ti"e e'ause when he first
filed the sa"e$ it was treated ! the
C)4E*EC as a pre-pro'la"ation
'ontrovers! whi'h needs no filing fee.
+hen the C)4E*EC treated it as a 6uo
warranto 'ase on 0eruar! >$ 12>>$ he
i""ediatel! paid the filing fee on said
date. Hen'e$ the filing fee was paid on
ti"e.
Issues:
1. +as the petition for 6uo warranto filed
on ti"eJ
;. %in'e the 'ase was "erel! for
deter"ination on whether or not the
petition was filed on ti"e or not$ "a! the
%upre"e Court deter"ine whether
petitioner Ra"on *aor$ 8r. is 6ualified for
the offi'e of the Cit! 4a!or of .aguio or
notJ
:. %in'e the petitioner won in the ele'tion
and turned out to e not 6ualified for said
position$ who shall ta#e his pla'e as the
Cit! 4a!orJ
Held:

1. The petition was filed on ti"e sin'e the
filing fee was paid i""ediatel! when the
C)4E*EC treated the sa"e as a 6uo
warranto and not a pre-pro'la"ation
'ontrovers!. However$ even assu"ing that
the filing fee was paid late$ the sa"e was
not tra'eale to the private respondentOs
fault or negle't. +hat is i"portant is that
the filing fee was paid.
;. 1or"all!$ the 'ase should end here as
the sole issue raised ! the petitioner is
the ti"eliness of the 6uo warranto
pro'eedings against hi". H)+EFER$ A%
HI% CITIBE1%HIP I% THE %-.8ECT
4ATTER )0 THE PR)CEEDI1/$ A1D
C)1%IDERI1/ THE 1ECE%%ITG 0)R A1
EAR*G RE%)*-TI)1 )0 THAT 4)RE
I4P)RTA1T N-E%TI)1 C*EAR*G A1D
-R/E1T*G A00ECTI1/ THE P-.*IC
I1TERE%T$ +E %HA** DIRECT*G ADDRE%%
IT 1)+ I1 THI% %A4E ACTI)1 A/AI1%T
HI4. &DE* CA%TI**) F%. 8AG4A*I1$ 11;
%CRA E;2( A*/ER E*ECTRIC F%. CA$ 1:9
%CRA :D( .EA-TI0)1T F%. CA$ 8anuar!
;2$ 12>>( %)TT) F%. %A4%)1$ 9 %CRA
D::( REP-.*IC F%. PAREDE%$ 1C> PHI*.
9D( *IA1/A *-4.ER C). F%. *IA1/A
TI4.ER C). $ DE %CRA 12D( ERIC) F%.
HEIR% )0 CHI/A%$ 2> %CRA 9D9(
0RA1CI%C) F%. CITG )0 DAFA)$ 1; %CRA
E;>( FA*E1CIA F%. 4A.I*A1/A1$ 1C9
PHI*. 1E;( 0ER1A1DEB F%. /ARCIA$ 2;
PHI*. 92;( *I %HI- *IAT F%. REP-.*IC$
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++8 ++8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
;1 %CRA 1C:2( %A4A* F%. CA$ 22 PHI*.
:C( -% F%. /I4I1EB$ :< PHI*. D<(
TE8)1E% F%. /IR)1E**A$ 192 %CRA 1CC
and *IA1/A .AG *)//I1/ F%. CA$ 19D
%CRA :9DA.
In addition thereto$ sin'e the petitioner
'lai"s that the respondent C)4E*EC has
pre@udged the 'ase against hi" e'ause it
adopted the private respondentOs
C)44E1T whi'h repeatedl! asserted that
he is not a 0ilipino 'iti?en$ with "ore
reason that the %upre"e Court shall now
de'ide the 'ase with finalit! instead of
returning the sa"e to the C)4E*EC.
:. There are two ad"inistrative de'isions
involving the 'iti?enship of the petitioner.
)n 4a! 1;$ 12>;$ the C)4E*EC held that
he is a 0ilipino 'iti?en while on %epte"er
1:$ 12>>$ the Co""ission on I""igration
and Deportation held that he is not a
'iti?en of the Philippines.
In a state"ent ! the Australian
'onsul in the Philippines$ it was found out
that RA4)1 *A.)$ 8R. was granted
Australian 'iti?enship ! %!dne! on 8ul!
;>$ 12DE.
However$ *ao 'lai"s that the petition
to dis6ualif! hi" e'ause of his 'iti?enship
is alread! arred ! res @udi'ata e'ause
of the earlier ruling of the C)4E*EC that
he is a 0ilipino 'iti?en. It "ust e pointed
out that res @udi'ata does not appl! to
6uestions involving 'iti?enship (SORIA
VS. COMMISSIONER' *. SCRA 2+*7
LEE VS. COMMISSIONER' 92 SCRA
8-+7 SIA REYES VS. DEPORTATION
:OARD' +22 SCRA 9.8%.
*ao also 'lai"s that his
naturali?ation in Australia was annulled
sin'e it was found out that his "arriage to
an Australian was iga"ous. This is
without "erit sin'e even assu"ing it to e
true$ the sa"e did not auto"ati'all! vest
hi" Philippine Citi?enship whi'h 'ould e
rea'6uired onl! !: aA a dire't a't of
Congress( A ! naturali?ation( and 'A !
repatriation. %in'e none of these is
present to show that he was ale to
rea'6uire Philippine 'iti?enship$ *ao is
not 'onsidered a 0ilipino 'iti?en. As su'h$
he is not even 6ualified to e a voter
under the Constitution$ "u'h less as a
'andidate for the position of 4a!or in the
Cit! of .aguio.
*ao 'lai"s further that the
IfutileI te'hni'alit! should not frustrate
the will of the ele'torate in .aguio Cit!
who ele'ted hi" ! a Iresonant and
thunderous "a@orit!. Again$ this is without
asis e'ause to e "ore a''urate$ he
won ! @ust over ;$1CC votes. .ut even
assu"ing further that he was ele'ted
unani"ousl!$ the sa"e voters of .aguio
Cit! 'ould not 'hange the re6uire"ents of
the Constitution and the *o'al
/overn"ent Code. The ele'torate had no
power to per"it a foreigner owing his total
allegian'e to the Nueen of Australia or at
the least a stateless person to preside
over the" as the Cit! 4a!or of .aguio.
)nl! 'iti?ens of the Philippines have that
privilege. The proailit! that "an! of
those who voted for hi" "a! have done
so in the elief that he was 6ualified onl!
strengthens the 'on'lusion that the results
of the ele'tions 'annot nullif! the
6ualifi'ations for the offi'e now held !
hi".
:. +ho shall ta#e the pla'e of the
petitioner then as the Cit! 4a!or of
.aguioJ Is the private respondent entitled
to itJ HE CA11)T 0)R THE %I4P*E
REA%)1 THAT HE ).TAI1ED )1*G THE
%EC)1D HI/HE%T 1-4.ER )0 F)TE% I1
THE E*ECTI)1 A1D THERE0)RE$ HE +A%
).FI)-%*G 1)T THE CH)ICE )0 THE
PE)P*E )0 .A/-I) CITG.
It is true that in %A1T)% vs.
C)4E*EC$ 1:D %CRA D<C $ the %upre"e
Court held that in 'ases li#e this$ the
se'ond pla'er shall ta#e the pla'e of the
dis6ualified 'andidate sin'e the latter was
'onsidered as non-'andidate and all that
he re'eived are 'onsidered stra! votes.
The se'ond pla'er$ in effe't$ won !
default. %aid de'ision was supported ! >
"e"ers of the Court$ three dissented$
two reserved their votes and one on
leave. Re-e3a"ining said de'ision$ the
sa"e shall e REFER%ED in favor of the
earlier 'ase of /eroni"o vs. C)4E*EC$
1:E %CRA <:9$ whi'h is the "ore logi'al
and de"o'rati' rule first announ'ed in the
121; 'ase of Topa'io vs. Paredes$ ;: Phil.
;:>$ and was supported ! ten &1CA
"e"ers of the Court without an!
dissent. The Fi'e 4a!or of the Cit! of
.aguio shall e entitled to e'o"e the
Cit! 4a!or instead of the private
respondent.
. 0rivaldo vs. C)4E*EC$ 8une ;:$
12>2
'. .oard of Co""issioners vs. De
la Rosa and +illia" /at'halian$ 4a! :1$
1221
d. A?nar vs. C)4E*EC$ 1>9 %CRA
DC:
1-a. Effe't of naturali?ation of wife and
"inor 'hildren
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++, ++,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008
Read:
1. .ur'a vs. Repuli'$91 %CRA ;<>
;. Re!es vs. Deportation .oard$4a!
:C$12>:
;. Effe't on the 'iti?enship of an alien
wo"an "arried to a 0ilipino 'iti?en
Read:
1. 4o! Ga *i" vs. Co"". on
I""igration$ <1 %CRA ;2;
:. Effe't on the 'iti?enship of a 0ilipino
wo"an on her "arriage to an alien.
Read:
1. Rep. vs. Tanda!ag$ 11D %CRA E:D
<. Pro'edure for repatriation
Read:
1. P vs. Avengo?a$ 112 %CRA 1
9. Can'ellation of 'ertifi'ate of
naturali?ation
Read:
1. %'hneider vs. Rus#$ :DD -% 1E:
;. Repuli' vs. Co#eng$ ;: %CRA 992
:. Repuli' vs. Co#eng$ :< %CRA EE>
<. Chan Te'# *ao vs. Repuli'$ 99
%CRA 1
9. Rep. vs. /u!$ 119 %CRA ;<<
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS


UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +20 +20