You are on page 1of 24

Abad vs Fil-Homes Realty

Facts: The respondents filed an unlawful detainer case against the
petitioners alleging that through tolerance, herein petitioners had
occupied the subject lots since 1980 but ignored their repeated
demands to vacate. During the pendency of the case, The City of
Paranaque filed expropriation proceedings covering the subject lot
before the RTC of Paranaque with the intention of establishing a
socialized housing project therein for distribution to the occupants
including petitioners. A writ of possession was consequently issued
and a Certificate of Turn-over given to the City government.
Herein petitioners countered that there is no possession by tolerance
for they have been in adverse, continuous and uninterrupted
possession of the lots for more than 30 years. They also contended
that since the lots are the subject of expropriation proceedings,
respondents can no longer assert a better right of possession; and
that the City Ordinance authorizing the initiation of expropriation
proceedings designated them as beneficiaries of the lots, hence, they
are entitled to continue staying there.
The MeTc rendered a decision in favor of respondents ordering
petitioners to pay an amount until such time that they vacate the
area. It added that the petitioners cannot claim a right over the
subject land only on a basis only of a writ of possession for the
project beneficiaries have yet to be named.
The RTC reversed the decision saying that the MeTc failed to
consider the final judgment of the RTC and the Writ of Possession
issued in the expropriation case to the City of Paranaque 2 years
prior to the decision in the unlawful detainer case.
Upon petition for review, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision
of the MeTc which was in favor of respondents with some
modifications noting that petitioners did not present evidence to
rebut respondents‘ allegation of possession by tolerance and
considering petitioners admission that they commenced occupation
of the property without permission of the previous owner- Pilipinas
Development Corporation.
Issue: Whether or not the requisites and requirements in
expropriation proceedings in the exercise of power or eminent
domain are met.
Ruling: No

In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the State
expropriates private property for public use upon payment of just
compensation. A socialized housing project falls within the ambit of
public use as it is in furtherance of the constitutional provisions on
social justice. However, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 538
enlightens states that when the Government seeks to acquire,
through purchase or expropriation proceedings, lands belonging to
any estate or chaplaincy, any action for ejectment against the tenants
occupying said lands shall be automatically suspended, for such time
as may be required by the expropriation proceedings or the necessary
negotiations for the purchase of the lands, in which latter case, the
period of suspension shall not exceed one year.
Petitioners did not comply with any of the acts mentioned in the law
to avail of the benefits of the suspension. The exercise of expropriation
by a local government unit is covered by Section 19 of the Local
Government Code (LGC) which provides that local government may,
through its chief executive, exercise the power of eminent domain for
public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the
landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the
provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws. It also provides
that such power may not be exercised when a valid and definite offer
has been previously made to the owner and such offer was not
accepted. Also, a local government unit may immediately take
possession of the property upon filing of expropriation proceedings
and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen
percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the
current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated which
amount shall be determined by the proper court based on the fair
market value.
In the present case, the mere issuance of a writ of possession in the
expropriation proceedings did not transfer ownership of the lots in
favor of the City. Such issuance was only the first stage in
expropriation. There is even no evidence that judicial deposit had
been made in favor of respondents prior to the City‘s possession of
the lots, contrary to Section 19 of the LGC. Respecting petitioners‘
claim that they have been named beneficiaries of the lots, the city
ordinance authorizing the initiation of expropriation proceedings does
not state so. Petitioners cannot thus claim any right over the lots on
the basis of the ordinance.
Respondents bought the lots from Pilipinas Development Corporation
in 1983. They stepped into the shoes of the seller with respect to its
relationship with petitioners. Even if early on respondents made no
demand or filed no action against petitioners to eject them from the

lots, they thereby merely maintained the status quo allowed
petitioners possession by tolerance.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED.

G.R. No. 168770

February 9, 2011

FACTS:
In 1949, the National Airport Corporation (NAC), MCIAA‘s
predecessor agency, pursued a program to expand the Lahug Airport
in Cebu City. Through its team of negotiators, NAC met and
negotiated with the owners of the properties situated around the
airport.
The landowners claimed that the government negotiating team,
assured them that they could repurchase their respective lands
should the Lahug Airport expansion project do not push through or
once the Lahug Airport closes or its operations transferred to MactanCebu Airport. Some of the landowners accepted the assurance and
executed deeds of sale with a right of repurchase. Others, however,
refused to sell because the purchase price offered was viewed as way
below market.
The Republic, represented by the then Civil Aeronautics
Administration (CAA), as successor agency of the NAC, filed a
complaint for the expropriation of lots, rendered judgment
declaring the expropriation of aforementioned lots, included in
the Lahug Airport, Cebu City, justified in and in lawful exercise
of the right of eminent domain.
In view of the adverted buy-back assurance made by the
government, the owners of the lots no longer appealed the
decision of the trial court. Following the finality of the judgment of
condemnation, certificates of title for the covered parcels of land were
issued in the name of the Republic which, pursuant to Republic Act
No. 6958, were subsequently transferred to MCIAA.

Due Process and Eminent Domain
ANUNCIACION VDA. DE OUANO, MARIO P. OUANO, LETICIA
OUANO ARNAIZ, and CIELO OUANO MARTINEZ vs. THE
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
THE
MACTAN-CEBU
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, and THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF CEBU

At the end of 1991, or soon after the transfer of the aforesaid lots to
MCIAA, Lahug Airport completely ceased operations, Mactan
Airport having opened to accommodate incoming and outgoing
commercial flights. On the ground, the expropriated lots were never
utilized for the purpose they were taken as no expansion of Lahug
Airport was undertaken. This development prompted the former lot
owners to formally demand from the government that they be
allowed to exercise their promised right to repurchase. The
demands went unheeded. Civil suits followed.
On February 8, 1996, the Inocians filed before the RTC in Cebu City
a complaint for reconveyance of real properties and damages
against MCIAA.

COMELEC Issue: Whether abandonment of Airport Project for the public use for which the subject properties were expropriated entitles petitioners Ouanos and Inocians to reacquire them. urban poor. it has been preponderantly established by evidence that the NAC. they are considered nuissance. It also argued for the first time that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941. Issue: WON Respondent violated the Non-establishment clause of the Constitution. in fact. To buttress their denial. ANG LADLAD VS. fisherfolk. may seek the reversion of the property. Petition granted. Second. The Court expressly held that the taking of private property. through its team of negotiators. i. had given assurance to the affected landowners that they would be entitled to repurchase their respective lots in the event they are no longer used for airport purposes. and that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification reports by COMELEC‘s field personnel.On August 18. for the expansion and development of Lahug Airport. violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion. A significant portion of it had. and equal protection of laws. In fact. is always subject to the condition that the property be devoted to the specific public purpose for which it was taken. which in this case should run from the time MCIAA complies with the reconveyance obligation. peasant. However. In the same token. indigenous cultural communities. the Ouanos instituted a complaint before the Cebu City RTC against the Republic and the MCIAA for reconveyance. then the former owners. and trans-genders. the latter denied the said petition. Corollary. been purchased by a private corporation for development as a commercial complex. if they so desire. AngLadlad argued that the denial of accreditation. In its Comment. and is peremptorily abandoned. In such a case. the Lahug Airport had been closed and abandoned. Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy. First. if this particular purpose or intent is not initiated or not at all pursued. due to moral grounds. their acts are even punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its Article 201. consequent to the Governments exercise of its power of eminent domain. equity and justice demand the reconveyance by MCIAA of the litigated lands in question to the Ouanos and Inocians. COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in their decision. RULING: Yes. 1997. It filed a petition for accreditation as a party-list organization to public respondent. gays.e. as well as constituted violations of the Philippines‘ international obligations against discrimination based on sexual orientation. justice and fair play also dictate that the Ouanos and Inocian return to MCIAA what they received as just compensation for the expropriation of their respective properties plus legal interest to be computed from default. subject to the return of the amount of just compensation received. Facts: A motion for reconsideration being denied. Petitioner filed this instant Petition on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC. It also stated that since their ways are immoral and contrary to public policy. bisexuals. freedom of speech and assembly. R-1881 for the purpose they were originally taken by the government.. . WON Respondent erred in denying Petitioners application on moral and legal grounds. Third. the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. the exercise of the power of eminent domain has become improper for lack of the required factual justification Given the foregoing disquisitions. elderly. the MCIAA and/or its predecessor agency had not actually used the lots subject of the final decree of expropriation in Civil Case No. insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma. Petitioner is a national organization which represents the lesbians. Held: Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in AngBagongBayani stands for the proposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors (labor.

The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated.‖ At bottom. the accused in the Jalojos case was charged with two (2) counts of statutory rape and six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness.R. women. we hold that moral disapproval. Four years later. after the people in their sovereign capacity elected him as Senator. 2008 FACTS: On July 27. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its position that petitioner‘s admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society. Petitioner also pleads for the same liberal treatment accorded certain detention prisoners who have also been charged with non-bailable offenses. is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system.‖ Clearly. and professionals) may be registered under the party-list system. repudiating the people‘s choice. a charge which is commonly regarded as a political offense. a civil action. The RTC however denied his motion. still enjoys the presumption of innocence. or why special protection is required for the youth. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As we explicitly ruled in AngBagongBayani-OFW Labor Party v. Pimentel G. more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded the resignation of the President and key national officials. while he (Trillanes) has not been convicted and. omission. therefore. disingenuous. while he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and agreed to take responsibility for his acts at the Oakwood incident. without more. and overruling the mandate of the people. Commission on Elections. Be it noted that government action must have a secular purpose. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as ―any act. As such. The denial of AngLadlad‘s registration on purely moral grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and disapproval of homosexuals. Trillanes remained in detention and won a seat in the Senate. Before starting his term. June 27. youth. at best. Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented.handicapped. We also find the COMELEC‘s reference to purported violations of our penal and civil laws flimsy. establishment. and a mere blanket invocation of public morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or culpability. or abatement without judicial proceedings. defies." Finding no rhyme and reason in the denial of the more serious request to perform the duties of a Senator. In the aftermath of such event dubbed as the Oakwood Incident. He argues that denying his Omnibus Motion is tantamount to removing him from office. Trillanes IV was charged with coup d’état before the RTC of Makati. military soldiers surrendered that evening. crimes involving moral turpitude. at worst. Petitioner argues that his election provides the legal justification to allow him to serve his mandate. but whether a particular organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. or disregards decency or morality. on the other hand. requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal conviction. like former President Joseph Estrada and former Governor Nur Misuari who were allowed to attend "social functions. ―governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.‖ the remedies for which are a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance. A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. denying the people‘s will. rather than a tool to further any substantial public interest. Trillanes argued that unlike in his case. Trillanes filed with RTC an Omnibus Motion to be allowed to attend Senate sessions and fulfill his functions as Senator.‖ We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of AngLadlad. 179817. petitioner harps on an alleged violation of the equal protection clause. the accused in the Jalosjos case attempted to flee prior to being arrested. citing the Jalosjos case which had similar requests but also denied by the courts. and other related requests. condition of property. the accused in the Jalosjos case was already convicted at the time he filed his motion. No. or anything else which shocks. what our non-establishment clause calls for is ―government neutrality in religious matters. Section 5 that ―[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. Trillanes vs. overseas workers. petitioner Antonio F. veterans. After a series of negotiations. while he is charged with the offense of "coup d‘etat". . 2003. depriving the people of proper representation. It hardly needs to be emphasized that mere allegation of violation of laws is not proof. Our Constitution provides in Article III. ―the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive‖.

thus arguing that the courts maintain double standards in the treatment of detention prisoners. No.L-52245. he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. shall not be qualified for any of the offices covered by the act. and while pre-trial detainees do not forfeit their constitutional rights upon confinement. In the petitioner‘s contention that he was deprived of the same liberal treatment granted to Joseph Estrada and Nur Misuari who were allowed to attend "social functions‖. unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. including those amounting to subversion. both being punishable by reclusion perpetua. file his certificate of candidacy in February 2007. . 22 Jan 1980] Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. regardless of the stage of the criminal action. justifies the detention of an accused as a valid curtailment of his right to provisional liberty. when a person indicted for an offense is arrested. The determination that the evidence of guilt is strong. or hold office. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. Such justification for confinement with its underlying rationale of public self-defense applies equally to detention prisoners like Trillanes or convicted prisoners-appellants like Jalosjos. the trial court previously allowed petitioner to register as a voter in December 2006. 4 provides that any retired elective provincial or municipal official who has received payments of retirement benefits and shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation. 2007. it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system. shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong. As a matter of law. cast his vote on May 14. The provisions apply equally to rape and coup d’etat cases. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him. Sec. or other similar crimes. or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. also assail the validity of Sec. which states that any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State. Allowing petitioner to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention. Dumlao vs. The Constitution and the Rules of Court provide that no person charged with a capital offense. It is impractical to draw a line between convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees for the purpose of maintaining jail security. the SC states that emergency or compelling temporary leaves from imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners. the fact of their detention makes their rights more limited than those of the public. G. In fact. the provision amounts to class legislation. at the discretion of the authorities or upon court orders. rebellion. In an attempt to bind or twist the hands of the trial court. Petitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. According to Dumlao. or to participate in any partisan activity therein: provided that a judgment of conviction of those crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact.ISSUE: Whether the RTC violated the Equal Protection Clause entitled to Trillanes when it denied his Omnibus Motion. RULING: No. 2007. Petitioner failed to establish that this discretion was gravely abused. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. and take his oath of office on June 29.R. be proclaimed as senator-elect. The trial court thus correctly concluded that the presumption of innocence does not carry with it the full enjoyment of civil and political rights. petitioner overlooks these prior grants to him and insists on unending blanket authorizations. elective or appointive. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates his status to that of a special class. insurrection. while in detention.

In regards to the unconstitutionality of the provisions. the latter denied the said petition. fisherfolk. Whether or Not the aforementioned statutory provisions violate the Constitution and thus. which are: 1) There must be an actual case or controversy. as well as constituted violations of the Philippines‘ international obligations against discrimination based on sexual orientation. and equal protection of laws. As to (2). and that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification reports by COMELEC‘s field personnel. nor disqualified from being candidates for local elective positions. In its Comment. but the institution of a taxpayer‘s suit per se is no assurance of judicial review. veterans. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. and 4) The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. As to (4). peasant. To buttress their denial. WON Respondent erred in denying Petitioners application on moral and legal grounds. It filed a petition for accreditation as a party-list organization to public respondent. gays. handicapped. but whether a . bisexuals. They have no personal nor substantial interest at stake. In this case. their acts are even punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its Article 201. 4. due to moral grounds. 3) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. indigenous cultural communities. overseas workers. the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also stated that since their ways are immoral and contrary to public policy. Therefore. they are considered nuissance. Issues: 1. Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy. One class can be treated differently from another class. The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated. Petitioner filed this instant Petition on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.Issues: 1. However. ―the enumeration of marginalized and under-represented sectors is not exclusive‖. In regards to the second paragraph of Sec. youth. Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of the provision. Whether or not the requisites of judicial review are complied with. and professionals) may be registered under the party-list system. 4 of BP Blg 52 remains constitutional and valid. women. Held: Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors (labor. In fact. COMELEC Facts: Petitioner is a national organization which represents the lesbians. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. urban poor. and without the benefit of a detailed factual record. employees 65 years of age are classified differently from younger employees. Sec. Igot and Salapantan have institute the case as a taxpayer‘s suit. 2. elderly. It also argued for the first time that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941. neither Igot nor Salapantan has been charged with acts of loyalty to the State. and trans-genders. The purpose of the provision is to satisfy the ―need for new blood‖ in the workplace. ANG LADLAD vs. freedom of speech and assembly. A motion for reconsideration being denied. there is no cause of action in this particular case. the necessity for resolving the issue of constitutionality is absent. violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion. Commission on Elections. it should be declared null and void for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused. Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation. 2) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in their decision. should be declared null and void 2. As to (1). Held: No constitutional question will be heard and decided by the Court unless there is compliance with the requisites of a judicial inquiry. His question is posed merely in the abstract. WON Respondent violated the Non-establishment clause of the Constitution. insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma.

No. still enjoys the presumption of innocence. while he is charged with the offense of "coup d‘etat". more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded the resignation of the President and key national officials. at best. 2003. therefore. while he (Trillanes) has not been convicted and. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its position that petitioner‘s admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society. Before starting his term. Our Constitution provides in Article III. In the aftermath of such event dubbed as the Oakwood Incident.‖ the remedies for which are a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance. Trillanes IV was charged with coup d’état before the RTC of Makati. what our non-establishment clause calls for is ―government neutrality in religious matters. Trillanes argued that unlike in his case. Pimentel G. petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes filed with RTC an Omnibus Motion to be allowed to attend Senate sessions and fulfill his functions as Senator. The RTC however denied his motion. June 27. disingenuous. A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. depriving the people of proper representation. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as ―any act. after the people in their sovereign capacity elected him as Senator. Be it noted that government action must have a secular purpose. the accused in the Jalosjos case attempted to flee prior to being arrested. Trillanes remained in detention and won a seat in the Senate. like former President Joseph Estrada and former Governor Nur Misuari who were allowed to attend "social functions. It hardly needs to be emphasized that mere allegation of violation of laws is not proof.‖ Clearly. The denial of Ang Ladlad‘s registration on purely moral grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and disapproval of homosexuals. repudiating the people‘s choice. defies. or abatement without judicial proceedings. or disregards decency or morality. Four years later. the accused in the Jalojos case was charged with two (2) counts of statutory rape and six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness. requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal conviction." Finding no rhyme and reason in the denial of the more serious request to perform the duties of a Senator. After a series of negotiations. condition of property. on the other hand. He argues that denying his Omnibus Motion is tantamount to removing him from office. 179817. is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system. and a mere blanket invocation of public morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or culpability. crimes involving moral turpitude. we hold that moral disapproval.‖ We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. ISSUE: Whether the RTC violated the Equal Protection Clause entitled to Trillanes when it denied his Omnibus Motion. 2008 FACTS: On July 27.‖ At bottom. rather than a tool to further any substantial public interest. the accused in the Jalosjos case was already convicted at the time he filed his motion. As such. without more. a civil action. and other related requests. petitioner harps on an alleged violation of the equal protection clause. a charge which is commonly regarded as a political offense. We also find the COMELEC‘s reference to purported violations of our penal and civil laws flimsy. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. establishment.R. citing the Jalosjos case which had similar requests but also denied by the courts. military soldiers surrendered that evening. Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented. or why special protection is required for the youth. or anything else which shocks.particular organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5 that ―[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. at worst. ―governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality. while he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and agreed to take responsibility for his acts at the Oakwood incident. omission. and overruling the mandate of the people. denying the people‘s will. Petitioner argues that his election provides the legal justification to allow him to serve his mandate. Trillanes vs. Petitioner also pleads for the same liberal treatment accorded certain detention prisoners who have also been charged with non-bailable offenses. .

In an attempt to bind or twist the hands of the trial court. the trial court previously allowed petitioner to register as a voter in December 2006. FACTS: Paragraph (c) of Section 145 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) provided for: “Tax rates hierarchy based on the net retail price per pack of cigarettes”. at the discretion of the authorities or upon court orders. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention. it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system. he is deemed placed under the custody of the law.) which states that: “Duly registered or existing brand of cigarettes – shall include duly registered. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates his status to that of a special class. 1997 and shall include duly registered. 2007. Allowing petitioner to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. With the implementation of the said law and its implementing rules and regulations. a survey of the net retail prices per pack of cigarettes was conducted as of October 1. The trial court thus correctly concluded that the presumption of innocence does not carry with it the full enjoyment of civil and political rights. prior to January 1. filed a petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction of the said law and its implementing rules and regulations. petitioner overlooks these prior grants to him and insists on unending blanket authorizations. when a person indicted for an offense is arrested. Petitioner company based it on the ground that they discriminate against new brands of cigarettes. Such justification for confinement with its underlying rationale of public self-defense applies equally to detention prisoners like Trillanes or convicted prisoners-appellants like Jalosjos. existing or active brands of cigarettes. To implement the said law.R. British American Tobacco. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him. .I. which owns various cigarette brands such as Lucky Strike. Petitioner failed to establish that this discretion was gravely abused. regardless of the stage of the criminal action. Petitioner asserts that the assailed provisions accord a special or privileged status to Annex ―D‖ brands while at the same time discriminate against other brands. The determination that the evidence of guilt is strong. the results of which were embodied in Annex "D" of the NIRC as the duly registered. thus arguing that the courts maintain double standards in the treatment of detention prisoners. To determine the applicable tax rates of existing cigarette brands. 1996. The Constitution and the Rules of Court provide that no person charged with a capital offense. inactive brands of cigarette not sold in commercial quantity before January 1. elective or appointive. It is impractical to draw a line between convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees for the purpose of maintaining jail security. while in detention. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation. 2007. in violation of the equal protection and uniformity provisions of the Constitution. Section 2 of the Revenue Regulations 9-2003 was issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (B. be proclaimed as senator-elect. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO vs. the SC states that emergency or compelling temporary leaves from imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners. or hold office. The provisions apply equally to rape and coup d’etat cases. and take his oath of office on June 29. unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. justifies the detention of an accused as a valid curtailment of his right to provisional liberty. existing or active brands of cigarettes. In fact. and while pre-trial detainees do not forfeit their constitutional rights upon confinement. both being punishable by reclusion perpetua. 1997 and that New Brands shall mean brands duly registered after January 1.RULING: No. the fact of their detention makes their rights more limited than those of the public. In the petitioner‘s contention that he was deprived of the same liberal treatment granted to Joseph Estrada and Nur Misuari who were allowed to attend "social functions‖. 1997”. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong. file his certificate of candidacy in February 2007. cast his vote on May 14. CAMACHO (2008) As a matter of law.

could hardly be considered arbitrary. 1-97. Congress was unequivocal in its unwillingness to delegate the power to periodically adjust the excise tax rate and tax brackets as well as to periodically resurvey and reclassify the cigarette brands based on the increase in the consumer price index. II(4)(b). Thus. in enacting the National Internal Revenue Code. and Sections II(1)(b). as amended by Section 2 of Revenue Regulations 9-2003. III (Large Tax Payers Assistance Division II) II(b) of Revenue Memorandum Order No. the classification freeze provisions do not violate the equal protection and uniformity of taxation clauses. and ease of projection of revenues. Consequently. The classification freeze provision addressed Congress‘s administrative concerns in the simplification of tax administration of sin products. or motivated by a hostile or oppressive attitude to unduly favor older brands over newer brands. 6-2003 violate the equal protection and uniformity of taxation clause HELD: No. there can be no denial of the equal protection of the laws since the rational-basis test is amply satisfied. . The Congress. simplify the whole tax system for sin products to remove these potential areas of abuse and corruption from both the side of the taxpayer and the government.ISSUE: Whether or not the said ‗classification freeze provisions‘ of Section 145 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and Section 4(B)(e)(c). II(7). buoyant and stable revenue generation. among others. II(6). Congress sought to. elimination of potential areas for abuse and corruption in tax collection. 2nd paragraph of Revenue Regulations No.

petitioner is entitled to a downward reclassification of Lucky Strike from the premium-priced to the high-priced tax bracket. Indubitably. all things being equal. Citing Ormoc Sugar Co. (3) it applies. As held in the assailed Decision. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9335 violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. the ordinance was found unconstitutional on equal protection grounds because its terms because its terms do not apply to future conditions as well. HELD: NO. CAMACHO (2009) FACTS: Petitioner insists that the assailed provisions (1) violate the equal protection and uniformity of taxation clauses of the Constitution. (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law. ISSUE: WON the classification freeze provision violates the equal protection and uniformity of taxation clauses of the constitution. COMELEC . The assailed law does not violate the equal protection and uniformity of taxation clauses. Petitioner argues that the classification freeze provision violates the equal protection and uniformity of taxation clauses because the brands are taxed based on their 1996 net retail prices while new brands are taxed based on their present day net retail prices. Both the BIR and the BOC are bureaus under the DOF. and (3) infringe the constitutional provisions on regressive and inequitable taxation.2 petitioner asserts that the assailed provisions accord a special or privileged status to the brands while at the same time discriminate against other brands. It also met the four required classification mentioned above. a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. These contentions are without merit and a rehash of petitioner‘s previous arguments before this Court. 1 Article XII of the Constitution on unfair competition.: A legislative classification that is reasonable does not offend the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection of the laws. Treasurer of Ormoc City. But this is not the case here. League of Cities vs. a tax reform legislation. (2) contravene Section 19. the rational basis test was properly applied to gauge the constitutionality of the assailed law in the face of an equal protection challenge. The classification freeze provision uniformly applies to all cigarette brands whether existing or to be introduced in the market at some future time. Thus."3 Under the rational basis test. there is no question that the classification freeze provision meets the geographical uniformity requirement because the assailed law applies to all cigarettes brands in the Philippines. to both present and future conditions. It does not purport to exempt any brand from its operation nor single out a brand for purpose of imposition of excise taxes. it is sufficient that the legislative classification is rationally related to achieving some legitimate State interest.ABAKADA vs. the instant case neither involves a suspect classification nor impinges on a fundamental right. the classification and treatment accorded to the BIR and the BOC under RA 9335 fully satisfy the demands of equal protection. In the instant case. As the Court ruled in the assailed Decision. One of their contentions is that limiting the scope of the system of rewards and incentives only to officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. and (4) it applies equally to all those belonging to same class. Consequently. The classification is considered valid and reasonable provided that: (1) it rests on substantial distinctions. such substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose of the law. They principally perform the special function of being the instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of its great inherent functions – taxation. Hence. v. the rational basis test was properly applied to gauge the constitutionality of the assailed law in the face of an equal protection challenged. invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition challenging the constitutionality of RA 9335. RULING: No. Consequently. PURISIMA FACTS: Petitioners. It has been held that "in the areas of social and economic policy. The court is not persuaded. There is no valid basis for classification or distinction as to why such a system should not apply to officials and employees of all other government agencies. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO vs. Petitioner further argues that assuming the assailed provisions are constitutional.

Subsequently. ROMULO G. Congress cannot write such criteria in any other law. Equal Protection Clause The equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution permits a valid classification under the following conditions: The classification must rest on substantial distinctions. . Thereafter. Of the 57 bills. 2010 Facts: During the 11th Congress 57 cityhood bills were filed before the House of Representatives. Ruling: YES. 9009 which amends Section 450 of the Local Government Code by increasing the annual income requirement for conversion of a municipality into city from 20 million pesos to 100 million pesos. Petitioner claims that the revenue regulations are violative of the equal protection clause because the CWT is being levied only on real estate enterprises. The mere pendency of a cityhood is not a material difference to distinguish one municipality from another for the purpose of the income requirements and it does not affect or determine the level of income of a municipality. like the Cityhood laws. Nos. CREBA vs. assails the validity of the imposition of minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) on corporations and creditable withholding tax (CWT) on sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets. Specifically.the constitution is clear. even if it were written in Section 450 of the Local Government Code would still be unconstitutional for violation of equal protection clause. Amatong and then Commissioner of Internal Revenue Guillermo Parayno. The classification must be germane to the purpose of the law. the Cityhood laws violate both the Constitution and the equal protection clause. Article X of the Constitution and the equal protection clause. 1.G. No. as respondents. Issue: Whether or not the Cityhood Laws violate both the Constitution and the equal protection clause. Petitioners sought to declare the 16 cityhood laws unconstitutional for violation of Section 10. even if their manner of doing business is not much different from that of a real estate enterprise. The classification must not be limited to existing conditions only. while 16 respondent municipalities can.178056 .August 24. Municipalities with the same income as the 16 respondent municipalities cannot convert into cities. 177499. then acting Secretary of Finance Juanita D. Like a manufacturing concern. Constitutionality. expressing that the whole conversion of municipalities into cities would reduce the share of existing cities in the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA). violates the requirements that the classification must apply to all similarly situated. as worded the exemption provision found in the Cityhood laws.R. that the creation of the local government units must follow the criteria established in the Local Government Code and not in any other law. and The classification must apply equally to all members of the same class.R. There is no substantial distinction between municipalities with pending cityhood bills in the 11th Congress and municipalities that did not have pending bills. The said cityhood laws directed the COMELEC to hold plebiscites to determine whether the voters in each municipality will approved of the conversion. Jr. including the conversion of a municipality into a city. 2010 FACTS: Petitioner CREBA. petitioner points out that manufacturing enterprises are not similarly imposed a CWT on their sales. an association of real estate developers and builders in the Philippines. 160756 March 9. During the 13th congress the 16 cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting all the 16 municipalities from the 100 million pesos requirement of RA 9009 and these were approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate and it lapsed into law without President Arroyo's signature. 33 eventually became laws and the 24 other bills were not acted upon. The constitution requires Congress to stipulate in the Local Government Code all the criteria necessary for the creation of the city. the 12th Congress enacted RA No. Clearly. 16 municipalities filed their individual cityhood bills. 176591. Limiting the exemption only to 16 municipalities. It impleaded former Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo.

and thereafter to submit its finding and recommendations to the President.O.g. Classification. The court disagrees with the contention of petitioner. (3) not be limited to existing conditions only and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class. The only difference is that "goods" produced by the real estate business are house and lot units. RULING: . The sales of manufacturers who have clients within the top 5. appliance and other capital goods yet these are not similarly subjected to the CWT. e. a class and can be validly treated differently from other business enterprises. petitioners filed cases before the SC assailing the validity and constitutionality of the said EO. is not their production processes but the prices of their goods sold and the number of transactions involved. Inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation. must (1) rest on substantial distinctions. The court also added that each manufacturing enterprise may have tens of thousands of transactions with several thousand customers every month involving both minimal and substantial amounts.O. it may choose what to subject to CWT. at present. jewelry. As already discussed. No. are also subject to CWT for their transactions with said 5. the Secretary may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions. fails to realize that what distinguishes the real estate business from other manufacturing enterprises. (2) be germane to the purpose of the law. 1 is violative of this constitutional safeguard (equal protection clause). 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) of 2010. A reading of Section 2. as specified by the BIR. Petitioner counters that there are other businesses wherein expensive items are also sold infrequently. It follows that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by legislation based on a reasonable classification. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that "no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances. ISSUE: Whether the CWT being levied on real estate enterprises are violative of the equal protection clause. furniture. to be valid. Petitioner. 1 violates the equal protection clause enshrined in Section 1. their co-principals. BIRAOGO vs.000 corporations. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION FACTS: President Noynoy signed Executive Order No.000 corporations. 1. RULING: NO. to withhold the taxes on each of their transactions with their tens or hundreds of suppliers may result in an inefficient and unmanageable system of taxation and may well defeat the purpose of the withholding tax system. heavy equipment. They contend that it does not apply equally to all members of the same class such that the intent of singling out the ―previous administration‖ as its sole object makes the PTC an ―adventure in partisan hostility. Petitioners argue that E. or exemption. accomplices and accessories during the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The PTC is created to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by public officers and employees. To require the customers of manufacturing enterprises. No. all persons belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike. The income from the sale of a real property is bigger and its frequency of transaction limited. making it less cumbersome for the parties to comply with the withholding tax scheme. Congress and the Ombudsman.‖ ISSUE: Whether or not E. infringe no constitutional limitation.57. Under Section 57(B). The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable classifications for purposes of taxation.a real estate business is involved in a continuous process of production and it incurs costs and expenditures on a regular basis. After the issuance of EO No." Stated differently. by itself. for purposes of the imposition of the CWT. There is not violation.2 (M) of RR 2-98 will also show that petitioner’s argument is not accurate. The real estate industry is. in insisting that its industry should be treated similarly as manufacturing enterprises.

1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. Commissioner Napoleon L. It is not a class of its own. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain. that is. BOCEA opined that the revenue target was impossible to meet due to the Government‘s own policies on reduced tariff rates and tax breaks to big businesses. They also alleged they were threatened that if they do not sign their respective Performance Contracts. Contending that the enactment and implementation of R. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth ―concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration” only. 9335 and its IRR. It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service. started to disseminate Collection District Performance Contracts7 (Performance Contracts) for the lower ranking officials and rank-and-file employees to sign. in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance (DOF). 9335 and its IRR. and in order to comply with the stringent deadlines thereof. they would face possible reassignment.A. in her capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. In order for a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality. . or so constituted as to preclude additions to the number included within a class. This petition was filed directly with this Court on March 3. but must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in similar circumstances and conditions. The Fund is sourced from the collection of the BIR and the BOC in excess of their revenue targets for the year. the occurrence of natural calamities and because of other economic factors. Teves. patent and manifest. RA [No. No. December 2011 FACTS: On January 25. Executive Order No. No. 9335. and their adverse effects on the constitutional rights of BOC officials and employees. Morales (Commissioner Morales). Section 1 reads: No person shall be deprived of life. in his capacity as BOC Commissioner. ―Such a classification must not be based on existing circumstances only. In 2008. Court finds Executive Order No. or property without due process of law. be placed on floating status. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. MARGARITO B.] 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). 1 as unconstitutional in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in Section 1. reshuffling. Any incentive or reward is taken from the fund and allocated to the BIR and the BOC in proportion to their contribution in the excess collection of the targeted amount of tax revenue.A. No.A. BOCEA asserted that in view of the unconstitutionality of R. Hefti. TEVES G. The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board).YES. 9335 are tainted with constitutional infirmities in violation of the fundamental rights of its members. all who are in situations and circumstances which are relative to the discriminatory legislation and which are indistinguishable from those of the members of the class must be brought under the influence of the law and treated by it in the same way as are the members of the class. Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution. No.R. 2005. liberty. former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R. a class of past administrations. In this regard. BOCEA claimed that some BOC employees were coerced and forced to sign the Performance Contract. 2008. or worse. petitioners. direct resort to this Court is justified. regardless of employment status.
HON.A. No. and Lilian B. 181704. it must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class. directly filed the present petition against respondents Margarito B. Furthermore.‖ BOCEA vs. Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class. high-ranking officials of the BOC pursuant to the mandate of R. as determined by the Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC).

This standard is analogous to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. No. Whether R.A. the need to delegate to administrative bodies — the principal agencies tasked to execute laws in their specialized fields — the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given statute and effectuate its policies. it is doubtful if the legislature can promulgate laws that will deal adequately with and respond promptly to the minutiae of everyday life. exemptions were set. "justice and equity". R. To be sufficient.] 9335 fully satisfy the demands of equal protection. Indubitably. No. fees and charges. carried out or implemented by the delegate. b. No. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed.A. it lays down a reasonable yardstick for removal (when the revenue collection falls short of the target by at least 7. the incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain to the said agencies. 9335 is a bill of attainder. Due Process BOCEA‘s apprehension of deprivation of due process finds its answer in Section 7 (b) and (c) of R. In this case. the law concerns only the BIR and the BOC because they have the common distinct primary function of generating revenues for the national government through the collection of taxes. but in conformity with. rules and regulations and compliance with substantive and procedural due process. The action for removal is also subject to civil service laws. Whether R. Moreover. an employee‘s right to be heard is not at all . The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification. 9335. Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. No.ISSUE/S: 1. On Equal Protection.A. (b) security of tenure and (c) due process. the standard must specify the limits of the delegate‘s authority. a ground for disciplinary action under civil service laws.5%) with due consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of collection.] 9335.The concerned BIR or BOC official or employee is not simply given a target revenue collection and capriciously left without any quarter. These requirements are denominated as the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. a classification that has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary. this Court has recognized the following as sufficient standards: "public interest". Security of Tenure RA [No. that is. Given the volume and variety of interactions in today’s society. 9335 and its IRR violate the rights of BOCEA‘s members to: (a) equal protection of laws. and that it contains sufficient standards as to negate BOCEA’s supposition of undue delegation of legislative power to the Board. All that is required for the valid exercise of this power of subordinate legislation is that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law and that the regulation be not in contradiction to. 9335. HELD: 1. The guarantee of security of tenure only means that an employee cannot be dismissed from the service for causes other than those provided by law and only after due process is accorded the employee. such substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose of the law. In the case of RA [No. It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate‘s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. delegation of legislative power to various specialized administrative agencies is allowed as an exception to this principle. They principally perform the special function of being the instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of its great inherent functions — taxation. Whether there is undue delegation of legislative power to the Board 2. the classification and treatment accorded to the BIR and the BOC under RA [No. 9335 and its IRR clearly give due consideration to all relevant factors that may affect the level of collection. the standards prescribed by the law. With respect to RA [No. contravening BOCEA‘s claim that its members may be removed for unattained target collection even due to causes which are beyond their control. customs duties. and 3. 2. At any rate.] 9335 in no way violates the security of tenure of officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC. a.A.] 9335. is complete in all its essential terms and conditions. "public convenience and welfare" and "simplicity. Hence.A. Hence. No. c. No. The Court finds that R. In the same manner. No. In the face of the increasing complexity of modern life. read and appreciated in its entirety. the declared policy of optimization of the revenuegeneration capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC is infused with public interest. its expressed public policy is the optimization of the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC. Both the BIR and the BOC are bureaus under the DOF. Moreover. announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented. Since the subject of the law is the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC. economy and welfare".

police officers secured a search warrant from the RTC and went to serve the search warrant to petitioner. YES RULING: It must be remembered that the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid. It does not seek to inflict punishment without a judicial trial.A. and the lack of judicial trial. satisfies the constitutional . SPO3 Masnayon requested his men to get a barangay tanod for their aid. RUBEN DEL CASTILLO vs. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others.prevented and his right to appeal is not deprived of him. penal or otherwise. 3. and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it. the CA erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of prohibited drugs. No. PEOPLE FACTS: Pursuant to a confidential information that petitioner was engaged in selling shabu. that the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure is applicable only against government authorities and not to private individuals such as the barangay tanod who found the folded paper containing packs of shabu inside the nipa hut. No. a BIR or BOC official or employee in this case cannot be arbitrarily removed from the service without according him his constitutional right to due process. 9335 is not a bill of attainder.) The RTC found him guilty. When they went to the petitioner‘s house.A. 9335 merely lays down the grounds for the termination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides for the consequences thereof. and the fact of finding the same is sufficient to convict. SPO3 Masnayon claimed that he saw petitioner run towards a small structure. R. In the presence of the barangay tanod. which was affirmed by the CA. Masnayon chased him but to no avail. maintains that the petitioner. the imposition of a punishment. they met petitioner's wife and informed her that they will implement the search warrant. Nelson Gonzalado. when prohibited and regulated drugs are found in a house or other building belonging to and occupied by a particular person. because he and his men were not familiar with the entrances and exits of the place. or shabu. But before they can search the area. No. the police officer who applied for it. however. R. and the elder sister of petitioner named Dolly del Castillo. ISSUE: Whether there is a violation of petitioner's constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure. the nipa hut located about 20 meters away from his house is no longer within the "permissible area" that may be searched by the police officers due to the distance and that the search warrant did not include the same nipa hut as one of the places to be searched. including four (4) plastic packs containing white crystalline substance (methamphetamine hydrochloride. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. did not introduce clear and convincing evidence to show that Masnayon was conscious of the falsity of his assertion or representation. Rule 127 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. His men who searched the residence of the petitioner found nothing. a nipa hut. The democratic processes are still followed and the constitutional rights of the concerned employee are amply protected. in front of his house. R. In fine.A. considering that SPO1 Reynaldo Matillano. because he could not be presumed to be in possession of the same just because they were found inside the nipa hut. 9335 does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder. had no personal knowledge of the alleged illegal sale of drugs during a test-buy operation conducted prior to the application of the same search warrant. aside from failing to file the necessary motion to quash the search warrant pursuant to Section 14. No. but one of the barangay tanods was able to confiscate from the nipa hut several articles. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals. the presumption arises that such person is in possession of such drugs in violation of law. The petitioner argued that: there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant. searched the house of petitioner including the nipa hut where the petitioner allegedly ran for cover. The OSG.

The appellate court. RTC granted the petition and the subject Customs Memorandum Order 27-2003 is declared INVALID and OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT. this petition. The police officers. Search Warrant No. the same items should still be admissible as evidence because the one who discovered them was a barangay tanod who is a private individual. Respondent claimed that the equal protection clause of the Constitution was violated when the regulation treated non-flour millers differently from flour millers for no reason at all. The regulation provided an exclusive list of corporations. as well as the barangay tanods were acting as agents of a person in authority during the conduct of the search. The content of CMO 27-3003.requirement of definiteness. wheat would be classified either as food grade or feed grade. since the regulation affected substantial rights of petitioners and other importers. xxx Q And did anything happen inside the shop of Ruben del Castillo? A It was the barangay tanod who saw the folded paper and I saw him open the folded paper which contained four shabu deck. the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure being applicable only against government authorities. the search conducted was unreasonable and the confiscated items are inadmissible in evidence. dismissed the appeal. Petitioners appealed to the CA. Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Held: Yes. can be considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless search.R. Issue: Whether the OSG‘s contention is meritorious [assuming that the items seized were found in another place not designated in the search warrant. Hence. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. No. having been found in a place other than the one described in the search warrant. Q And who among the team went inside? A PO2 Milo Areola and the Barangay Tanod.[19] In the present case.] Ruling: The contention is devoid of merit. petitioner Commissioner of Customs issued CMO 27-2003. respondent filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. we hold that it is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. however. hearing and publication. G. On 19 January 2004. 570-9-1197-24[20] specifically designates or describes the residence of the petitioner as the place to be searched. Depending on these factors. the same barangay tanods therefore acted as agents of persons in authority. HYPERMIX FEEDS CORP. Incidentally. 179579 February 1. for tariff purposes. The confiscated items. A month after the issuance of CMO 27-2003. ports of discharge. the items were seized by a barangay tanod in a nipa hut. commodity descriptions and countries of origin. the parties agreed that the matters raised in the application for preliminary injunction and the Motion to Dismiss would just be resolved together in the main case. . petitioners should have observed the requirements of notice. On 28 February 2005. on 19 December 2003. Having been established that the assistance of the barangay tanods was sought by the police authorities who effected the searched warrant. 2012 Facts: On 7 November 2003. 20 meters away from the residence of the petitioner. Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss. Thus. the RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effective for twenty (20) days from notice. wheat was classified. the presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of petitioner's constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure. It held that. Under the Memorandum. xxx Q And what happened when your team proceeded to the nipa hut? A I was just outside the nipa hut.

IN RE: MORALES FACTS: The Office of the Court Administrator received an unsigned and undated anonymous letter alleging that Atty. We do not see how the quality of wheat is affected by who imports it. One of the exceptions to the rule is consented warrantless search. conducted a spot investigation and gained access to Morales‘ personal computer. but even to the state. equipment and utilities. it must be shown that (1) it rests on substantial distinctions. The computer was seized and taken to the custody of the OCA. Unfortunately. The Petition is DENIED. Miguel Morales was consuming his working hours filing and attending to personal cases. The Court granted his motion but ordered that the files be retrieved first. intelligently given and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law. Morales‘ personal computer admissible in the administrative case against him? Thus. therefore. the guarantee of the equal protection of laws is not violated if there is a reasonable classification. it must be shown that: (1) the right exists. Article III Section 3(2) bars the admission of evidence obtained in violation of such right. (2) that the persons involved had the knowledge. does not become disadvantageous to respondent only. RULING: DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. Morales‘ personal cases However. DCA Dela Cruz claims that they were able to obtain the pleadings with Atty. For a classification to be reasonable. the Court finds his assertion insufficient to make the present case fall under the exception. conducted a discreet investigation to verify the allegations of the complaint. such as administrative cases against employees in his old sala. Pleadings to two of Atty. Morales filed a motion for the release of his computer. Morales‘ consent. ISSUE: Whether or not the pleadings found in Atty. where it is discharged. Morales asserted that the ―raid‖ conducted by DCA Dela Cruz without search and seizure orders violated his right to privacy and the articles seized should therefore be considered inadmissible. Petitioners violated respondent‘s right to equal protection of laws when they provided for an unreasonable classification in the application of the regulation. they would only be made to pay 3% tariff. using office supplies. a classification subjecting them to 7% tariff. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution enshrines the inviolable right of the people to be secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures. CMO 27-2003 does not meet these requirements. Morales filed a letter-complaint addressed to then CJ Davide against DCA Dela Cruz for alleged conspiracy and culpable violation of the Consti. of the existence of the right. or which country it came from. were found among the computer files. specific. dela Cruz. Consent to a search must be unequivocal. Thus. even if other millers excluded from CMO 272003 have imported food grade wheat. either actual or constructive. thus depriving the state of the taxes due. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.The equal protection clause means that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place in like circumstances. on the one hand. (3) it is not limited to existing conditions only. and (4) it applies equally to all members of the same class. The regulation. Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Reuben P. . On the other hand. the product would still be declared as feed grade wheat. To constitute a valid consent. Any violation of this right renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Additionally. and (3) that the person had actual intention to relinquish the right. even if the importers listed under CMO 272003 have imported feed grade wheat.

he readily signed the Receipt for Property Seized and the Certification of Orderly Search. SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Crisostomo then surveyed appellant‘s room in his presence while his family. Upon arriving at appellant‘s house. Following the search. Cruz. electric planer. and assorted carpentry tools on suspicion that they were acquired in exchange for shabu. Before proceeding to appellant‘s residence in Barangay San Antonio. While appellant interposes the defense of frame-up. appellant had not advanced any reason to account for the thirty-one (31) packets of shabu and drug paraphernalia collected from the dresser in his room. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands and we agree that his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Act No. is neither for accused nor even for the trial court to decide. improvised burners. It bears stressing that by no means did the barangay officials become part of the prosecution when they were asked to witness the search. unless there is evidence to the contrary. the NBI agent assigned to the case. Discretion belongs to the prosecutor as to how the State should present its case.R. however. officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. the RTC convicted appellant. June 30. respondent Hellenor Donato. appellant questions the non-presentation of the barangay officials who purportedly observed the search. The operatives of the Sta. Art 3 of RA 6425. The group also confiscated a component. 2009 Violation of Sec 16. electric tester. 6425. Commanding Officer Pagkalinawan showed Nuñez the warrant. Neither did appellant‘s daughter identify the police officer who allegedly planted evidence. credence is given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police FACTS: On January 23.. that belonged to petitioner Alexander del Rosario. drill. Donato. Thereafter. (Philip Morris) wrote the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The prosecutor has the right to choose whom he would present as witness. the NBI agents led by respondent Rafael V. (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities. After doing surveillance work in that city. Angeles City. Nuñez based on reports of drug possession. and aluminum foil with shabu residue and a lady‘s wallet containing P4. Villasol Subdivision. Issue: Is appellant is guilty of possession of dangerous drugs? Ruling: YES. In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. SPO1 Ilagan issued a Receipt for Property Seized and a Certification of Orderly Search which appellant signed. even the accused could have presented them to testify thereon. Mundin called on appellant to come out. Gonzaga . On March 5. To be liable for the crime. 2002 respondent Donato applied for a search warrant with Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City to search the subject premises. Although Donato felt that the delayed hearing compromised the operation. But it took a week later or on March 12. Hence. as amended by RA 9165 Facts: Raul R. camera. Article III of Rep. as amended. All these were found present in the instant case. tooters. lighters. No. jigsaw. and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug. 2002. SPO1 Ilagan found thirty-one (31) packets of shabu. 2002 for the RTC to hear the application and issue the search warrant. The matter of presentation of witnesses. Assuming arguendo that an officer placed a sachet of shabu under appellant‘s bed. grinder. Laguna Police Detectives in coordination with the Los Baños Police Station (LBPS) and IID Mobile Force conducted a search in the house of Raul R. Nuñez was formally charged with violation of Section 16. Instead. 177148. we view such claim with disfavor as it can easily be fabricated and is commonly used as a facile refuge in drug cases. Absent any compelling proof why SPO1 Ilagan would falsely testify against appellant. Jr. Del Rosario vs. the group summoned Barangay Captain Mario Mundin and Chief Tanod Alfredo Joaquin to assist them in serving the search warrant. In a further effort to impeach the credibility of the policemen. requesting assistance in curtailing the proliferation of fake Marlboro cigarettes in Angeles City. Inc.PEOPLE va. the following elements must concur: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug. In a Decision dated February 11. Pampanga. 2002 Philip Morris Products. NUNEZ G. Sr. succeeded in confirming the storage and sale of such fake cigarettes at the house at 51 New York Street.610 inside appellant‘s dresser. PO2 Ortega and the two barangay officials remained in the living room.

These safeguards exist to protect persons from possible abuses that may occur if searches were done surreptitiously or clandestinely. Dissatisfied.‖ The Del Rosarios did not allege that respondents NBI agents violated their right by fabricating testimonies to convince the RTC of Angeles City to issue the search warrant. There is nothing inherently wrong with search warrants being enforced in full view of neighbors. 2007. 2007 and its Resolution dated November 19. On the afternoon of the same day. SP 79496 dated June 29. that a certain "Estela Tuan" had been selling marijuana at Barangay Gabriela Silang. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the complaint of the Del Rosarios did not state a cause of action HELD: All that the Del Rosarios allege is that respondents NBI agents used an unlawfully obtained search warrant against them. and other related words without ultimate facts to support the same are mere conclusions of law. the Del Rosarios were guilty of forum shopping in that they should have filed their claim for damages against the NBI agents through a motion for compensation with the court that issued the search warrant. the rules require that it be done in the presence of two residents of the same locality. Branch 62. TUAN Facts: On January 2000. Upon returning to the CIDG office. b) forum shopping. Tudlong and Lad-ing went out to buy the marijuana. Their search yielded no fake Marlboro cigarettes. PEOPLE vs. such admission does not extend to conclusions of law. in alleging merely that the NBI agents unlawfully procured the search warrant without stating the facts that made the procurement unlawful. 2003. two informants namely. In fact. respondents NBI agents filed a special civil action of certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. Later.R. 2007 for the reasons stated in this Decision. when the respondent or his representative is not present during the search. Subsequently. WHEREFORE. Allegations of bad faith. the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Tudlong and Lad-ing arrived at the office of CIDG in Baguio City.R. petitioners Alexander and Arthur del Rosario (the Del Rosarios) filed a complaint for P50 million in damages against respondents NBI agents Donato and Gonzaga and two others before the RTC of Angeles City. Statements of mere conclusions of law expose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on ground of failure to state a cause of action. The Del Rosarios sought reconsideration of the decision but the CA denied it on November 19. first. Baguio City. Tudlong and Lad-ing entered the house. SPO2 Fernandez requested a laboratory examination on the specimen and yielded positive results for marijuana. and second. the allegation that the search warrant in this case was served in a malicious manner is also not sufficient. evidenced by the fact that. prompting them to file this petition for review. and c) the NBI agents‘ immunity from suit. The RTC denied the motion on March 25. the NBI agents found no fake Marlboro cigarettes in petitioner Alexander del Rosario‘s premises. On August 6. with the MODIFICATION that Civil Case 10584 is DISMISSED without prejudice. the complaint failed to state a cause of action. But a judicially ordered search that fails to yield the described illicit article does not of itself render the court‘s order ―unlawful. they being sued as such agents. Tudlong and Lad-ing came out and showed SPO2 Fernandez the marijuana they bought. and accompanied the two informants to the accused Tuan‘s house. in Civil Case 10584. 2003. and reported to SPO2 Fernandez. SP 79496. The NBI agents filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied the same on June 27. while SPO2 Fernandez waited at the adjacent house. On June 29. 2007 the latter court granted the petition and annulled the RTC‘s orders. Their allegation that the NBI agents used an unlawfully obtained search warrant is a mere conclusion of law. While a motion to dismiss assumes as true the facts alleged in the complaint. 2003 respondents NBI agents answered the complaint with a motion to dismiss on the grounds of: a) the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.proceeded to implement the warrant. contrary to the sworn statements used to get such warrant. The Del Rosarios‘ broad assertion in their complaint that the search was conducted ―in full and plain view of members of the community‖ does not likewise support their claim that such search was maliciously enforced. malice. . Further.

as long as there was substantial basis for that determination. the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce.e. and Lad-ing. the applicant. a movable cabinet in Tuan‘s room. (3) in the determination of probable cause. and particular description of the place to be searched and things to be seized. the CIDG team was allowed entry into the house by MagnoBaludda (Magno).. A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can. (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person. Held: YES. A magistrate‘s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court. and that the items will be found in the place to be searched. It likewise refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items. The defense. articles. SPO2 Fernandez based his Application for Search Warrant not only on the information relayed to him by Lading and Tudlong.‖ Even though accused Tuan was not around.
Probable cause generally signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. with reasonable effort. under oath or affirmation. Tuan raised the matter that the warrant failed to particularly describe the place because the house was a two-storey building composed of several rooms. existence of probable cause. and Lad-ing and Tudlong. the address and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific enough. Tudlong. Issue: Whether there was probable cause for the judge to issue a Search Warrant Held: The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause. and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it. which stated Tuan‘s residence as ―the house of the accused Estela Tuan at Brgy.SPO2 Fernandez. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others. ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. There was only one house located at the stated address. after he was shown a copy of the Search Warrant. Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. the police officers asked Tuan to open a cabinet. Issue: Whether the search warrant particularly described the place to be searched. in the presence of Magno. after which. it must be shown by substantial evidence that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal activity. Later Tuan arrived and thereafter. Baguio City. Such substantial basis exists in this case. PEOPLE vs. accused‘s father. Judge Cortes found probable cause for the issuance of the Search Warrant for Tuan‘s residence after said judge‘s personal examination of SPO2 Fernandez. The only issue is compliance with the first and fourth factors. and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. the informants. consisting of a structure with two floors and composed of several rooms. i. she issued a Search Warrant. Gabriela Silang. disclaimed ownership of the bricks and alleged that a Search Warrant was issued for her house because of a quarrel with her neighbor named Lourdes Estillore. below of which they found a brick of marijuana and a firearm. on the other hand. He also arranged for a test buy and conducted surveillance of Tuan. MAMARIL 632 SCRA 369 (2010) FACTS: . Before a search warrant can be issued. which was accused-appellant‘s residence. filed the Application for a Search Warrant. the judge must examine. Judge Cortes personally examined SPO2 Fernandez. In the case at bar. together with the informants. or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched. and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched. in which they saw more bricks of marijuana. They saw. satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.

She was brought to the sub-station at Maliwalo and was told. They found on the top of the refrigerator one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and prepared a confiscation receipt which Mamaril refused to sign. et al. The Supreme Court rejected the repeated contentions of frame-up of the accused-appellant and that the dangerous drug of methamphetamine hydrochloride was planted by the police officers. and particularly describing the place to be . Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that: “If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist. he shall issue the warrant. The sachet was brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination and was found out to be 0. ISSUES: 1.00. petitioner cannot include the seized items as part of the evidence in the new information. no case would be filed against her. Kagawad Tabamo to witness the conduct of the search and seizure operation in the appellant‘s house. Section 6. Article II of RA 9165. (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them. which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. in writing and under oath or affirmation. The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn the finding of the trial court. The Respondents moved for the withdrawal of the information which was subsequently granted by the RTC on the ground that the information for robbery did not contain the essential elements of robbery as decided upon by the Court of Appeals on an prior complaint. No. (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge. 2010 Facts: Petitioner (Romer Sy Tan) filed a criminal case against respondents (Tiong Gue.). SPO4 Alexis Gotidoc. along with Tarlac Police and PDEA implemented Search Warrant against Mamaril in her residence. Whether or not the trial court is correct in issuing a search warrant 2. The trial court found Mamaril guilty of violation of Section 11. particularly by SPO4 Gotidoc and a certain Ma‘am Dulay that for an amount of P20. Hence the case was dismissed.” The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present. but she did not have money so she was detained. Whether or not a frame-up happened to Mamaril HELD: Yes.000. Hence.On March 2003. The factual version by the defense was different.R. seeking shelter from the Supreme Court contended that he filed information for qualified theft based on the same subject matter of the dismissed robbery and would like to use the item seized in the previously conducted search for the new information of qualified theft. Issue: Whether or not the items seized in the previously conducted search warrant issued by the court for robbery be included and used for the filing of for an information for qualified theft Ruling: No. They also invited Brgy. the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce. Sec. and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The Court is convinced that the questioned search warrant was based on a probable cause. 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 4. this appeal. The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly and that they acted within the bounds of their authority. The petitioner. Mamaril said that she was framed-up. Requisites for issuing search warrant. (3) the judge must examine. Romer Sy Tan vs Sy Tiong Gue G. — A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. at 9:30PM.055 grams of shabu or Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. 174570 December 15.

(2) YES. under the doctrine of qualified political agency.searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. NBI Agents Marvin De Jemil and Edgardo Kawada conducted surveillance operations on Omni. On 28 April 2004. Petitioner's contention that they are not liable because the under filling that took place during the test-buy is an isolated event is . Also. Using eight branded LPG cylinders from Shell.P. They are being suspected of engaging in illegal trading of petroleum products and under filling of branded LPG cylinders in violation of B. 2 (a) and (c) of BP 33. the NBI Agents carried out a test-buy. The Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasig found probable cause for violation of BP 33. as amended. as amended. Agent De Jemil filed his Complaint-Affidavit before the DOJ. De Jemil Facts: Petitioners are stockholders of Omni Gas Corporation ("Omni"). Petron and Total. 2 (a) in relation to Sec. the determination of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice is presumably that of the Chief Executive unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter. Omni refilled the cylinders. It later reversed itself and reinstated the Resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor. such fact does give Omni authority to refill the cylinders without authorization from the brand owners. Therefore. later on. Omni has no authority to refill LPG cylinders as shown by the certifications provided by Shell. Granting arguendo that the customers already owned the LPG cylinders. is subject to judicial review where it is established that grave abuse of discretion tainted the determination. Petitioners appealed the decision to the Secretary of Justice. The aggrieved party need not resort to the Office of the President before availing of judicial remedies because the Secretary of Justice is an alter ego of the President who may opt to exercise or not to exercise his or her power of review over the former‘s determination in criminal investigation cases. Such act is a clear violation of Sec. The NBI seized several items from Omni's premises. contrary to Sec. Ty vs. The determination of probable cause by the public prosecutor. Petron and Total. Whether the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was proper even if Agent De Jemil did not appeal to the Office of the President? 2. as amended by P.D. On 15 April 2004. since there was no probable cause as to indict respondents of the crime of robbery since unlawful taking which is an essential element for Robbery and likewise for Qualified Theft is not present. the withdrawal of the information was justifiable. Whether probable cause exists against petitioners for violations of Sec. The test-buy conducted on 15 April 2004 tends to show that Omni illegally refilled the eight branded cylinders. as amended? 3. This was later approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno. He thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. even if both cases emanated from the same incident. LPG Inspector Noel Navio found that the LPG cylinders were without LPG valve seals and one of the cylinders was actually underfilled. It shows that Omni really refilled branded cylinders without authorization. petitioner cannot utilize the evidence seized by virtue of the search warrant issued in connection with the case of robbery in a separate case of qualified theft. Omni‘s unauthorized refilling of branded LPG cylinders. Subsequently. 3 (c) of BP 33. A search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in connection with only one specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of the applicant's personal knowledge and his or her witnesses. 1865. Issues: 1. 33. and. Also. they went to Omni for refilling. NBI Agent De Jemil moved for reconsideration and was denied. by the Secretary of Justice. The NBI agents paid more than P1500. Only the duly authorized dealers and refillers of the brand owners may refill the branded LPG cylinders. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of Secretary of Justice. 3 (c) and 4 of BP 33. Whether petitioners can be held liable therefor? Held: (1) YES. The offense of refilling a branded LPG cylinder without the written consent of the brand owner constitutes the offense regardless of the buyer or possessor of the branded LPG cylinder. in relation to Secs. 2 (a). who later reversed the decision of the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor. Agent De Jemil obtained a search warrant from Pasig RTC branch 167. The seized items also show that Omni has no authority to refill the cylinders.

Grave Misconduct. Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of R. an anonymous letter-complaint was received by the respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chairperson alleging that the ―chief of the Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na division‖ of Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. The diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the hard disk of PALD and LSD computers were then turned over to Chairperson David. copying. being ―fruits of a poisonous tree. which involved the copying of the contents of the hard drive on petitioner‘s computer. ISSUE: Was the search conducted on petitioner‘s office computer and the copying of his personal files without his knowledge and consent – alleged as a transgression on his constitutional right to privacy – lawful? HELD: YES. the search authorized by the respondent CSC Chair. numbering about 40 to 42 documents. The search of petitioner‘s computer files was conducted in connection with investigation of work-related misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint addressed to Chairperson David regarding anomalies in the CSC-ROIV where the head of the Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na division is supposedly ―lawyering‖ for individuals with pending cases in the CSC.untenable. including its use for personal purposes. such power pertaining solely to the court. It was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner. 181881.‖ The team proceeded at once to the CSC-ROIV office and backed up all files in the hard disk of computers at the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) and the Legal Services Division. who are members of Omni's Board of Directors. were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. CONSTANTINO-DAVID G. citing the letter dated January 8. A single under filling under BP 33 is already a criminal act. the temporary use and ownership of the computer issued under a Memorandum of Receipt is ceded to the employee who may exercise all attributes of ownership. which is beyond the authority of the CSC Chairman. Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion (For Reconsideration. associates and even unknown people. duplicating and printing as these would violate his constitutional right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination and warrantless search and seizure. viz: (1) the president. was reasonable in its inception and scope. He pointed out that though government property. (3) managing partner.A. Chairperson David immediately formed a team with background in information technology and issued a memorandum directing them ―to back up all the files in the computers found in the [CSC-ROIV] Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions. Petitioner submits that being in the public assistance office of the CSC-ROIV. is liable. (4) such other officer charged with the management of the business affairs of the corporation or juridical entity. 2007. The Board of Directors is primarily a policy-making body of the Corporation who doesn't concern itself with day-to-day operations POLLO vs. 2007 in which he informed Director Castillo of CSC-ROIV that the files in his computer were his personal files and those of his sister. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). friends and some associates and that he is not authorizing their sealing. he normally would have visitors in his office like friends. (2) general manager. (3) Only Arnel Ty. 2011 FACTS: On January 3. are not liable. to Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing the formal charge as without basis having proceeded from an illegal search. In view of the illegal search. Petitioner filed his Comment. or (5) the employee responsible for such violation. relatives. 4 of BP 33 enumerates the persons who may be held liable. the files/documents copied from his computer without his consent are thus inadmissible as evidence. OCT 11. A search by a government employer of an employee‘s office is justified at . as President of Omni. The other petitioners. He asserted that he had protested the unlawful taking of his computer done while he was on leave. IV (CSC-ROIV) has been lawyering for public officials with pending cases in the CSC. Sec. denying that he is the person referred to in the anonymous letter-complaint. No. Chairperson David thus issued a ShowCause Order requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from notice.‖ The CSC found prima facie case against the petitioner and charged him with Dishonesty. whom he even allowed to use his computer which to him seemed a trivial request. The CSC denied this omnibus motion.R.

His other argument invoking the privacy of communication and correspondence under Section 3(1). As already mentioned. petitioner‘s claim of violation of his constitutional right to privacy must necessarily fail.inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct. the search of petitioner‘s computer was justified there being reasonable ground for suspecting that the files stored therein would yield incriminating evidence relevant to the investigation being conducted by CSC as government employer of such misconduct subject of the anonymous complaint. Thus. Under the facts obtaining. . This situation clearly falls under the exception to the warrantless requirement in administrative searches. the search conducted on petitioner‘s computer was justified at its inception and scope. Article III of the 1987 Constitution is also untenable considering the recognition accorded to certain legitimate intrusions into the privacy of employees in the government workplace under the aforecited authorities.