You are on page 1of 75

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Case Digests
CASE 1:

BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8)
Page 1 of 75
provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons
within the Philippines.

SIMON v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
ISSUE: Whether or not the public respondent has jurisdiction to investigate the
alleged violations of the "business rights" of the private respondents whose stalls
were demolished by the petitioners.

G.R. No. 100150
FACTS:The case started when a "Demolition Notice," signed by Carlos Quimpoin his
capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers
Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor, was sent to, and received
by, the private respondents (being the officers and members of the North EDSA
Vendors Association, Incorporated). In said notice, the respondents were given a
grace-period of three (3) days within which to vacate the questioned premises of
North EDSA.
Prior to their receipt of the demolition notice, the private respondents were informed
by petitioner Quimpo that their stalls should be removed to give way to the
"People's Park". The group, led by their President RoqueFermo, filed a lettercomplaint (Pinag-samangSinumpaangSalaysay) with the CHR against the petitioners,
asking the late CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to be addressed
to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr., of Quezon City to stop the demolition of the private
respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores, andcarinderia along North EDSA. The CHR issued
an Order, directing the petitioners "to desist from demolishing the stalls and
shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of the vendors/squatters' complaint
before the Commission" and ordering said petitioners to appear before the CHR.
Convinced that petitioners carried out the demolition of private respondents'
stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia,the CHR, ordered the disbursement of financial
assistance of not more than P200,000.00 in favor of the private respondents to
purchase light housing materials and food under the Commission's supervision and
again directed the petitioners to "desist from further demolition, with the warning
that violation of said order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest.
A motion to dismiss was filed questioning CHR's jurisdiction. The petitioners likewise
manifested that they would bring the case to the courts.A supplemental motion to
dismiss was filed by the petitioners, stating that the Commission's authority should
be understood as being confined only to the investigation of violations of civil and
political rights, and that "the rights allegedly violated in this case were not civil and
political rights, but their privilege to engage in business.
The CHR cited the petitioners in contempt for carrying out the demolition of the
stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia despite the "order to desist". The CHR also
issued an Order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss and supplemental motion to
dismiss.The CHR opined that "it was not the intention of the Constitutional
Commission to create only a paper tiger limited only to investigating civil and
political rights, but it should be considered a quasi-judicial body with the power to

HELD:No.The
Commission
on
Human
Rights
was
created
by
the
1987 Constitution.The powers and functions of the Commission are defined by the
1987 Constitution, thus, among others to investigate, on its own or on complaint by
any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.
The CHR theorizes that the intention of the members of the Constitutional
Commission is to make CHR a quasi-judicial body. This view, however, has not
heretofore been shared by this Court. In Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights, the
Court, through then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, has
observed that it is "only the first of the enumerated powers and functions that bears
any resemblance to adjudication or adjudgment," but that resemblance can in no
way be synonymous to the adjudicatory power itself.
The term "civil rights,"has been defined as referring —
to those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country,
or, in wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected
with the organization or administration of the government. They
include the rights of property, marriage, equal protection of the
laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil rights
are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a
state or community. Such term may also refer, in its general sense,
to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action.
Political rights, on the other hand, are said to refer to the right to participate, directly
or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, the right of
suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the
rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government.
Recalling the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission it is readily apparent
that the delegates envisioned a Commission on Human Rights that would focus its
attention to the more severe cases of human rights violations.
In the particular case at hand, what are sought to be demolished are the stalls, sarisaristores and carinderia, as well as temporary shanties, erected by private
respondents on a land which is planned to be developed into a "People's Park". More
than that, the land adjoins the North EDSA of Quezon City which, this Court can take
judicial notice of, is a busy national highway. The consequent danger to life and limb
is not thus to be likewise simply ignored. We are not prepared to conclude that the
order for the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia of the private
respondents can fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving
civil and political rights" intended by the Constitution.

ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO
ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA
ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Case Digests
The Commission on Human Rights is hereby prohibited from further proceeding with
CHR Case No. 90-1580 and from implementing the P500.00 fine for contempt.
CASE 2:
G.R. No. L-24693
July 31, 1967
ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., HOTEL
DEL MAR INC. and GO CHIU vs. THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR OF
MANILA, VICTOR ALABANZA,
FERNANDO, J.:
FACTS:
On June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the Manila enacted Ordinance No.
4760, which was approved on June 14, 1963, by Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga, then
the acting City Mayor of Manila, in the absence of the respondent regular City Mayor.
City of Manila derived in 1963 an annual income of P101,904.05 from license fees
paid by the 105 hotels and motels (including herein petitioners) operating in the
Manila.
Petitioners Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. and
Hotel del Mar Inc. are duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines,
both with offices in the Manila, duly licensed to engage in the business of operating
hotels and motels in Malate and Ermita districts in Manila, while the petitioner Go
Chin is the president and general manager of Hotel del Mar Inc., and the intervenor
Victor Alabanza is a resident of Baguio City, all having the capacity to sue and be
sued;
The petitioners plea for the issuance of preliminary injunction and for a final
judgment declaring the above ordinance null and void and unenforceable for its
alleged violation of due process, to wit: (The lower court granted Injunction)
1. The Ordinance refrain hotels and motels from entertaining or accepting any
guest or customer unless it fills out a prescribed form in the lobby in open
view;
2. The Ordinance prohibits admission of guests less than 18 years old;
3. The Ordinance imposed increase of license fee to P4,500 and 6,000 or
150% and 200% respectively (tax issue);
4. The Ordinance make it unlawful to lease or rent more than twice every 24
hours;
5. The Ordinance provides for cancellation of license for subsequent violation.
6. There is the attempt to impugn the ordinance on another due process
ground by invoking the principles of vagueness or uncertainty.

ISSUE: WON Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process
clause as held by the lower court, hence, unconstitutional, and null and void.

BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8)
Page 2 of 75
categorically by Justice Malcolm: "The presumption is all in favor of validity. The local
legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the
regulations are essential to the well being of the people. The Judiciary should not
lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or
property rights under the guise of police regulation.
2. The ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power. This particular
manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard
public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture
and unsupported by anything of substance. There is no question but that the
challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to
public morals as there was an alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery
and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels, which
"provide a necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit" and thus
become the "ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers."
3. The increase in the licensed fees was intended to discourage
"establishments of the kind from operating for purpose other than legal" and at the
same time, to increase "the income of the city government.” Moreover, it has been
the settled law as far back as 1922 that municipal license fees could be classified
into those imposed for regulating occupations or regular enterprises, for the
regulation or restriction of non-useful occupations or enterprises and for revenue
purposes only. Licenses for non-useful occupations are also incidental to the police
power and the right to exact a fee may be implied from the power to license and
regulate, but in fixing amount of the license fees the municipal corporations are
allowed a much wider discretion in this class of cases than in the former, and aside
from applying the well-known legal principle that municipal ordinances must not be
unreasonable, oppressive, or tyrannical, courts have, as a general rule, declined to
interfere with such discretion. Hence license fees clearly in the nature of privilege
taxes for revenue have frequently been upheld, especially in of licenses for the sale
of liquors. In fact, in the latter cases the fees have rarely been declared
unreasonable.
4. There was no absence of due process. It is the embodiment of the
sporting idea of fair play. There is no controlling and precise definition of due
process.The restriction on the freedom to contract, insofar as the challenged
ordinance makes it unlawful to lease or rent room or portion thereof more than twice
every 24 hours is reasonable not arbitrary. Precisely it was intended to curb the
opportunity for the immoral or illegitimate use to which such premises could be,
and, according to the explanatory note, are being devoted.
NOTE: On October 23, 1967, a Motion for the reconsideration of this decision was
filed by petitioners, followed by a Motion for new trial. As the Motion for
reconsideration is clearly without merit, there is no occasion for this sought-for new
trial. Consequently, both motions are denied
CASE 3: PICHAY (ILAGAN)

HELD: No, the ordinance is valid. The injunction was lifted by reason of the following
basis:

CASE 4
G.R. No. 122846

1. All laws are presumed to be valid. The burden of showing its lack of
conformity to the Constitution resting on the party who assails it unless the statute
or ordinance is void on its face which is not the case here. As was expressed

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA
TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs.

January 20, 2009

ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO
ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA
ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Case Digests
CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM,
Respondent.
Tinga, J.:
FACTS: On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) signed into
law the Ordinance which shall prohibit short time admission in hotels, motels,
lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila.
Pursuant to the above policy, short-time admission and rate [sic], wash-up rate or
other similarly concocted terms, are hereby prohibited in hotels, motels, inns,
lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila.
On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC)
filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction
and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila, Branch 9 impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of Manila (the
City) represented by Mayor Lim. MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it
includes motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid
and unconstitutional. MTDC claimed that as owner and operator of the Victoria Court
in Malate, Manila it was authorized by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 259 to admit
customers on a short time basis as well as to charge customers wash up rates for
stays of only three hours.
On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium
Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed a
motion to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-intervention on the ground
that the Ordinance directly affects their business interests as operators of drive-inhotels and motels in Manila. The three companies are components of the Anito
Group of Companies which owns and operates several hotels and motels in Metro
Manila.
The RTC issued a TRO on January 14, 1993, directing the City to cease and desist
from enforcing the Ordinance. The City filed an Answer dated alleging that the
Ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power.
On February 8, 1993, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the city
to desist from the enforcement of the Ordinance. A month later, on March 8, 1993,
the Solicitor General filed his Comment arguing that the Ordinance is constitutional.
The RTC noted that the ordinance "strikes at the personal liberty of the individual
guaranteed and jealously guarded by the Constitution." Reference was made to the
provisions of the Constitution encouraging private enterprises and the incentive to
needed investment, as well as the right to operate economic enterprises. Finally,
from the observation that the illicit relationships the Ordinance sought to dissuade
could nonetheless be consummated by simply paying for a 12-hour stay.
The City asserted that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to
Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which confers on cities, among
other local government units, the power: [To] regulate the establishment, operation
and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension
houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides
and transports.

BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8)
Page 3 of 75
The Ordinance, it is argued, is also a valid exercise of the power of the City under
Article III, Section 18(kk) of the Revised Manila Charter, thus: "to enact all
ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the
furtherance of the prosperity and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order,
comfort, convenience and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and such
others as be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties
conferred by this Chapter; and to fix penalties for the violation of ordinances which
shall not exceed two hundred pesos fine or six months imprisonment, or both such
fine and imprisonment for a single offense.
Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates
the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police
power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the
constitutionality of the Ordinance. First, it held that the Ordinance did not violate the
right to privacy or the freedom of movement, as it only penalizes the owners or
operators of establishments that admit individuals for short time stays. Second, the
virtually limitless reach of police power is only constrained by having a lawful object
obtained through a lawful method. The lawful objective of the Ordinance is satisfied
since it aims to curb immoral activities. There is a lawful method since the
establishments are still allowed to operate. Third, the adverse effect on the
establishments is justified by the well-being of its constituents in general. Finally, as
held in Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of Manila, liberty is
regulated by law.
ISSUE:
1) WON these establishments have the requisite standing to plead for protection of
their patrons' equal protection rights
2) WON the said Ordinance is constitutional
HELD:
1) YES. In this jurisdiction, the extancy of "a direct and personal interest" presents
the most obvious cause, as well as the standard test for a petitioner's standing. In a
similar vein, the United States Supreme Court reviewed and elaborated on the
meaning of the three constitutional standing requirements of injury, causation, and
redressability in Allen v. Wright.
Nonetheless, the general rules on standing admit of several exceptions such as the
overbreadth doctrine, taxpayer suits, third party standing and, especially in the
Philippines, the doctrine of transcendental importance.
Assuming arguendo that petitioners do not have a relationship with their patrons for
the former to assert the rights of the latter, the overbreadth doctrine comes into
play. In overbreadth analysis, challengers to government action are in effect
permitted to raise the rights of third parties. Generally applied to statutes infringing
on the freedom of speech, the overbreadth doctrine applies when a statute
needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights. In this case, the
petitioners claim that the Ordinance makes a sweeping intrusion into the right to
liberty of their clients. We can see that based on the allegations in the petition, the
Ordinance suffers from overbreadth. We thus recognize that the petitioners have a

ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO
ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA
ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN

R. Further. Morfe accorded recognition to the right to privacy independently of its identification with liberty. He cannot abandon the consequences of his isolation. Indeed. (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade. as it was in the City of Manila case. EDNA BERNATE. personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by applying existing laws. ROGELIO S. it is apparent that the Ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities. I cannot believe that a man no longer a master of himself is in any real sense free. the right to privacy as a constitutional right was recognized in Morfe. his isolation. There are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the room out for more than twice a day. CARPIO MORALES. Ordinance makes no distinction between places frequented by patrons engaged in illicit activities and patrons engaged in legitimate actions. So would the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing prostitution and drug use. obstinately refusing reduction to unity. Moreover. The City asserts before this Court that the subject establishments "have gained notoriety as venue of ‘prostitution. a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment. Governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. However. are indefeasible. for even under the guise of protecting the public interest. the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. he surrenders himself. Thus it prevents legitimate use of places where illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. the invasion of which should be justified by a compelling state interest. presence and exit and thus became the ‘ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers. The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 4 of 75 right to assert the constitutional rights of their clients to patronize their establishments for a "wash-rate" time frame. That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. A long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid. It must appear that the interests of the public generally. 2006. In transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. Mutuc.: ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Less intrusive measures such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work would be more effective in easing the situation. A plain reading of section 3 of the Ordinance shows it makes no classification of places of lodging. indeed. The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the police power as conferred on local government units by the Local Government Code through such implements as the general welfare clause. VICENTA DELOLA. 163087. CASE 5 SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL. FLORENTINO MATILLA. and JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO vs. in itself it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law. SOLUTA. the exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life. it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute. More importantly. Entire families are known to choose pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. His separateness. The test of a valid ordinance is well established. It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinance is the curtailment of sexual behavior. and the will built out of that experience personal to himself. 2) NO. These measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other legitimate merchants. February 20. adultery and fornications’ in Manila since they ‘provide the necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry. If his will is set by the will of others. (5) must be general and consistent with public policy. J. it cannot be denied that legitimate sexual behavior among willing married or consenting single adults which is constitutionally protected will be curtailed as well. thus deems them all susceptible to illicit patronage and subject them without exception to the unjustified prohibition. namely wash rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day. Mutuc. Indeed any person or groups of persons in need of comfortable private spaces for a span of a few hours with purposes other Lacking a concurrence of these requisites. than having sex or using illegal drugs can legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a convenient alternative. (2) must not be unfair or oppressive. The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose claim to privacy and interference demands respect. so very aptly stated: Man is one among many. as distinguished from those of a particular class. No. (3) must not be partial or discriminatory.’" Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene of vice is accurate. he ceases to be a master of himself. and (6) must not be unreasonable. which are. this is not in any way meant to take it away from the vastness of State police power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity. they are so fundamental that they are the basis on which his civic obligations are built. require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. broadly speaking. that his experience is private. As held in Morfe v. If he surrenders his will to others. drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect "wash rates" from their clientele by charging their customers a portion of the rent for motel rooms and even apartments. As the case of Morfe v. liberty or property is affected. and GLOWHRAIN-SILAHIS UNION CHAPTER G. INC. borrowing the words of Laski. We cannot discount other legitimate activities which the Ordinance would proscribe or impair. JOSELITO SANTOS.

An Information was subsequently filed by the Fiscal's Office before the RTC. 1988. the RTC held the hotel. despite ample time for them to obtain one. or any private individual. While awaiting the arrival of the police. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: xxx xxx xxx (9)The right to be secure in one's person. Yet. with the approval of Panlilio. civilly liable for damages for violation of individual respondents' constitutional right against illegal search. the hotel employees union (union). on the latter's request. stayed overnight at the female locker room at the basement of the hotel. A plastic bag was found containing marijuana flowering tops. After trial. of suspected members and officers of the union. On January 11. Issues: Whether or not petitioners violated private respondents' constitutional protection against searches and seizure. given that the hotel owns the room where the union holds office. Loida Somacera (Loida). BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 5 of 75 Soluta and his fellow union officers. and REPISA security guard Steve Villanueva (Villanueva) entered the union office located at the hotel basement. Petitioners' version: Coronel Floro Maniego (Maniego). the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court's decision. The course taken by petitioners and company does not fall under any of the exceptional instances when a warrantless search is allowed by law. and Florentino Matilla (Matilla) were employees of the hotel and officers of the Glowhrain-Silahis Union Chapter. then filed before the Manila RTC a Complaint against petitioners for malicious prosecution and violation of their constitutional right against illegal search. Edna Bernate (Edna). a laundrywoman of the hotel. together with the union. not for malicious prosecution. xxx xxx xxx Petitioners had already received reports in late 1987 of illegal activities allegedly undertaken in the union office and Maniego conducted surveillance of the union officers. Arnold Ilustrisimo and Ed Bautista in opening the door. At dawn of January 11. Loida narrated to him what she had witnessed at dawn. Panlilio thereupon instructed Villanueva to force open the door. the RTC acquitted the accused. And he fetched a locksmith who tried to assist him. over the objection of Babay who even asked them if they had a search warrant. in the morning of January 11. the present petition of Panlilio and the hotel. papers. 6425. On appeal. dollar smuggling. as union officer Soluta was trying in vain to open the door of the union office. 1988. Babay and Panlilio.A. 1988. they are not covered. Held: YES. Soon after she heard the door of the union office opened. No. drawing them to run to the female locker room. who directly or indirectly obstructs. Panlilio told Babay that they proceed to the union office where they would settle the mauling incident. (hotel). Petitioners argue that the constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures is not meant to be invoked against private individuals and hence. while respondents Rogelio Soluta (Soluta). The petition fails. and to thereafter proceed to the Engineering Office where they called for police assistance. men in barong tagalog armed with clubs arrived and started hitting Soluta and his companions. Article 32 of the New Civil Code provides: ART. disposing that the specimen and/or the marijuana flowering tops allegedly found inside the Union Office occupied by the accused is not admissible in evidence because of the suspicious circumstance of confiscation. had been receiving reports that sale and/or use of marijuana. Panlilio. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. forcibly opening the door of the union office. Panlilio then ordered Maniego to investigate and report the matter to the authorities. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . General Manager of the Rapier Enforcement Professional Investigation and Security Agency. Petitioners' violation of individual respondents' constitutional right against unreasonable search thus furnishes the basis for the award of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. the search was not without probable cause as it was conducted precisely due to reports received by petitioners that the union office was being used as a venue for illegal activities. house. she heard pounding sounds outside. (REPISA) which the hotel contracted to provide its security force. Panlilio and his companions began searching the office. She then closed the door and went back to bed. and prostitution were going on in the union office at the hotel and that there existed a theft syndicate. It found herein petitioners et al. 1988. and searched the premises. Bulletin reporter Nonoy Rosales. particularly the sale and/or use of prohibited drugs. The Dangerous Drugs Act. Edna. After trial. Villanueva found a plastic bag under a table containing dry leaves of marijuana. prompting her to open the door of the locker room upon which she saw five men in barong tagalog whom she did not recognize. Once inside. met. At that instant. Inc. A complaint against the 13 union officers was filed before the Fiscal's Office of Manila. and the latter did. defeats. Inc. 1988. At the meeting. his personal secretary Andy Dizon. Joselito Santos. to which Babay replied that the door of the office could not be opened. Hence. Respondents' version: On January 10. and the search was conducted with the consent and in the presence of union officer Babay.Any public officer or employee. for violation of R. Vicenta Delola (Vicenta). Petitioners further argue that the search of the union office was reasonable under the circumstances. petitioners and their companions barged into and searched the union office without a search warrant. In the morning of January 11. with the permission of union officer Henry Babay (Babay) who was apprised about the suspected illegal activities. and notwithstanding the objection of Babay. 32. Maniego.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Facts: Petitioner Jose Marcel Panlilio (Panlilio) was the Vice President for Finance of Silahis International Hotel. She even saw one of the men hide something behind his back. He conducted a surveillance. Soluta thus immediately lodged a complaint before the Security Officer. Panlilio. Maniego and Villanueva jointly and severally liable for damages as a result of malicious prosecution and illegal search of the union office.

Art. the same does not lie. 27. jr. 25 signed by the provincial governor. however. of the existence of such right. ISSUES CASE 6: RUBI V PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO MALCOLM. There is no doubt that a violation of one's constitutional right against illegal search and seizure can be the basis for the recovery of damages under Article 32 in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the New Civil Code. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 6 of 75 FACTS Rubi and various other Manguianes in the Province of Mindoro were ordered by the provincial governor of Mindoro to remove their residence from their native habitat and to establish themselves on a reservation at Tigbao in the Province of Mindoro and to remain there. in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code. escaped from the reservation and was taken in hand by the provincial sheriff and placed in prison at Calapan. or be punished by imprisonment if they escaped. and to introduce civilized customs among them. WON the Legislature exceeded its authority in enacting the law mandating the forcible transfer of the Mangyanes. NCC provides: Art. WON the Mangyan’s were deprived of due process when their liberty to choose their homes were limited by the law. 2. The return of the Solicitor-General alleges that on February 1. being the lawful occupants of the office. either actual or constructive. 29. The resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro copied in paragraph 1 and the executive order of the governor of the same province copied in paragraph 3. (b) that the person involved had knowledge. 2219. Babay's account of why petitioners and company went to the union office — to consider Panlilio's suggestion to settle the mauling incident is more credible.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests As for petitioners' contention that property rights justified the search of the union office. 32.000 acres. For respondents. had the right to raise the question of validity of the search and seizure. Hon. The Manguianes sued out a writ of habeas corpus in this court. any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceeding sixty days in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. 1917. Juan Morente. There must be clear and convincing evidence of an actual intention to relinquish it to constitute a waiver thereof. 28. 2219. the waiver must be voluntarily. 30. Dabalos. and even asked if they were armed with a search warrant. (c) that the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. Neither does petitioners' claim that they were allowed by union officer Babay to enter the union office lie. a waiver by implication cannot be presumed. One of the Manguianes. on which about three hundred Manguianes are confined. as is his claim that he protested the search. the provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. Petitioners posit that the determinants in the validity of the constitutional right against searches and seizure cannot be invoked against private individuals. 26. February 28.. solely because he escaped from the reservation. xxx xxx xxx (10)Acts and action referred to in Articles 21. 34 and 35. alleging that they are deprived of their liberty in violation of law. This reservation. as appears from the resolution of the provincial board. knowingly and intelligently made. The issue in the present civil case is whether respondent individual can recover damages for violation of constitutional rights. In one of the Whereas clauses. There must be proof of the following: (a) that the right exists. allows so. and. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: xxx xxx xxx (6)Illegal search. which is approximately 2. In other words. were necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . it was stated that the provincial governor is of the opinion that the sitio of Tigbao on Lake Naujan is a place most convenient for the Mangyanes to live on. extends over an area of 800 hectares of land. While it is doctrinal that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived expressly or impliedly. Under the resolution of the Provincial Board. 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake was selected as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro subject to the approval of the Honorable Secretary of the Interior. Article 32. Pursuant to the Governor’s powers under section 2077 of the Administrative Code. 1919 1. The evidence shows otherwise. The law’s primary objective is the advancement of the welfare of the non-Christian people of Mindoro.

or if not they will be subjected to involuntary servitude by those who may want to abuse them. NO. 516. burning and destroying forests and making illegal caiñgins thereon. said that the meaning of "due process of law" is. 104. an unusual exercise of that power. in the course of the argument in the Dartmouth College Case before the United States Supreme Court.. or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power in furtherance of the public good which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice must be held to be due process of law. 212 U." (U. third. "Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority. To allow them to successfully invoke that Constitutional guaranty at this time will leave the Government without recourse to pursue the works of civilizing them and making them useful citizens. vs. Due Process of Law. it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed. Peabody [1909]. like the Manguianes. therefore. Daniel Webster. None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. Further. Ling Su Fan [1908]. a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. burning and destroying forests and making illegal caiñgins thereon. NO. has not been followed." (Hurtado vs. the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. They understand liberty as the right to do anything they will-going from one place to another in the mountains. the law seems to be reasonable. that it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed. that this law shall be reasonable in its operation. is the attitude which the courts should assume towards the settled policy of the Government. In some instances. there exists a law. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. a rule which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases. 2. To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws. how can they allege that they are being deprived thereof without due process of law? But does the Constitutional guaranty that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law apply to a class of persons who do not have a correct idea of what liberty is and do not practice liberty in a rightful way? BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 7 of 75 To say that it does will mean to sanction and defend an erroneous idea of such class of persons as to what liberty is. p. liberty. In a late decision with which we are in full accord. affirmed on appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In dealing with the backward population. purely as an exercise of the police power. It is.1) "What is due process of law depends on circumstances it varies with the subject-matter and necessities of the situation. They will thus be left in a permanent state of savagery and become a vulnerable point of attack by those who doubt. would lead to the determination that section 2145 is valid. They understand liberty as the right to do anything they will-going from one place to another in the mountains. The Mangyans will ultimately become a heavy burden to the State and on account of their ignorance they will commit crimes and make depredations." To constitute "due process of law. It will mean that this people should be let alone in the mountains and in a permanent state of savagery without even the remotest hope of coming to understand liberty in its true and noble sense." (Moyer vs. Considered. that the Government should not adopt any measures looking to the welfare and advancement of the class of persons in question. As a point which has been left for the end of this decision and which in case of doubt. that it shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. S.) "Due process of law" means simply * * * "first. the Government has been placed in the alternative of either letting them alone or guiding them in the path of civilization. But a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy. and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Gamble vs. It will mean.. 82.) Neither is due process a stationary and blind sentinel of liberty. one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. Vanderbilt University (200 ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . that there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government. even a hearing and notice are not requisite. S.) There is no doubt in my mind that this people has not a right conception of liberty and does not practise liberty in a rightful way. (See McGehee. indeed. and it applies alike to all of a class." as has been often held. and fourth. Nor can one say that due process of law. California [1883].. since a classic in forensic literature. in the case at bar. 110 U. second. The latter measure was adopted as the one more in accord with humanity and with national conscience. property. S. may challenge the ability of the nation to deal with our backward brothers. 10 Phil.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests HELD 1. 371. whether sanctioned by age and custom. Not knowing what true liberty is and not practicing the same rightfully.. that "every citizen shall hold his life.

R. suspending their respective publicposition and office for ninety (90) days. [2] the suspensionwould assault his covenant to the people of Samaras their vice-governor. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional.B. 01.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Southwestern Reporter. SANDIGANBAYAN G. alleging three grounds:[1] Order of Suspension if executed shall affront the petitioner ORQUIOLA vs TANDANG SORA DEVELOPMENT G. not issue. a qualified replacement of a deceased member. No. dated 26 July 1993. 1994 FACTS: BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 8 of 75 ’ s right for due process. determined on that theory. Petitioner contends that the order of suspension. or by the aid of analogies furnished by such prior cases. somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States. when not determined by differentiation of the principle of a prior case or line of cases.Lastly.: FACTS: Pura Kalaw Ledesma owned a parcel of land adjacent to those owned by Herminigilda located in Tandang Sora Quezon City. in the last analysis. can no longerattach to him now that he is the duly elected and incumbent Vice-Governor of Eastern Samar. No. the SANDIGANBAYAN issued a resolution. by promulgating in their official capacities SangguniangPanlalawiganResolution No. He was charged in conspiring to other members toprevent and exclude Docena (Respondent). His so -called "covenant" with the people of Eastern Samaris far from being synonymous to. Socrates B. Hermingilda sold her 2 parcels of land to Mariano Lising who then registered both lots in the name of M.The suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Libanan’s second contention neither holds water. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. 112386 June 14. Series of 1991. August 6. Habeas corpus can. ISSUES: Whether or not the Order of Suspension given by the SANDIGANBAYAN is valid? HELD: Yes. Republic Act No. the Court ruled that the term "office" used in the law could apply to any office which the officercharged might currently be holding and not necessarily the particular office under which he was charged CASE 8: Petitioner Libanan is the incumbent vice-governor of Eastern Samar and was a former member of theSangguniangPanlalawigan prior to the 1992 elections. This Court has repeatedly held that such preventive suspension ismandatory. license. Decision Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. from exercising his rights andprerogatives as a member of the said body. and it is not one that can cut athwart the longarm of the law. 510) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Tennessee writes: We can see no objection to the application of public policy as a ratio decidendi." and it is not the property envisioned by the Constitutional provision whichpetitioner invokes.In effect.R.Also. that one is perceived to tip the scales which the court believes will best promote the public welfare in its probable operation as a general rule 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws. Public office is"a public agency or trust.. beingpredicated on his acts supposedly committed while still a member of the Sangguniang Bayan. CASE 7: LIBANAN VS. notwithstanding the recall of his appointment by theDepartment of Local Government. We are further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. The suspension order issued to petitioner Libanan is valid. and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. and [3] the reasons sought to beprevented by the suspension no longer exist. or the equivalent of. 141463. 2002 QUISUMBING. 3019 unequivocally mandates the suspension of a public official from office pending acriminal prosecution against him. In balancing conflicting solutions. therefore. Alar as theofficial replacement of aforesaid deceased member . Docena. and there are no "ifs" and "buts" about it. Lising ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . J. Every really new question that comes before the courts is. to the damage and prejudice of Agustin B. wherein accused expressed their recognition of Atty.

JOCELYN N. In this case petitioners acquired the lot before the commencement of Civil Case. he can rely solely on the title and he is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title. It is submitted that Medina is not applicable in this case because the circumstances therein are different from the circumstances in the present case. petitioners cannot be reached by the decision in said case. Pura Kalaw Ledesma filed a complaint against Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for allegedly encroaching upon her land. The institution of Civil Case cannot serve as notice of such adverse claim to petitioners since they were not impleaded therein as parties. petitioners have rights over the subject property and hence they are proper parties in interest in any case thereon.6402 hectares was riceland covered by (Operation Land Transfer Program)P. to avoid circuitous litigation and further delay in the disposition of this case. PERALTA. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).077 square meters of sugarland was subdivided by ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . The 96. As builders in good faith and innocent purchasers for value. ISSUE: BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 9 of 75 present one involves a sale of a parcel of land under the Torrens system. spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola. Since they were not impleaded in the civil case. The riceland was covered by land reform. It was only in 1998.2479 hectares was under Original Certificate of Title. Petitioner spouses acquired the land in question without knowledge of any defect in the title of Mariano Lising. a) Whether the alias writ of execution may be enforced against petitioners. BALATBAT substituted by her heirs. petitioner Pangilinan. de Medina vs. this petition. During the pendency of the action. Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Guevarra found that 8. It is our view here that the petitioners. through an alias writ of execution. Consequently. the court deem it proper that this issue be resolved in this case.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Realty and subdivided them into smaller lots. which consisted riceland and sugarland.2548 hectares. Hence. are fully entitled to the legal protection of their lot by the Torrens system. and as such. dismissing respondents' complaint for the annulment of the emancipation patent issued in favor of respondents’ tenant. 18. spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola. G. Certain portions of the subdivided lots were sold to third persons including herein petitioners. the writ of demolition issued in connection therewith cannot be enforced against them because to do so would amount to deprivation of property without due process of law. 2012 b) Whether petitioners were innocent purchasers for value and builders in good faith. As a general rule. By virtue of such. 228.) No.R. Out of the 25. private respondents should have impleaded them in Civil Case. This differs from the medina case where the ownership is not by virtue of torrens title but rather as issued by the Spanish government. they were parties in interest. hence. which affirmed the decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of San Fernando. A writ of demolition was issued subsequently. This is the first time that petitioners have raised this issue. Since they failed to do so. to remove the house they constructed on the land they were occupying. Shortly afterwards. No. The right over the land of the predecessors-in-interest of herein petitioners is based on a fully recognized Torrens title. the Deputy Sheriff of Quezon City directed petitioners. while 96. Tandang Sora Development Corporation replaced Pura Kalaw Ledesma as plaintiff by virtue of an assignment of Lot 689 made by Ledesma in favor of said corporation.077 square meters was sugarland.O. this could not be done. they built their conjugal home on said land. Trial continued for thirty years. Petitioners are indeed builders in good faith. they can be reached by the order of execution in Civil Case even though they were not impleaded as parties thereto. Petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition with TRO.: HELD: a.2548 hectares of land owned by respondents.)YES. Nevertheless. The trial court finally adjudged defendants Pedro and Lising jointly and severally liable for encroaching on plaintiff’s land. 27 and (E. Facts: Respondent spouses Balatbat were found by the PARAD to have landholdings totaling 25. 170787 September 12.)NO. Petitioners alleged that they bought the subject parcel of land in good faith and for value. b. which emancipation patent covered a portion of the land sought to be retained by respondents. J. CASE 9: CRISPINO PANGILINAN vs. Pampanga. Petition is granted. when the sheriff of Quezon City tried to execute the that they had notice of private respondent’s adverse claim.D No. Petitioners argue that the court erred when it relied heavily on the court’s ruling in Vda. the applicable rule is that a person dealing with the registered property need not go beyond the certificate of title. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case. Petitioners in this case acquired the registered title in their own names. Where a case like the This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ Decision and its Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Cruzin holding that petitioners are successors-in-interest of Mariano Lising.

They alleged that they received a Notice of Coverage on OCT No. with the assistance of two lawyers. Atty. In a letter respondents. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. 2005. filed a motion for reconsideration of the ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . which application was later endorsed to Guevarra. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. DARAB affirmed the decision. and a final notification to landowner. it was not acted upon. Fernando Dizon ended. 6657.Respondents appealed the decision of the PARAD before the DARAB.P'98 was merely an accommodation to him in Mr. PETITIONER HEREIN (AS PRIVATE A COPY OF THE PETITION. Where one counsel appears for several parties. Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in favor of respondents. Jord Achaes R. the legal assistance extended to him by Mr. Where opportunity to be heard. petitioner was not denied due process as he was able to file a comment before the Court of Appeals through his counsel of record. They received a letter from Guevarra informing respondents of a conference for the determination of the value of their landholdings and the final survey of the land preparatory to the issuance of emancipation patents. In this case. No.R. is accorded. Section 2. Guevarra. respondents sought to cancel the said emancipation patent on the ground that they applied to retain the land covered by it. Moreover. and in all situations. which copy was furnished to Mr.A. WON CA COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR 85017 WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT RESPONDENT) BE FURNISHED WITH DEPRIVING THE LATTER HIS RIGHT EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION THERETO. Rizal Commercial Bank Corporation v. either through oral arguments or pleadings. Thus. Dizon even filed a Comment to the Petition for Review filed by respondents before the Court of Appeals. require a trial-type proceeding.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 10 of 75 respondents. 2. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court. simply because Mr. David. by counsel. According to petitioner. PARAD rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner. there is no denial of procedural due process. the Decision of the Court of Appeals.) As petitioner had a counsel of record.D. No. Judgments and Other Papers) of the Rules of Court provides: Sec. defined. pursuant to Emancipation Patent covering Lot 21-F of the subdivision plan which is a portion of the land sought to be retained by respondents. which notices were all issued by Guevarra. absent any notification by petitioner to the court of circumstances requiring service upon petitioner himself. which the respondents knew very well. Hence. Filing and service. 27 can no longer be awarded to respondents. ejectment and damages against petitioners. Register of Deeds issued TCT petitioner. – Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court. Some were utilized by respondents in a subdivision/condominium project and others subdivided among the children of respondents. Hence. This prompted respondents to file with the DAR PARAB a Complaint for annulment of emancipation patent. it is the responsibility of petitioner to engage the services of a lawyer to file a Comment in his behalf and to inform the court of any change of counsel. the legal services rendered to him by Mr. Fernando Dizon.31 held: There is no question that the "essence of due process is a hearing before conviction and before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. it may be presumed that petitioner and Mr. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. thru the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office. The DAR Regional Director referred respondents' application for retention to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer.D. 6009 under R. 5357. Issue: 1. The said Lot 21-F. one may be heard also through pleadings. cannot be enforced against him. Rule 13 (Filing and Service of Pleadings. No. Dizon communicated with each other as Mr. dated May 30. Maglalang and Atty. Dizon’s capacity as Legal Officer for the Legal Services Division of the DAR. since they already owned an aggregate area of more than seven hectares used for residential and other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their family. 85017. in a letter recommended to the DAR Provincial Office that respondents' reapplication for retention be denied. Petitioner asserts that after the case was decided and resolved by the DARAB. unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. The Court notes that the applicable DARAB New Rules of Procedure (1994) allows a non-lawyer to appear before the Board or any of its adjudicators if he is a DAR Legal Officer. After investigation and verification of the landholdings. 27 However. reiterated their application for retention to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Director. who was his legal counsel before the PARAD and the DARAB." but due process as a constitutional precept does not always. service was properly made upon the said counsel. Fernando Dizon is not a full-fledged lawyer. Moreover. THUS TO BE HEARD AND TO PRESENT Petitioner contends that he was deprived of the right to be heard and denied due process of law because he was not personally furnished a copy of the petition in CAG. As Mr. Petitioner was not denied due process or the right to be heard as he was furnished with a copy of the petition through his counsel of record. Such process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. SP No. Mr. service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them. [SP] NO. Respondents first filed an Application for Retention of their landholdings under P. Fernando Dizon in DARAB Case No. his legal counsel before the PARAD and the DARAB. Dizon was his counsel of record before the PARAD and the DARAB. records show that petitioner. was transferred to petitioner as evidenced by TCT which was registered in the Register of Deeds pursuant to Emancipation Patent issued by the DAR. being a portion of Lot 21. (Emphasis supplied. Dizon that respondents filed a Petition for Review of the Decision of the DARAB with the Court of Appeals. petitioner has absolute ownership of the landholding as he has fully paid the amortizations to the LBP. Paul S. PARAD held that the area of seven hectares that can be retained under P. Petitioner’s contention lacks merit. This case involves only Lot 21-F of the subdivision plan Psd-03-005059. Fernando Dizon.R. DAR Legal Officer Dizon. If any party has appeared by counsel. he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side. The filing of the said Comment would show that petitioner was informed by Mr. WHEN IT DECIDED CA-G.

The Solicitor General then moved to have the petition close it being moot and academic by virtue of Javier’s death. the proclamation was made by only the 2nd Division but the Constitute requires that it be proclaimed by the COMELEC en banc. Javier complained of ”massive terrorism. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Javier and has overruled the Sol-Gen’s tenor. Policy Statements 1. having been made before the lapse of the 5-day period of appeal. intimidation. CASE 11: GALMAN VS. except those whose entire tenanted rice and corn lands are subject of acquisition and distribution under Operation Land Transfer (OLT). we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. Without such confidence. The military investigators reported within a span of three hours that the man who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando Galman) was a communist-hired gunman. Aquino could have shot him. 1984. 27 are entitled to retain seven hectares.. In Feb 1986. The judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed. whether tenanted or not. which motion was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated December 2. Also.” COMELEC just referred the complaints to the AFP. tampering and falsification of election returns under duress. The fact is that both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the military version stating that "the evidence shows to the contrary that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations. or other urban purposes. Judicial (and also extrajudicial) proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which the parties are supposed to make the motions and reach the denouement according to a prepared script. There cannot be equal justice where a suitor approaches a court already committed to the other party and with a judgment already made and waiting only to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 11 of 75 ISSUE: Whether or not there had been due process in the proclamation of Pacificador. There is no writer to foreordain the ending. Landowners covered by P.Other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares. if he. as of 21 October 1976. or b. and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. To bolster that requirement. Further. On certiorari before the SC. the 2nd Division of the Commission on Elections directed the provincial board of canvassers of Antique to proceed with the canvass but to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate until further orders. 2005. SANDIGANBAYAN 144 SCRA 43 FACTS: Assassination of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino. By virtue of LOI 474. 22# CASE 10: Javier v. An owner of tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain these lands under the following cases: a. not a communist plot. on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent law. If he. during pendency. vote-buying. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. a member of the KBL under Marcos. otherwise they will not go to him at all. 27 xxxx B. 2005. Only difference between the two reports is that the majority report found all the twenty-six private respondents above-named in the title of the ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . commercial. The SC has repeatedly and consistently demanded “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge” as the indispensable imperative of due process. threat and intimidation. whether cultivated or not. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into the back of his head by an assassin. <in case tanungin. They should be sure that when their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. owned more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands. Only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. one of the Commissioners should inhibit himself as he was a former law partner of Pacificador. On June 7. and regardless of the income derived therefrom.) > Supplemental Guidelines Governing the Exercise of Retention Rights by Landowners Under Presidential Decree No.Lands used for residential. the same 2nd Division ordered the board to immediately convene and to proclaim the winner without prejudice to the outcome of the case before the Commission. industrial. snatching of ballot boxes perpetrated by the armed men of Pacificador. Javier was gunned down. Jr. fraud. justice and freedom.D.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 30. Javier pointed out that the irregularities of the election must first be resolved before proclaiming a winner. owned less than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands but additionally owned the following: . as of 21 October 1972. . the proclamation made by the board of canvassers was set aside as premature. COMELEC FACTS: Javier and Pacificador. They must believe in his sense of fairness. from which he derives adequate income to support himself and his family. During election. otherwise they will not seek his judgment. there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect. duress. which the Javier had seasonably made. They must trust the judge. that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy. President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to investigate due to large masses of people who joined in the ten-day period of national mourning yearning for the truth. were rivals to be members of the Batasan in May 1984 in Antique. or . Fair play calls for equal justice. Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. Opinion. On the same complaint. He was killed from his plane that had just landed at the Manila International Airport.

Justice Pamaran. the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential directive. they may claim the benefit of the doctrine of double jeopardy and thereby avoid another prosecution if some other witnesses shall appear when President Marcos is no longer in office. The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. at the same time. Herrera. Thus. Also predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total absolution of the twenty-six respondents-accused of all criminal and civil liability. But ten days later. The conferees were told to take the back door in going to the room where the meeting was held. same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Respondents submitted that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal. Malacañang Conference planned a scenario of trial where the former President ordered then that the resolution be revised by categorizing the participation of each respondent. "This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst. such a procedure would be a better arrangement because. A conference was held in an inner room of the Palace. The disappearance of witnesses two weeks after Ninoy's assassination. and after an agreement was reached. Marcos stated that evidence shows that Galman was the killer. During the conference. The Court also granted petitioners a five-day period to file a reply to respondents' separate comments and respondent Tanodbayan a three-day period to submit a copy of his 84-page memorandum for the prosecution. resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the TRO issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Marcos expressed his thanks to the group and uttered 'I know how to reciprocate'. alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the legal ground for such action and urging that the case be set for a full hearing on the merits that the people are entitled to due process. This criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases by public respondents at the secret Malacañang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by Justice Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. therefore.The monitoring of proceedings and developments from Malacañang and by Malacañang personnel." Our Penal Code penalizes "any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice. petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for reconsideration alleging that respondents committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. if the accused are charged in court and subsequently acquitted. However. except the uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran himself. declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability. was no longer around) affirmed the allegations in the second motion for reconsideration that he revealed that the Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case. It was. Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15 months later when former Pres. deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth. would clear his name and his administration of any suspected guilty participation in the assassination. no evidence at all that the assignment was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests case involved in the military conspiracy. RULING: Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is granted and ordering a retrial of the said cases which should be conducted with deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the requirements of due process. Thereafter. Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining respondent court from rendering a decision in the two criminal cases before it. The assignment of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran." mpartial court is the very essence of due process of law. instead of in a civilian jail. Marcos told them 'Okay. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant Justice BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 12 of 75 Lazaro were with the President. (First Division) would personally handle the trial.' and that on their way out of the room Pres. mag moromoronalamang kayo. Pres. but by a communist hired gun. the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse. The courts would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice. The record shows that the then President misused the overwhelming resources of the government and his authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of the judicial process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases. The partiality of Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision: That President Marcos had wanted all of the twenty-six accused to be acquitted may not be denied. Pres. The custody of the accused and their confinement in a military camp. the instant case had become moot and academic. "nobody was looking for these persons because they said Marcos was in power. In rendering its decision. the Court resolved by nine-to-two votes 11 to issue the restraining order prayed for. not a source of wonder that President Marcos would want the case disposed of in a manner consistent with his announced theory thereof which." and that "the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist. petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. More so was there suppression of vital evidence and harassment of witnesses. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was clearly obvious. (2) Whether or not there was a violation of the double jeopardy clause. The same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's memorandum for the prosecution (which apparently was not served on them). presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see the President. Then Pres. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. decided that the presiding justice. Malacañang wanted dismissal to the extent that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel. According to J. Hence. The Court then said that the then President (code-named Olympus) had stagemanaged in and from Malacañang Palace "a scripted and predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case. respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the accused of the crime charged. Marcos came up with a public statement aired over television that Senator Aquino was killed not by his military escorts. " while the chairman's minority report would exclude nineteen of them.

but appellant Dr. Soon.iii[34] To substantiate the alleged bias and prejudice of the judge. even if all such questions and the answers thereto were eliminated. That the trial judge was bias[ed] against the accused hence the judgement of conviction. Dorie. Justices and judges must ever realize that they have no constituency. because they have been ventiliated by the judge himself. No double jeopardy attaches. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Respondents accused must now face trial for the crimes charged against them before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process. 120282. without warning. In this case. Project 7. 1993. In fact. serve no majority nor minority but serve only the public interest as they see it in accordance with their oath of office. Eulogio came to know later that Tony had died. Quezon City. Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead. His body was found outside the fence of the Iglesia ni Cristo Compound. In this case. EDSA. hitting him on the left hand. That the trial court in many instances showed its prejudice against the accused and in several instances asked questions that [were] well within the duty of the prosecution to explore and ask. Tony also suffered several incised wounds and abrasions. jurisprudence teaches that allegations of bias on the part of the trial court should be received with caution. however. including the Sandiganbayan's. As Tony pleaded for help. he informed Eulogio that he was going home. Moreover. the cases must now be tried before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor.R. The propriety of a judge’s queries is determined not necessarily by their quantity but by their quality and. Questions which merely clear up dubious points and bring out additional relevant evidence are within judicial prerogative. floor manager of the Cola Pubhouse along EDSA. ISSUE: 1. When Tony Dometita was about an armslength [sic] from Eulogio. More pointedly. therefore. it never appreciated other matters favorable to the accused. Courts' Resolution of acquittal was a void judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. appellant questions the trial judge’s (1) assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies and (2) alleged partiality in favor of the prosecution as shown by his participation in the examination of witnesses. Quezon City. like the frontal infliction of the mortal wound and the presence [of] “defense wounds” which negate treachery and superiority. Eulogio Velasco.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 13 of 75 More so. petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the TRO enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which had required the respondents'. No.iv[35] The allegation of bias and prejudice is not well-taken. comments. appellant Robert Castillo suddenly appeared and. in any event. in the case at bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth. plaintiff-appellee. around one o’clock in the morning. appellant alleges that the trial judge took over from the prosecution and asked questions in a leading manner. On May 25. testified that the proximate cause of Tony’s death was the stab wound on his left chest. As he passed by. RULING: Appellant declares that the trial judge was biased against him. 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. indicating that he tried to resist the attack. which could not be objected to by defense counsel. April 20. CASE 12. and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake. guided only the Constitution and their own conscience and honor. He also shouted at Tony ran towards the other side of EDSA. pursued him. the Court finds that the questions propounded by the judge were merely clarificatory in nature. came out of the pubhouse. By it no rights are divested. Responding to Tony’s cry for help. Bienvenido Munoz. appellant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the questions propounded by the trial judge. especially when the queries by the judge did not prejudice the accused. for propounding questions that were well within the prerogative of the prosecution to explore and ask. All of the acts of the respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion on his part amounting to lack of jurisdiction which substantively prejudiced the petitioner. It is a judge’s prerogative and duty to ask clarificatory questions to ferret out the truth. Tony to run away. It neither binds nor bars anyone. Veteran’s Village. in legal effect. The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the people. the medico-legal officer who autopsied Tony’s cadaver. v[36] On the whole. With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are void. appellant would still be convicted. i[32] interrupted the crossexamination to help the witness give answers favorable to the prosecution. A void judgment is. stabbed Tony with a fan knife on his left chest. appellant stabbed him once more. ii[33] and asked questions which pertained to matters of opinion and allusions of bad moral character.”In the main. no judgment at all. is to fill the public posts. vs. [G. Although no restraining order was issued anew. appellant in his brief cited several pages from the transcript of stenographic notes. was sitting outside the Pubhouse talking with his co-worker. accused-appellant. one of their customers. by the test of whether the defendant was prejudiced by such questioning. Antonio “Tony” Dometita. There was no double jeopardy. Eulogio placed a chair between Tony and appellant to stop appellant from further attacking Tony. 2. respondent Sandiganbayan should not have precipitately issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused pending the final action of this Court. ROBERT CASTILLO y MONES. under our system of government.

petitioners moved to cancel the hearings on the ground that they had filed a motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss. the government through the PCGG offered evidence to establish that the properties acquired by Bugarin during his incumbency as NBI Director were manifestly disproportionate to the income he derived for the same period establishing that presumption of prima facie unlawful acquisitions. Bugarin also offered his evidence. 2005. MENDOZA. BUGARIN. LINDA B. After the Sandiganbayan denied its motion for reconsideration. they filed their Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration and its Admission with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration. On August 30. does not indicate that he was biased. this Court assessed that the dismissal was plagued with manifest errors and misapprehension of facts. ANNETTE B. instead of a copy of their motion for leave to file motion to dismiss. ABIOG and MA. ordered for the forfeiture of Bugarin’s properties pursuant to the January 30. 2005 to determine which properties of the late Bugarin would be forfeited in favor of the government. They.00. 2002 Decision of this Court in the Republic case. denied petitioners’ motion for petition for review on certiorari. the Court found Bugarin to have amassed wealth totaling P2. This included no less than 15 witnesses and documentary evidence consisting of 48 exhibits. Still. in its April 3. vs. through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). CASE 13: G. The Court denied both Bugarin’s Motion for Reconsideration and petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss. Respondent. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT BUGARIN’S HEIRS WERE ACCORDED THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. MA. to which PCGG filed a comment/opposition. the petitioners herein.548. his heirs. should be forfeited in favor of the government. Marcos was still the president of the country from 1965-1986. After the latter’s downfall in 1986. With this development. Petitioners. petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the denial of the motion for leave of court.R. the Court held that Bugarin’s properties. it concluded that "respondent's (Bugarin’s) properties acquired from 1968 to 1980 which were out of proportion to his lawful income for ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . With this. petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was eventually denied and the hearing to determine the properties for forfeiture was held. BUGARIN. impelling this Court to once more "pore over the evidence. against the petitioner. Petitioners sought reconsideration but the same was likewise denied. 1991.163. namely MA. the Sandiganbayan denied petitioners’ Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss. Villaluz. 2006. On the said date." including Bugarin’s very own summary of his property acquisitions. thus. Thereafter. the new administration. It is evident in the case of Republic that upon filing the petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan. vs. J. the Sandiganbayan dismissed the petition for insufficiency of evidence. moved to have the case dismissed.: Facts: The late Bugarin was the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) when the late Ferdinand E. but it was likewise denied on July 27. Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of this order. As earlier stated. 2012 The Heirs of JOLLY R. want that another round of trial or hearing be conducted for "further reception of evidence" to determine which among the properties enumerated in theRepublic case are ill-gotten wealth. which were visibly out of proportion to his lawful income from 1968 to 1980. In the BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 14 of 75 hearing of May 5. 1991 Decision. 2005. in the prosecution of the case at bar. With the case back at the Sandiganbayan. For his part. filed a petition for forfeiture of properties under Republic Act (R. the Court found manifest errors and misapprehension of facts leading it "to pore over the evidence extant from the records.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests As correctly observed by the solicitor general. personal or otherwise. he passed away in September 2002. the PCGG sought a review of the dismissal before the Court on December 18. thus. The Court finds no merit in the petition. 1379 against him with the Sandiganbayan. Bugarin moved for a reconsideration and while his motion was pending. Sitting En Banc. petitioners served upon PCGG their Manifestation and Ad Cautelam Motion to Dismiss dated May 5. On review. 2006 Resolution. 2006. The Sandiganbayan ruled.”vi[37] That the trial judge believed the evidence of the prosecution more than that of the defense. SUMULONG. He simply accorded greater credibility to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses than to that of the accused. They fault the selection process laid down in the said case which purportedly denied them the opportunity to show that "not all of the late Bugarin’s properties may be forfeited.00 from 1968 to 1980 against his total income for the period 1967 to 1980 totaling only ₱766." Petitioners accuse the Sandiganbayan of allegedly reducing their rights to a simple mathematical equation of subtracting the late Bugarin’s amassed wealth against his lawful income for the same period and using the difference as basis for choosing the properties to be forfeited for the sole reason that their total acquisition cost was closest to said difference. the Sandiganbayan reconsideration of the April 3 Resolution." In the end. pertitioner argues that they have been denied due process.) No. 2004 for being a prohibited pleading while the attached motion was merely noted without action. only the counsels of the PCGG appeared.170. The latter dismissed the petition for insufficiency of evidence in its August 13. “there was no showing that the judge had an interest. No. 174431 August 6. REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES. 50 SCRA 18). hearing was set for January 12. AILEEN H. Jr. On May 10. On March 21.A. HELD: The Supreme court ruled in the positive stating that Foremost in petitioners’ arguments is their claim that they have been deprived of their right to due process of law when the Sandiganbayan. He is therefore presumed to have acted regularly and in the manner [that] preserve[s] the ideal of the ‘cold neutrality of an impartial judge’ implicit in the guarantee of due process (Mateo. 2005.

to the Court's satisfaction.548. The essence of due process is the right to be heard. petitioners point out that "realizing that it did not have the power to receive evidence and to try facts. when the party seeking due process was in fact given several opportunities to be heard and air his side. Moreover. in fact. OTHER RULING SA DUE PROCESS AS CITED BY THE SC IN THE CASE In the case of Philippine Guardian’s Brotherhood. in turn. after the January 12. which required the government to submit its list of properties to be forfeited from the delimited list found in the Republic decision. The Court reasoned that the income from these rentals could not have been used to finance the purchase of real properties and shareholdings prior to 1981. From the incomes that remained or were not excluded. This Court continues to emphasize that due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. When the case was remanded to the Sandiganbayan for execution. The preceding summary of the Republic case. Records of this case reveal that every motion by petitioners for resetting of hearing dates was granted.170. to the Court’s satisfaction. v. and then valuated. Although their counsel claimed that he did not receive the notice for the first hearing set on January 12. all of Bugarin’s claims regarding his income from several sources." The Court then took account of. he had informed the Sandiganbayan of the mistake and. five (5) more hearings were set – May 5 and 6. COMELEC. Petitioners cannot now claim a different right over the reduced list of properties in order to prevent forfeiture.00. and ordered forfeited in favor of the government Bugarin’s properties acquired from 1968 to 1980 that were disproportionate to his lawful income earned during the same period. or at the least.548. This time. petitioners were represented. and after finding that Bugarin’s properties acquired during the period in question were grossly disproportionate to his lawful income during the same period without any satisfactory explanation as to how this came to be.583. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 15 of 75 properties were lawfully attained. Based on the assiduous reassessment of evidence in the Republic case.00. The case was then remanded to the Sandiganbayan "for proper determination of properties to be forfeited" in favor of the government. the Court set aside those properties that had been liquidated or those that had been obtained in 1981 onwards. A review of the full text of the said case will reveal that the summary of properties acquired by Bugarin during his tenure as NBI Director was based on his very own exhibits. With the exception of those that had been liquidated. More importantly though. Even those properties whose acquisition dates could no longer be determined were also excluded. the Court granted the petition. an issue that had long been resolved and settled by this Court in Republic. either for reconsideration or leave of court. which according to the Court was quite conservative. Thus. Total 00 Premises considered. or seek leave to provide that court with their own alternative list of properties from the same delimited list.reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of the forfeiture proceedings. for the period from 1968 to 1980. again redounding to the benefit of Bugarin. 2005 because it seemed that it was "sent to the wrong address. 43 this Court elucidated on this all too important right to due process. as the case may be. petitioners were likewise accorded due process. and those whose year of acquisition could not be determined.705. and November 10. he amassed wealth in the amount of P2. provided it with the correct address. was heard. The total acquisition cost thereof was P1.00 Hence. justify another round of proceedings. and to quote: From the summary of Bugarin’s assets. all to the benefit of Bugarin. petitioners chose to pursue the course of seeking for the nth time the dismissal of the case altogether. readily shows that Bugarin was accorded due process. could have been used in acquiring his properties.163. in arriving at the amount representing his lawful income or disposable income during his incumbency as NBI Director. from 1968 to 1980." the personal expenses of his family. but it is by his own fault or choice he squanders these chances. What remained was a trimmed down listing of properties. the Court then compared his acquired properties. Instead of questioning the order of January 12. Against this amount. He was given his day in court to prove that his acquired ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . those acquired from 1981 onward. the Court proceeded to deduct the total personal expenses of Bugarin and his family based on an "extremely" conservative computation by the Sandiganbayan in order to arrive at the difference which represented Bugarin’s lawful or disposable income that. from which the Sandiganbayan may choose in executing the order of forfeiture of the Court." the fact remains that by March 3. the Court subtracted from Bugarin’s income as stated in "Exhibit -’38. the legality of said rentals is in itself of serious doubt since the source (the real property) from where it was derived was not wholly acquired from lawful income. this Honorable Court remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan for further reception of evidence as to what properties should be forfeited in favor of the State. From this enumeration. then his cry for due process must fail. his total income from 1967 to 1980 amounted only P 766. his shareholdings in various corporations and other investments amounted to P464." In this case. Inc. to P 766. Bugarin or his heirs were certainly not denied that right. Based on the foregoing. 2005. it can readily be seen that all of his real properties were purchased or constructed. and every motion filed.580. September 29 and 30. On the other hand. Besides. that the same were lawfully acquired. 2005 setting. respondent’s (Bugarin’s) properties acquired from 1968 to 1980 which were out of proportion to his lawful income for the said period should be forfeited in favor of the government for failure of the respondent to show. 2005.00. 2005.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests the said period should be forfeited in favor of the government for failure of the respondent to show. that the same was lawfully acquired.

000.000.00 7.Manila Polo Club Certificate No. Calapan.395.00 2. (491374)10848] 263.750. or the "Act declaring forfeiture in favor of the state any property found to have been unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee providing for the proceedings therefor. 1978 Oriental Mindoro [TCT No. Capitol District. Pasig City. No. Pasig 1978 City 250.288. as applied to administrative proceedings.340.340.00 House. The essence of due process. when the government.00 BASIS NG FORFEITURE [Membership 1.750.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 16 of 75 On the due process issue. 8695-8703] 9.000. 1976 MM [TCT No. Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property.165.543. The requirement is satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.00 263.00 25.00 LIST OF ASSETS C. 1973 MM [TCT No.00 650.Baguio Country Club 1985 60.000. What is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and hearing x x x. 247560] 91.750. We find it obvious under the attendant circumstances that PGBI was not denied due process.Residential House.Residential Juan 1980 650. it took on the burden of proving the following: 1.00 72.00 1968-75 24. 2002 D. Greenhills. 189558] 72. 7765] 87.00 5.00 3.00 Section 2 of R.000.00 SEC 2.000. we have consistently held. Dasmarinas Village.Philippine Columbian Club B.288. 2887] Oriental 1978 5. 0125] 1978 32.Residential Lot. filed forfeiture proceedings against Bugarin. we agree with the COMELEC that PGBI's right to due process was not violated for PGBI was given an opportunity to seek.000.Residential lot.900. (Emphasis supplied) 9.00 8. 8679. x x x.000. Valle Verde.00 Montepino 1973 TO BE FORFEITED PROPERTIES TOTAL 9. Thus. The public official or employee acquired personal or real properties during his/her incumbency.00 5. Mindoro [TCT No. Tagaytay City 1968 [TCT No. 1969 Makati 175.000.Residential lot. Puerto Galera. Quezon 1972 City [TCT No. due process is the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.00 32. Condominium. said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential.A. Baguio City 100.00 Honorable Supreme Court’s Decision dated January 30.140.165. is simply the opportunity to be heard.000.000.000. 1379. 10926] 1. San Juan. a reconsideration of Resolution No.. Filing of Petition. San OTHER INVESTMENT A. through the PCGG.Orchard and Cocoland. Valle Verde.00 6. Greenhills.Nine (9) Residential lots. as it did seek.00 ADDITIONAL INFO NG CASE YEAR ACQUIRE D REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIO N COST 1. x x x.00 1.00 4. 1968 Makati [TCT No.Residential lot. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN .Condominium Unit." provides: 87. A-2271] 25.000.00 250.Residential lot in Damarinas Village.00 10.Residential House.00 11.Makati Sports Club [Stock Certificate 1975 No.000.

now being represented by the petitioners. as petitioners ardently claim – to conduct another full blown trial or proceeding to determine or establish the very same things that this Court had long decided in Republic. Thus. This cannot be permitted. when the case was returned to the Sandiganbayan. The immutability of judgment that has long become final and executory is the core.44 this Court reiterated the importance of the doctrine: Needless to stress. there will be no end to litigation.A. With this failure. nay. a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect. The existence of which gives rise to a presumption that these same properties were acquired prima facie unlawfully. 1379 reads: SEC. Both the acquisition dates which were likewise indicated there were reckoned. even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. but transferred by him to another person or persons on or after the effectivity of this Act. To reiterate. He had to explain and adequately show that his acquisitions. a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits. In settling this once and for all. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period. then the court shall declare such property. Section 6 of RA No. Judgment. it was to choose from among the Court’s identified and declared reduced list of properties that would approximate the amount which was beyond or out of proportion to Bugarin’s lawful income also identified and declared by the High Tribunal in the same case. acquired within the subject period were identified and listed down in the case of Republic. in Labao v. Section 10 of R. as the court of origin. ascendants. This acquisition is manifestly disproportionate to his/her salary or other legitimate income. the petition is DENIED.A. to make sure that the aggregate sum of theacquisition costs of the properties chosen remained within the amount which was disproportionate to the income of Bugarin during his tenure as NBI Director. consisting of real and other investments. WHEREFORE. a declaration that the properties of the late Bugarin acquired from 1968 to 1980 which were disproportionate to his lawful income were ordered forfeited in favor of the State. and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. The fact that any real property has been recorded in the Registry of Property or office of the Registry of Deeds in the name of respondent or of any person mentioned in paragraph (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of section one hereof shall not prevent the rendering of the judgment referred to in section six of this Act. this means that the late Bugarin. the said properties have been ordered forfeited to the extent or up to that which is disproportionate to his lawful or disposable income which was likewise determined by the Court in that case. or any other person.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 17 of 75 2. NOT RALATED TO DUE PROCESS Petitioners should have realized in the fallo. 2006. Effect of Record of Title. All that was needed was for the Sandiganbayan. the respondent’s spouse. are herebyAFFIRMED. Following Section 6 of R. Therefore. Flores. Rather. 1379 is instructive. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent. that the properties listed by this Court were all candidates for forfeiture. or held by. the very essence of an effective and efficient administration of justice. To grant the petition and order the Sandiganbayan to receive evidence once again would be tantamount to resurrecting the long-settled disposition in the Republic case. 1379. the lawful income of Bugarin during the same period was also determined by the Court based on his very own "Exhibit ‘38’" minus that tempered amount representing his as well as his family’s personal expenses. relatives. execution of the decision proceeds as a matter of right as vested rights are acquired by the winning party. and 2. were nonetheless lawfully acquired. The properties. the case was only remanded to the Sandiganbayan to implement the Court’s ruling in the Republic case. the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. After the government had established these. SEC. and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid shall become property of the State. 10. No. it was not. failed to convince the Court that the delimited list of properties were lawfully acquired. forfeited in favor of the State. After all. And paragraphs (1) and (2) referred to provide. even though they might appear disproportionate. as well as in the body of the Republic decision. All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final and executory.6. 2002 Decision of the Court in Republic v. 1. descendants. No. Still in Republic. implementing the January 30. x x x. 3. no additional proof or evidence was required. Sandiganbayan. the burden to debunk the presumption was shifted to Bugarin. CASE 14: ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . 2006 and August 30. Otherwise. It is equally clear in the earlier quoted fallo of the Republic that this Court had already made a determination. If the respondent is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the property in question. but its ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the name of. The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated April 3. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent. At that point.

which liquidation is to be completed within PSALM’s 25-year term of existence. COURT OF APPEALS G. they were not supposed to have been deposited in a bank. the transition to the desired competitive structure. the terms and conditions for the purchase of Angat Hydro-Electric were set forth in the bidding package. 2001 QUISUMBING. Unlike the disclosure of information which is mandatory under the constitution. AKBAYAN and Alliance for Progressive Labor questioning that the bidding process was commenced without having previously released to the public critical information as to the terms and conditions of the sale. HELD: ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . The Lower court ruled against the accused. matters which are of public concern. Thus. various gift checks and purchase orders from Uniwide Sales and in payment thereof. October 2. and privatization of NPC generation assets. an invitation to bid was published in three national newspapers. while the duty to allow access has a broader scope of information which embraces not only transactions involving public interest . The court in this case will distinguish the duty to disclose information on matters of public concern under Art III sec. on installment. When the checks were presented for deposit or encashment. transactions. Petitioner admits having issued the checks but insists that she issued them merely to guarantee payment of her obligation to a certain Marivic Nakpil. The information must not however constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information. A petition with the Supreme Court was filed by IDEALS. the people’s right to know requires a demand or request for one to gain access to documents and paper of particular industry. All the bidders complied with the requirements of the bidding process and PSALM finally awarded the project to K-Water. ISSUE: Is PSALM mandated to give access to petitioners the necessary information related to the bidding process herein? HELD: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative and reiterated the rule in the Chavez vs. She maintains that the prosecution failed to show that she received the notices of dishonor purportedly sent to her. and Independent Power Producer (IPP) contracts with the objective of liquidating all NPC financial obligations and stranded contract costs in an optimal manner. As in the instant case PSALM is a government corporation created by the “Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001” or EPIRA for brevity. Freedom from Debt Coalition. G. In the instant case. the Office of the Solicitor General argues that B. a South Korean based company. October 9. The said law provided for a framework for restructuring electric power industry as well as the privatization of the assets of the National Power Corporation.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests IDEALS vs. criminal liability attaches whether the checks were issued in payment of an obligation or to guarantee payment of that obligation.P. she failed and refused to do so. J. military and diplomatic secrets. and the definition of the responsibilities of the various government agencies and private entities. they were all dishonored for the reason “Account Closed”. The evidence for the prosecution showed that the accused obtained from complainant Chu Yang T. and similar matters affecting national security and public order. 7. Such relief must be granted to the party requesting access to official records. No. PSALM refused to divulge significant information requested by petitioners. Consequently. Public Estates Authority were it was held that the constitutional right to information includes information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. ISSUE: Whether or not herein public respondent erred in its judgment against the accused. it adopted privatization measures wherein functions and assets formerly of the government are sold through bids to the private sector. the accused issued to the complainant fifteen (15) checks drawn against Philippine Commercial Bank. disposition. 192088. 129900. CARAS has appealed from the judgment of conviction in fifteen (15) related cases of Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. bidding procedures were approved. HON.R. Said law mandated PSALM to manage the orderly sale. 22 does not make any distinction regarding the purpose for which the checks were issued. 2012 FACTS: In pursuit of the government’s policy towards efficiency of delivering services to its people and to rid itself of too much workload. but any matter contained in official communications and public documents of the government agency. PSALM commenced the privatization Angat Hydro-Electric Power Plant. documents BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 18 of 75 and papers relating to official acts. CASE 15: JANE CARAS vs. For its part. She also asserts that she was not properly notified of the dishonor of her checks.R. Atienza. the duty to disclose covers only transactions involving public interest. PSALM is directed to furnish to petitioners with copies of all documents and records on its file pertaining to K-Water. Despite repeated verbal and written demands made on her to replace the dishonored checks with cash. and decisions that are relevant to a government contract. real estate and other disposable assets. the appealed decision is affirmed in toto. Moreover.: FACTS: Herein petitioner JANE S. the parties qualified to bid and the minimum bid price. alleged sister of the complainant. PSALM.

This caused her to miss certain directives coming from her superiors and likewise. She further denied causing disharmony in her division. moral and exemplary damages. You ought to have 3. such remarks are highly inflammatory and their negative impact is magnified. Lorelie T. FACTS: 2. Petitioner has a right to demand that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert prosecution under B. July 11.R.] FLORDELIZA MARIA REYES-RAYEL. its officers and people. we afford you the opportunity to submit your written reply to this memorandum within forty-eight (48) hours from its receipt. She denied uttering negative comments about the HR2 Program and instead claimed to have intimated her support for it. CORPORATION/L&T INTERNATIONAL GROUP PHILIPPINES. this decision in no way prejudices the civil obligations. 22. you made statements that serve to undermine the Company's efforts at pursuing the HR2 Program. no less than a Director of the Corporate Human Resources Division. INC. and other unpaid company benefits against respondents and its officers. through Sauceda and Edles. PLTHC hired petitioner as Corporate Human Resources (CHR) Director for Manufacturing for. 2012. The prosecution presented no evidence that would establish petitioner’s actual receipt of any demand letter that could have served as notice to petitioner. L&T. the causes for her dismissal as stated in the Prerequisite Notice and Notice of Termination are not proper grounds for termination under the Labor Code and the same do not even pertain to any willful violation of the company's code of discipline or any other company policy. the Company shall immediately decide on this matter. DEL CASTILLO. respondents. for her superiors to overlook the reports she was submitting. petitioner. respondents. attorney's fees. However.) She explained that her alleged failure to perform management directives could be attributed to the lack of effective communication with her superiors due to malfunctioning email system. which reads: (This has reference to your failure to perform in accordance with management directives in various instances. procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually served on petitioner. CASE 16: [G. DEacIT Petitioner alleged that: 1. which collectively have resulted in loss of confidence in your capability to promote the interests of the Company. the Executive VicePresident of PLTHC. respondents were guilty of violating the termination provision under the employment contract which stipulated that employment after probationary period shall be terminated by giving the employee a three-month notice in writing or by paying three months salary in lieu of notice. The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. Although it is true that the mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum and is punishable under B. 4. In view of the above. J BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 19 of 75 realized that when leveled by an officer of your rank. 2001. Failure to so submit shall be construed as waiver of your right to be heard. vs. that the complainant might have incurred by reason of her transactions with private complainant. In February 2000. Colleagues and subordinates complain of your negative attitude towards the Company.P. 174893. she was not afforded a hearing. Blg. Sauceda. On numerous occasions. petitioner received a Prerequisite Notice from Sauceda and the Corporate Legal Counsel of PLTHC. Edles (Edles).. In a Termination Notice. investigation and right to appeal as per company procedure for disciplining employees. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Consequently. This led petitioner to file a Complaint for illegal dismissal. Discussion of the other assigned errors need no longer detain the Court. 13th month pay. 22. the failure of the prosecution to prove that petitioner was given the requisite notice of dishonor is a clear ground for her acquittal. No acknowledgement receipt or return card for the first and second demand letters was offered in evidence. namely. Accordingly. dismissed petitioner from the service for loss of confidence on her ability to promote the interests of the company. Ma. Edles and Willie Tan (Tan).P. PHILIPPINE LUEN THAI HOLDINGS. if any. the respondents acted in bad faith by subjecting her to public humiliation and embarrassment when she was ordered to immediately turn over the company car. No. payment of separation pay. On September 6. in the presence of colleagues and subordinates.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests YES.

petitioner indeed unreasonably failed to effectively communicate with her immediate superior. These circumstances. mere existence of a basis for believing that a managerial employee has breached the trust of the employer justifies dismissal. petitioner continued to display poor work attitude. appeal before the Court of Appeals. . Second. Respondent claimed: Issues: 1. Petitioner obviously failed in this respect. 2. In the affidavit 46 of Ornida B. the Labor Arbiter theorized that petitioner's performance rating demonstrated a passing or satisfactory grade and therefore could not be a sufficient and legitimate basis to terminate her for loss of trust and confidence. The third and most important is petitioner's display of inefficiency and ineptitude in her job as a CHR Director. respondents were able to overcome this burden as the evidence presented clearly support the validity of petitioner's dismissal. on two occasions. merit the penalty of outright dismissal." It is therefore without question that the CHR Director for Manufacturing is a managerial position saddled with great responsibility. taken together. processes to be followed. lay-off of workers and the discipline. Chief Accountant of L&T's affiliate company. work supervision. therefore.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 20 of 75 vacate her office and remove all her belongings on the same day she received the termination notice. not applicable to petitioner As distinguished from a rank and file personnel. Moreover. petitioner cannot be dismissed based merely on these vague offenses but only for specific offenses which. An employer "has the right to regulate. Her gross and habitual neglect of duties were enough bases for respondents to lose all their confidence in petitioner's ability to perform her job satisfactorily. respondents' accusation that petitioner caused disharmony among colleagues and subordinates has no merit as there was ample proof that petitioner was in constant communication with her co-workers through official channels and email. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid cause lies on the employer. gave wrong information regarding issues on leave and holiday pay which generated confusion among employees in the computation of salaries and wages. as written in the employment contract. transfer of employees. and the second apprising her of the management's decision to terminate her from employment. Due to the nature of her functions. Whether or not the respondent is denied of due process of law? NO. Respondents appealed before the NLRC and MODIFIED the decision of Labor Arbiter. that petitioner was accorded due process as she was furnished with two notices — the first requiring her to explain why she should not be terminated. First. Court of Appeals REVERSED the decision. Then. working methods. in full view of all the other employees. is only necessary when there is no just cause for the employee's dismissal and. that the three-month notice for termination. dismissal and recall of workers. they have a wide discretion in dismissing petitioner as she was occupying a managerial position. under the company's code of conduct. Further. all aspects of employment." "[S]o long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . petitioner is expected to have strong working knowledge of labor laws and regulations to help shed light on issues and questions regarding the same instead of complicating them. according to its discretion and best judgment. The court found that despite the opportunity to improve. declaring the dismissal legal but ordering the petitioner to pay the three months salary of respondent as indicated in the contract of employment. Calma. Whether the dismissal of respondent is valid? YES. constitute sufficient cause for respondents to lose There exists a valid ground for petitioner's termination from employment. the affidavits of petitioner's co-workers revealed her negative attitude and unprofessional behavior towards them and the company. IEHaSc HELD: 3. dismal performance and rancorous and abusive behavior towards co-workers as gleaned from the various emails and affidavits of her superiors and other employees. The Labor Arbiter declared petitioner to have been illegally dismissed. petitioner. "[L]oss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt as the law requires only that there be at least some basis to justify it. working regulations. Here. Also. including work assignment. confidence in petitioner's ability to continue in her job and to promote the interest of the company. It was held that petitioner cannot be charged with undermining the HR2 Program of the company since evidence was presented to show that she was already divested of duties relative to this program.

Counsel for respondent urges that it is error "for this Court to apply the "visible tendency" rule rather than the "clear and present danger" rule in disciplinary and contempt charges." Statements of the respondent saying that the SC’s order '"heightens the people's apprehension over the justice system in this country. which petitioner opined to be a violation of company policies. investigation or right to appeal. the undersigned respondent was called over the phone by a leading member of the Court and was asked to dismiss the cases against two Members of the Court. that the Court has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly. The Court found respondent guilty of contempt of court and indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Now. Enrique Zaldivar. (c)the 'ample opportunity to be heard' standard in the Labor Code prevails over the 'hearing or conference' requirement in the implementing rules and regulations. In this case. Zaldivar vs. he assails said conviction. is of no moment since the records is bereft of any showing that there is an existing company policy that requires these procedures with respect to the termination of a CHR Director like petitioner or that CASE 17. whether in a hearing. The Court ruled that since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution. upon the ground that respondent cannot expect due process from this Court. A little later. and can only conduct an investigation and file cases only when so authorized by the Ombudsman. or when similar circumstances justify it. It showed petitioner's "repeated failure to comply with work directives. petitioner's written response to the Prerequisite Notice provided her with an avenue to explain and defend her side and thus served the purpose of due process." 48 the exercise of this management prerogative must be upheld. Petitioner was accorded due process. the following are the guiding principles in connection with the hearing requirement in dismissal cases: (a)'ample opportunity to be heard' means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him and submit evidence in support of his defense." Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom of speech/expression. and it properly advised petitioner to explain through a written response her failure to perform in accordance with management directives. which deficiency resulted in the company's loss of confidence in her capability to promote its interest. her inclination to make negative remarks about company goals and her difficult personality. (b) That he "was approached and asked to refrain from investigating the COA report on illegal disbursements in the Supreme Court because 'it will embarass the Court. This include: (a)That he had been approached twice by a leading member of the court and he was asked to 'go slow on Zaldivar and 'not to be too hard on him. That there was no hearing. Neither can there be any denial of due process due to the absence of a hearing or investigation at the company level. respondent’s powers as Tanodbayan have been superseded by the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman. he however becomes the Special Prosecutor of the State. We have examined the Prerequisite Notice. conference or some other fair. invoking his freedom of speech. (b)a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory only when requested by the employee in writing or substantial evidentiary disputes exist or a company rule or practice requires it.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 21 of 75 company practice calls for the same. Now. especially because the people have been thinking that only the small fly can get it while big fishes go scot-free” was publicized in leading newspapers. just and reasonable way. the Court Resolved to require respondent to explain in writing why he should not be punished for contempt of court for making such public statements reported in the media. Held: ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . In sum. There was also no request for a formal hearing on the part of petitioner. Sandiganbayan Facts: The case stemmed from the resolution of the Supreme Court stopping the respondent from investigating graft cases involving Antique Gov. Respondent then sought to get some members of the Court to inhibit themselves in the resolution of the Zaldivar case for alleged bias and prejudice against him." that have collectively contributed to the company's loss of trust and confidence in her. It has been held in a plethora of cases that due process requirement is met when there is simply an opportunity to be heard and to explain one's side even if no hearing is conducted. he in effect asked the whole Court to inhibit itself from passing upon the Issue involved in proceeding and to pass on responsibility for this matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondent wherein he included statements which were unrelated in the Issue raised in the Court." and (c) that in several instances.

vs. the trial court granted respondents’ prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction. J.: G. petitioner failed and refused to reinstate respondents to their mother unit. VILLARUEL. Villaruel. airway communicators and related civil aviation personnel for the local aviation industry as well as for the Southeast Asian and Pacific region. which has some implications to the society. Justice Frankfurter put it: . FACTS:  Petitioner Panfilo V. and Marilou M. directly or indirectly. Jr. petitioner failed and refused to reinstate respondents to their mother unit. Jr. nor an independent judiciary to a free press. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . 136726." the Court held that the statements made by respondent Gonzalez are of such a nature and were made in such a manner and under such circumstances. in other words. the Ombudsman inquired from Secretary Garcia the action taken on respondents’ request for reconsideration of the detail order. petitioner issued a memorandum on 19 July 1995 addressed to Abarca placing him under “preventive suspension” for 90 days without pay pending investigation for alleged grave misconduct. Another criterion for permissible limitation on freedom of speech and of the press is the balancing of interests test which requires a court to take conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation. Fernando. respondents requested Secretary Garcia to lift the detail order and to order their return to their mother unit since more than 90 days had already lapsed.  The CATC is an adjunct agency of the ATO tasked to train air traffic controllers. For the protection and maintenance of freedom of expression itself can be secured only within the context of a functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice. Fernando. The Court did not purport to announce a new doctrine of "visible tendency. Cleofas of the Civil Aviation Training Center (CATC) to the Office of DOTC Undersecretary Primitivo C." Under either the "clear and present danger" test or the "balancing-ofinterest test. The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary through which that freedom may. Jris the former Assistant Secretary of the Air Transportation Office (“ATO”). Modesto E.. Respondents also sought the intervention of the Ombudsman in their case. as to transcend the permissible limits of free speech. and Administrative Assistant. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. if necessary be vindicated. Cal. of the Civil Aviation Training Center (“CATC”). Cleofas are the Chief. within the context. both are indispensable to a free society. and Marilou M. What respondent seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression. (Book of Nachura pp155-156: Under the TEST INTERFERENCE AND BALANCING INTEREST TEST) OF VALID GOVERNMENT The SC said that the clear and present danger rule is not the only test which has been recognized and applied by the courts. like all constitutional freedoms. Jr." it was simply paraphrasing Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court which penalizes a variety of contumacious conduct including: "any improper conduct tending. Abarca.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 22 of 75 Respondent Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. least of all this Court. Assistant Secretary of the Air Transportation Office (ATO). respondents filed a Petition for Mandamus and Damages with Prayer for a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against petOn 23 February 1996. (“Abarca”). And one of the potent means for assuring judges their independence is a free press There was no violation. Chief Administrative Assistant. Villaruel. JR. Abarca. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice.. FERNANDO No. Department of Transportation and Communication (“DOTC”). No one seeks to deny him that right. As Mr. CASE 18. obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. What is here at stake is the authority of the Supreme Court to confront and prevent a "substantive evil" consisting not only of the obstruction of a free and fair hearing of a particular case but also the avoidance of the broader evil of the degradation of the judicial system of a country and the destruction of the standards of professional conduct required from members of the bar and officers of the courts. Petitioner Panfilo V. A free press is not to be preferred to an independent judiciary. On 10 August 1995.. REYNALDO D. September 24. Neither has primacy over the other. to impede. respectively. As a result. is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. Secretary Garcia replied to the Ombudsman that he had issued a memorandum dated 9 November 1995 directing petitioner to recall respondents to their mother unit Despite repeated demands by respondents. After the lapse of 90 days. petitioner. Without acting on respondents’ request for reconsideration. detailed respondents Reynaldo D.R. Modesto E.  Respondents Reynaldo D.. On 24 January 1996. of viable independent institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by the general community. 2003 CARPIO.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Case Digests

BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8)
Page 23 of 75

petitioner to comply with the 9 November 1995 order of Secretary Garcia
directing petitioner to recall respondents to their mother unit until further
orders by the trial court. For petitioner’s continued failure to comply with the writ
of
preliminary
injunction,
respondents
moved
to
cite
petitioner
in
contempt. Respondents also moved to declare petitioner in default for not filing an
answer within the period prescribed in the trial court’s order of 26 January 1996.

former deals with a violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (“RA 6713”) [15] punished with
suspension from office while the latter deals with an ultra vires act punished with
damages. The appellate court ruled that the findings of the Ombudsman had
nothing to do with the findings of the trial court, as the two forums are separate and
distinct from each other.

On 28 May 1996, the trial court granted the motion and declared petitioner
guilty of indirect contempt. The trial court issued a bench warrant against
petitioner.P etitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (“OSG”), filed a
special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals [7] assailing the trial court’s
order finding petitioner guilty of indirect contempt. Meanwhile, the trial court
declared petitioner in default for his failure to file an answer to the petition for
mandamus and damages.

ISSUE:

Aggrieved, petitioner, represented by the OSG, appealed to the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the OSG a non-extendible extension until 13
December 1996 within which to file petitioner’s memorandum. However, the OSG
failed to file the memorandum. On 17 February 1998, petitioner, through his new
counsel,[10] filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution and to Suspend Sheriff’s
Sale. In his motion, petitioner alleged that the trial court’s decision never
became final and executory as the trial court deprived him of his right to due
process. Petitioner claimed that the OSG failed to file petitioner’s
memorandum in CA-G.R. SP No. 42447 resulting in the dismissal of his
appeal. Furthermore, petitioner alleged that the OSG failed to inform him of the
dismissal of his appeal and of the trial court’s order granting respondents’
motion for execution. Petitioner further asserted that the Resolution of the
Ombudsman in OMB-ADM 0-96-0090[11] superseded the decision of the trial court.
(The Ombudsman’s Resolution approved the following recommendation of the
reviewing Assistant Ombudsman:PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent MODESTO
ABARCA, JR., is hereby found GUILTY of violation of Section 7(d) of Republic Act
6713, for which the penalty of Suspension Without Pay for Six (6) Months is hereby )
CA ruling:
the Court of Appeals ruled that the negligence of the OSG could not relieve
petitioner of the effects of such negligence and prevent the decision of the trial
court from becoming final and executory. In short, the OSG’s negligence binds
petitioner.
“A party litigant bears the responsibility of contacting his lawyer periodically to
apprise himself of the progress of the case. A lawyer’s negligence binds a party
litigant who must suffer the consequences of such negligence. The Court of Appeals
further held that there was no proof that the OSG failed to inform petitioner of the
dismissal of his appeal.”
the Court of Appeals concurred with the trial court’s ruling that the nature of the
case before the Ombudsman is different from the case before the trial court. The

1.
2.

whether the trial court denied petitioner of his right to due process ?NO
whether the Ombudsman’s resolution rendered the execution of the trial
court’s decision unjust and inequitable?NO

HELD:
1.

Petitioner essentially contends that the judgment of the trial court in Civil
Case No. 96-0139 is void for lack of due process. Petitioner alleges that
the trial court never gave him the chance to be heard and to
submit his evidence.. Petitioner argues that the inexcusable negligence
of the OSG did not bind him and prevented the decision of the trial court
from becoming final and executory.

We do not agree.

Due process, in essence, is simply an opportunity to be heard [19] and
this opportunity was not denied petitioner. Throughout the
proceedings in the trial court as well as in the Court of Appeals,
petitioner had the opportunity to present his side but he failed to do
so. Clearly, petitioner’s former counsel, the OSG, was negligent. This
negligence, however, binds petitioner. The trial and appellate courts
correctly ruled that the negligence of the OSG could not relieve
petitioner of the effects such negligence [20] and prevent the decision of
the trial court from becoming final and executory.
“As a general rule, a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. Only
when the application of the general rule would result in serious injustice
should an exception thereto be called for. “
In the present case, there was no proof that petitioner suffered serious injustice
to exempt him from the general rule that the negligence of the counsel binds the
client. Petitioner did not even attempt to refute the respondents’ allegations in the
petition for mandamus and damages.
Moreover, petitioner is not entirely blameless for the dismissal of his appeal.
After the OSG’s failure to file the answer to the petition for mandamus and damages
and to have the order declaring petitioner in default lifted, petitioner should have
already replaced the OSG with another lawyer. However, petitioner still retained the
services of the OSG, despite its apparent lack of interest in petitioner’s case, until
the trial court’s decision became final

ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO
ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA
ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Case Digests
Furthermore, petitioner cannot now complain of the OSG’s errors. Petitioner
should have taken the initiative of making periodic inquiries from the OSG and the
appellate court about the status of his case
2.

Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman’s Resolution finding Abarca guilty
of violating Section 7(d) of RA 6713 superseded the trial court’s decision
finding petitioner liable for damages. Petitioner insists that the
Ombudsman’s resolution rendered the execution of the trial court’s decision
unjust and inequitable.

We are not persuaded.
Settled is the rule that a judgment that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect except
only to correct clerical errors or mistakes. [27] True, this rule admits of certain
exceptions. One of these exceptions is whenever circumstances transpire after the
finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. [28] This,
however, is not the case here. In the present case, the Ombudsman issued his
Resolution prior to the finality of the trial court’s decision. The Ombudsman
issued his Resolution on 22 January 1997 while the trial court’s decision became
final and executory on 14 June 1997. Therefore, the resolution of the Ombudsman is
not a supervening event to warrant the stay of the execution of the decision of the
trial court.
Furthermore, the resolution of the Ombudsman finding Abarca guilty of
violating Section 7(d) of RA 6713 did not and could not supersede the decision of the
trial court holding petitioner liable for damages. The action filed by the petitioner
before the Ombudsman is completely different from the action instituted by
respondents before the trial court. The two actions, which are clearly
separate and distinct from each other, presented two different causes of
action. Petitioner’s cause of action arose from respondents’ alleged violation of
certain provisions of RA 6713 whereas respondents’ cause of action resulted from
petitioner’s refusal to recall respondents to their mother unit at CATC. In the
administrative case before the Ombudsman, the issue was whether respondents
were guilty of violating RA 6713. In contrast, the issue in the civil action before the
trial court was whether respondents were entitled to the issuance of the writ of
mandamus and damages.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 48233 dated 30 September 1998 and the Resolution dated
3 December 1998 are AFFIRMED. No costs.

BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8)
Page 24 of 75
Facts:
Antonio Baraoil was charged with two counts of rape. Both rapes happened
on the 8th of July 2004 in the comfort room adjacent to the Apo Rice Mill in
Natividad, Pangasinan. The first was committed at 2pm through insertion of the
penis and the finger into the vagina of AAA (Statutory Rape), a 5 year old minor,
while the second happened at 2:30pm by sucking the vagina of AAA (Sexuall
Assault).
Baraoil pleaded not guilty during arraignment for both charges.
During the trial, AAA narrated the facts that (1) while walking near the
house of Baraoil, who was a honorary uncle for her family, the latter invited her to
ride with him in his bicycle (2) Baraoil drove her towards the rice mill and was seen
by her elder sister (3) after parking his bicycle on the wall of the mill, accused
pulled AAA into the comfort room, sat on the toilet, pulled her pants off as she has
no underpants, unzipped his pants and lifted the girl to insert his penis into her
vagina and later inserted a finger into her vagina.
The three sisters of the victim heard thumping sounds coming from the
comfort room then the accused went out and was followed by AAA. AAA’s sister told
the accused that she will take AAA home but he replied that he will bring her home
after buying slippers. The accused and AAA took off and after 30 minutes went back
to the same comfort room where the accused undressed AAA again and sucked her
vagina.
The next day, AAA’s sister asked her about what happened and she did not
answer but after it she cried to her mom and told everything that transpired.
Baraoil, told the court that he was out at the fish pond with his friend during
7:30-10am and drank gin at 3pm and went home at 4pm. He also added that the
accusations against him were due to revenge for the disconnection of AAA’s family’s
jumper.
The trial court sentenced Baraoil to:
6 years indeterminate (PC max) sentence to 10 years (PM max) as maximum for the
charge of sexual assault and
Reclusion perpetua for statutory rape [with aggravating circumstance less than 7 yo]

CASE 19:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Vs. ANTONIO BARAOIL

The court of appeals modified the sentence of the direct assault to Acts of
lasciviousness for imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as
minimum, to fifteen 15 years, 6 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. (based on RA 7610 and Revised Penal Code)

G.R. No. 194608, July 09, 2012.
ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO
ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA
ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Case Digests
Issue:

BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8)
Page 25 of 75
(LOL.. Nadehado pa sya sa appeal kahit hindi naman tama yung information
sakanya.. Pinalitan ng CA yung kaso nya ng walang paa-paalam)

In the case for rape, is the testimony of the child sufficient to overturn the
accused’s right to be presumed innocent?
Held:

CASE 20:

The CA sustained the conviction of the accused-appellant after finding that
the testimony of AAA was credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. There was no reason to overturn the
accused-appellant’s conviction under Criminal Case No. T-3682 for the crime of
statutory rape considering that AAA was undeniably under 12 years old and that the
accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her.

G.R. No. 192108. November 21, 2012

The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent
until the contrary is proven. This basic constitutional principle is fleshed out by
procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an
accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whether
the degree of proof has been met is largely left to the trial courts to determine.
Courts use the following principles in deciding rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape
can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) due to the nature of the crime of rape in
which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must
be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense. Due to the nature of this crime,
conviction for rape may be solely based on the complainant’s testimony provided it
is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things.

SPOUSES SY v. ANDOK'S LITSON CORPORATION

FACTS:

Petitioner Cely Sy (Sy) is the registered owner of a 316 square-meter lot located at
Sta. Cruz, Manila. Respondent Andok's Litson Corporation (Andok's) is engaged in
the business of selling grilled chicken and pork with outlets all over the Philippines.
On 5 July 2005, Sy and Andok's entered into a 5-year lease contract covering the
parcel of land owned by Sy. Accordingly, Andok's issued a check to Sy for
P480,000.00.

NOTE:

Andok's alleged that while in the process of applying for electrical connection, it was
discovered that Sy has unpaid (MERALCO) bill amounting to P400,000.00. Andok's
further complained that construction for the improvement it intended for the leased
premises could not proceed because another tenant, Mediapool, Inc. incurred delay
in the construction of a billboard structure also within the leased premises. In its
letter dated 25 August 2005, Andok's first informed Sy about the delay in the
construction of the billboard structure on a portion of its leased property. Three more
letters of the same tenor were sent to Sy but the demands fell on deaf ears.
Consequently, Andok's suffered damages in the total amount of P627,000.00 which
comprises the advance rental and deposit, cost of money, mobilization cost for the
construction of improvement over leased premises, and unrealized income. The
complaint for rescission was filed on 13 February 2008, three years after continued
inaction on the request to have the billboard construction expedited.

Due to the fact that the act of sucking the vagina is in no way considered
as insertion of an object or instrument in the female organ, the SC upheld the CA’s
decision to modify the penalty for Sexual Assault and changed it to Acts of
Lasciviousness (Art. 336 of RPC + RA 7610 - increases the penalty imposed by RPC
by one degree) which became more burdensome than the original sexual assault
charge.

In her Answer, Sy stated that she has faithfully complied with all the terms and
conditions of the lease contract and denied incurring an outstanding electricity bill.
Andok's filed a motion to set the case for pre-trial. Pre-trial Conference was set on 26
May 2008. But on 23 May 2008, an Urgent Motion to Reset Pre-Trial Conference was

A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having
been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and
undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal
of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and
preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts
committed against her.

ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO
ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA
ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN

it failed to substantiate its claim.] On March 20. Rule 18 of the Rules of Court requires the parties and their counsel to appear at pre-trial.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests filed by Sy's counsel on the allegation that on the pre-trial date. The affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the judgment of the trial court is correct. 1992. which the court likewise granted.000. and to reimburse Father Modesto Teston in the amount of P75. she cannot assume that her motion would be automatically granted. Rule 18 of the Rules of Court is subject to the sound discretion of a judge. 1992. Thus. on May 14. Teodoro Calaunan. During the pre-trial conference. the Court of Appeals resolved to dismiss petitioner's appeal for failure to file his brief within the third extension granted by the court. The appellate court found that Sy repeatedly failed to comply with her obligation under the lease contract despite repeated demands. Sy and her counsel failed to appear. Again. petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a "Petition for Extension of Time to File Brief.00. and the party can present its side or defend its interest in due course. Sy decried deprivation of her right to present evidence resulting in a default judgment against her. Branch 118. the denial of petitioners' motion for postponement is dictated by the motion itself. Antonio Tobias appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court awarded damages for breach of contract. Section 4. Andok's presented ex-parte the testimony of its General Manager. 1991. and the RTC allowed Andok's to present its evidence ex-parte.00. Where the opportunity to be heard. petitioner filed a "Petition for Second Extension of Time to File Brief". 97-12635.00. he filed a "petition for Third Extension of Time to File Brief. On 24 July 2008. No motion for reconsideration was filed on the trial court's order allowing ex-parte presentation of evidence. On February 21. on the 2 June 2008 hearing. 1992. Pasay City. the trial court rendered a decision favoring Andok's. ISSUE: WON the default judgment of the RTC as affirmed by the CA amounted to an infringement of the right to due process of the spouses." The court granted the motion. A perusal of the Urgent Motion to Reset Pre-Trial Conference discloses that other than the allegation that counsel will attend a hearing in another branch of the same court in Manila. which was correct in putting into effect the consequence of petitioners' non-appearance at the pre-trial. CASE 21: HELD: Sajot v CA No. The court sentenced each of them to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision correctional to thirteen (13) years of prision mayor. as moral damages. We cannot allow Spouses Sy to argue that their right to due process has been infringed. thus: “failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex-parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.000. of estafa.000. he has to attend a hearing on another branch of the RTC in Manila. either through verbal arguments or pleadings.P10. As found by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the trial court correctly allowed the presentation of evidence ex-parte as there was no valid reason for the urgent motion for postponement of the pre-trial filed by Sy. P50. detailing the breach of contract committed by Sy. as actual damages. which the court granted. 1992. Section 5 of the same rule states the consequences of failure to appear during pre-trial. is accorded. convicted petitioner and Antonio Tobias in Criminal Case NO. On appeal. the Regional Trial Court. yet. On November 27. as attorney's fees and to pay the costs of the suit. Such discretion was shown by the trial court. there is no denial of procedural due process. Petitioner contended that he only learned about the dismissal through a ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . It did not state the case number nor attach the Calendar of Hearing or such other pertinent proof to appraise the court that indeed counsel was predisposed. Sy's urgent motion was denied. the essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 26 of 75 What constitutes a valid ground to excuse litigants and their counsels from appearing at the pre-trial under Section 4.” Facts: On April 23. In The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Enario." asking for an additional thirty-day period to file appellant's brief. While Sy filed an Urgent Motion to Reset Pre-trial.

the petitioners filed their respective counter-affidavits. ISSUES: WON there was undue and unjustifiable delay in resolving the complaints against the petitioners which violated their constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of cases ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . 11 to its division offices (pursuant to COA Regional Office Assignment Order No. Temporal's professional fees with checks drawn against closed accounts CASE 22. Soriano and Enriquez of COA conducted an audit on the Php9. G. His excuse that he relied on the services of his counsel and that he was busy is "flimsy". in the performance of his avowed professional duty. 1997. 1997. On August 21. his counsel could not give any plausible explanation for his failure to file brief. 1998. 1991 PrudencioMabanglo. Petitioner's lack of vigilance as found by the trial court in its decision is emphasized when his counsel in the instant petition filed a motion to withdraw primarily on the ground of irreconcilable professional relationship between Attorney Florentino Temporal and petitioner. until her compulsory retirement on May 17. 1991. 91-174 dated January 8. Moreover. It was also approved by respondent Ombudsman Desierto on September 19. 1999 Ponente: Justice Panganiban DOCTRINE:Consistent with the rights of all persons to due process of law and to speedy trial. On June 11. petitioner paid Atty. 1991. 1997 On Januery 14. Thus. petitioners asked the Court to cite respondents in contempt contending that a criminal information was filed despite the issuance of the TRO—respondents filed their coment to the petition for contempt. 1991). Temporal to formulate the appellant's brief. this Honorable Court issued a TRO directing respondents to cease and desist from further proceeding with the cases filed against petitioners.Mindanao issued a resolution. Petitioner alleged further that his counsel. the fact is that counsel's negligence is matched by his client's own negligence. this Court would have to open cases dismissed many years ago on the ground of counsel's neglect. Davao Province. the aggrieved party is entitled to the dismissal of the complaint. Issue: whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to file appellant's brief Held: NO. never submitted the brief because of "utter and gross ignorance of procedure and/or negligence or omission. He was aware of his conviction and of the requirement of filing an appellant's brief.36 M allotment released by the DECS Regional Office No. Office of the Ombudsman. On March 18. ROQUE vs. Petitioner was himself guilty of neglect. In many cases. On August 14. he never did so. 2. until her compulsory retirement on May 8. After which. Were we to accept his excuse. the Constitution commands the Office of the Ombudsman to act promptly on complaints filed against public officials. On November 24. In such event.was a Schools Division Superintendent of DECS assigned in Koronadal. 1997. South Cotabato. petitioners instituted the instant petition for mandamus premised on the allegation that it has been more than 6 years and no resolution and no case has been filed with the appropriate court against them. Attorney Mariano H. Cervo. including two petitioners on May 7. The auditors found major deficiencies and violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. letters and telegrams that he will meet with Atty.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests friend.Mindanao found the complaints proper for a preliminary investigation. FACTS OF THE CASE: FelicidadRoque. the Office of Ombudsman. When confronted. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 27 of 75 Two Petitioners: 1.was a Schools Division Superintendent of DECS assigned in Tagum. findingthat all the respondents were probably guilty of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The auditors filed before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao against several persons. intentional or otherwise. 1997. 1991. the failure of said office to resolve a complaint that has been pending for six years is clearly violative of this mandate and the public officials’ rights. Despite petitioner's repeated assurances relayed by phone. Equally busy people have in one way or the other learned how to cope with the same problem he had. OMBUDSMAN May 12.

” TOPIC: ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS >cited are the cases of *TatadvsSandiganbayan (3yrs before submitted for disposition) xxx the inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary investigation and filing the information in the instant case is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right of the petitioner to due process and the speedy disposition of cases against him. However. AngTibay filed an opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration of the CIR and the motion for new trial was raised by the NLU. Issue: Whether or not the motion for new trial should be granted? Held: YES The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation which is the Commonwealth Act No. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION. or palpable excess of authority. the court held that as an exception. It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. 46496. and equity and substantial merits of the case. Also NLU alleges that National Worker's Brotherhood Union of AngTibay is a company or employer union dominated by ToribioTeodoro. Accordingly. manifest injustice. petitioners. rep by TORIBIO TEODORO. entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. The fact that the CIR may be said to be free from rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before it. CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure. >No Contempt of Court >issue on Mandamus: Generally. thus warranting the dismissal of said criminal cases. the general rule does not apply in cases where there is gross abuse of discretion. J: Facts: The Solicitor General in behalf of the CIR filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the decision of the Supreme Court while the NATIONAL LABOR UNION (NLU) prays for a new trial and alleges that the supposed lack of leather material claimed by ToribioTeodoro was a scheme to discharge all the members of the NLU. the informations x xx should be dismissed *although petitioner prayed only for the issuance of a ruling DIRECTING the ombudsman to dismiss the case—the Court DIRECTLY resolves to dismiss the case directly. vs.R. and NATIONAL WORKERS' BROTHERHOOD.. No. February 27. from work. >following the Angchangco case in which the Court dismissed the complaints outright although the petitioner only sought merely to compel the ombudsman to do so. the performance of an official act or duty.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 28 of 75 HELD: ANG TIBAY. which necessarily involves the exercise of discretion or judgment. is an illegal one. INC “After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 1940. cannot be compelled by mandamus. the Court finds the inordinate delay of more than six years by the Ombudsman in resolving the criminal complaints against petitioner to be violative of his constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and a speedy disposition of the cases against him. without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable. LAUREL.. 103. There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . It not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. G. CASE 23.

Dumlaoquestions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas PambansaBlg. respondent. XII-C of the Constitution and disqualification mentioned in existing laws. petitioners. 4. 1980 elections. which includes the right to present one's cause and submit evidence in support thereof. L-52245. 4) The evidence must be substantial. 52 is discriminatory against him personally. or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. G. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IS GRANTED. vs. In the language of Chief Hughes: the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. and not simply accept the views of a subordinate. J: FACTS: Patricio Dumlao is a former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya. city of municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected. — In addition to violation of section 10 of Art. The interest of justice is better served if there is an opportunity to present at the hearing the documents referred to in the motion and such other evidence as may be relevant to the main issue involved. He filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position for the January 30.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests 1) the right to a hearing. No. class legislation. Except as to the alleged agreement between the AngTibay and the National Workers' Brotherhood there is no factual basis to support a conclusion of law. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 29 of 75 MELENCIO-HERRERA. and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN. 6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy.) Whether or not section 4 of BP Blg. and the reason for the decision rendered. 7) The Board or body should. which are hereby declared as disqualification for any of the elective officials enumerated in section 1 hereof. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . case remanded to CIR. therefore. 3) The decision must have something to support itself. and that the classification provided therein is based on "purely arbitrary grounds and. in all controversial questions. 1980 1. IGOT. Any retired elective provincial. JR. January 22.." Dumlao alleges that the aforecited provision is directed insidiously against him. This principle emanates from the more fundamental principle that the genius of constitutional government is contrary to the vesting of unlimited power anywhere.Special Disqualification. render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue involved. 2.R. ISSUES: CASE 24 . COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. ROMEO B. Said Section 4 provides: "Sec.) Whether there is an actual case and controversy for judicial review to be proper. 2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power.PATRICIO DUMLAO. 5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing.

For purposes of public service.concurring: It is particularly gratifying that the reiteration in the ably-written and scholarly opinion of the Court.. Employees attaining that age FERNANDO. and in effect. for the Constitution the pertinent portion of which reads: In fine.) NO ACTUAL CASE AND CONTROVERSY. 4885. 725 and People v. See U. The assertion that Section 4 of BP Blg." 2. The purpose of the law is to allow the emergence of younger blood in local governments.concurring: I concur in the result as to paragraph 1 of the dispositive part of the decision." Petitioner Dumlao's case is clearly within the primary jurisdiction (see concurring Opinion of now Chief Justice Fernando in Peralta vs. as being contrary to the equal protection clause guaranteed by the Constitution. Comelec. I concur.The Commission on Elections shall have the following power and functions. of the standard that must be met before the power of judicial review may be availed of. AQUINO. I reiterate my view for Peralta that Sec. 4.It is basic that the power of judicial review is limited to the determination of actual cases and controversies. BARREDO. XII-C.C . XII is more expensive than the equal protection clause. section 4 of Batas PambansaBilang 52 is valid. Mingoa.concurring: I concur but wish to add that a judgment of conviction as provided in Sec. 92 Phil. Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of that provision. I dissent as to paragraph 2. 82 SCRA 30. have been validly classified differently from younger employees. 34 Phil. 52. No petition seeking Dumlao's disqualification has been filed before the COMELEC. employees 65 years of age.concurring: 1). and seeks to prohibit respondent COMELEC from implementing said provision. par. quoted earlier. it bears reiteration that the equal protection clause does not forbid all legal classification. 2)Be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections. 52 is contrary to the safeguard of equal protection is neither well taken. 9(1) Art. 1.. returns and qualifications of all members of the National Assembly and elective provincial and city officials. . Separate Opinions "Section 2. 52 is discriminatory against him personally is belied by the fact that several petitions for the disqualification of other candidates for local positions based on the challenged provision have already been filed with the COMELEC. ABAD SANTOS.J .. But as regards the matter of equal protection. His is a question posed in the abstract. What is proscribed is a classification which is arbitrary and unreasonable.J . one class can be treated and regulated differently from another class. The classification in question being pursuant to that purpose. Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests HELD: BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 30 of 75 are subject to compulsory retirement. as amended by Republic Act No. 2 of Batas PambansaBlg. If the groupings are based on reasonable and real differentiations.. penned by Justice Melencio-Herrera. it may be susceptible to the objection that it is marred by theoretical inconsistencies. In my opinion. a petition for an advisory opinion from this Court to be "rendered without the benefit of a detailed factual record. 856. 52 should be one which is final and unappealable. being similar to certain presumptions in Articles 217 and 315 of the Penal Code. Yet.J . set forth with such ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . paragraph 2.Dumlao's contention that section 4 of BP Blg. . There is no ruling of that constitutional body on the matter. which this Court is being asked to review on Certiorari. Luling. 96 [1978]) of respondent COMELEC as provided for in section 2.S. v.J . a hypothetical issue. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. Petitioner Dumlao assails the constitutionality of the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas PambansaBlg.) NO. while those of younger ages are not so compulsorily retirable. it cannot be considered invalid even if at times. That constitutional guarantee is not violated by a reasonable classification which is germane to the purpose of the law and applies to all those belonging to the same class.

If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges. There are.If. the provision in question is susceptible to the reproach that it amounts to a denial of equal protection. It is entirely a different matter when we are asked to void a statute that is." Clearly then. procedural in character. That would be the test for its validity or lack of it. whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally binding on the rest. There is nothing to prevent the legislative body from following a system of ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Inc. The most that can be said is that he falls within the proscribed class. then his plea for nullification should be accorded a sympathetic response. This is one such case.. those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion. the Court will look to statements by legislators for guidance as to the purpose of the legislature. Tuason and Co. both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. Age. The classification cannot be stigmatized as lacking in rationality. however. 1.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests lucidity and force by Justice Laurel in the two leading cases of Angara v. whenever objections based on refusal to abide by the procedural principles are presented. it remains true that no cavalier disregard of tried and tested concepts should be given encouragement. who penned the opinion in United States v. I therefore concur with the opinion of the Court. the promptings that may lead a legislator to cast his vote for or against a proposed legislation. It is germane to the subject. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumstances.M. this Court must rule. which if not identical. It cannot be too strongly stressed that a petition of this character must ever remain an orderly proceeding that cannot be oblivious of the requisites to be complied with to justify a pronouncement on constitutional issues. the conditions not being different. thus calling for the nullification of the disqualification of a candidate upon the mere filing of charges against him. As was pointed out in J. on the basis of what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about it. that counsel of private parties in not a few cases in the recent past had shown less than full awareness of the doctrines. a few words may not be amiss on what for me is the proper approach to take as to the lack of power of this Court to pass on the motives of the legislative body. and on the fundamental concept of fairness of which the due process clause is an embodiment. and assure respect for constitutional limitations. It may be a task of superfluity then to write a concurring opinion. Nonetheless." The late Chief Justice Warren. As the opinion of the Court makes a clear. he desires to run for the same elective office and at the commencement of the term of office to which he now seeks to be elected. erase uncertainty. on the lack of persuasiveness of petitioner's argument based on the equal protection guarantee. Where there is exuberance in the exercise of judicial power. this Tribunal is not susceptible to the reproach that it has imprisoned itself in its allegiance to the philosophy of judicial self-restraint. For the judiciary must ever endeavor to vindicate rights safeguarded by the fundamental law. A petitioner who bases his claim for relief on asserted constitutional deficiencies deserves to be heard. It would suffice if thereby the petition is dismissed for non-observance of the controlling doctrines. he shall have reached 65 years of age. For petitioner. No decision of this Tribunal can be cited in support of such a proposition." 2. because the benefit to sound decision-making in this circumstance is thought sufficient to risk the possibility of misreading Congress' purpose. such imputation is not deserving of credence. did not constitute an obstacle to this Court ruling on the crucial constitutional issues raised. Electoral Commission and People v. In that sense. for me at least. The answer is simple. and the stakes are sufficiently high for us to eschew guesswork. That goes without saying. under well-settled criteria. United States: "The decisions of this Court [Supreme Court of the United States] from the beginning lend no support whatever to the assumption that the judiciary may restrain the exercise of lawful power on the assumption that a wrongful purpose of motive has caused the power to be exerted. The wordings [sic] of the law is so peculiarly attuned to discriminate against herein petitioner because every condition imposed as disqualification grounds are known to be possessed by him because he was a former elective provincial official who has received his retirements benefits. Necessarily then. The weakness of the petition is thus apparent. O'Brien. It is right and proper that the voice of the Solicitor General should be heard in protest against such neglect of rudimentary precepts. as well as the fact of retirement and the receipt of retirement benefits are factors that can enter into any legislative determination of what disqualifications to impose. that call for application whenever the exercise of this awesome and delicate responsibility of adjudging the validity of a statute or presidential decree is invoked. While this Court cannot be accused of being bound by the fetters of judicial timidity. It is not what inspired the introduction of a bill but the effect thereof if duly enacted that is decisive. when the controversy is of such a character that to resolve doubts. There are times." It cannot be denied that others similarly fall under the same ban. It was not directed at petitioner solely. What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily what motivates scores of others to enact it. limits to judicial activism. put the matter thus: "Inquiries into congressional motives or purposes are a hazardous matter. v. it amounted to a BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 31 of 75 constitutional infirmity fatal in character. Vera. It was a cause for concern. It would be to extend unduly the concept of judicial review if a court can roam far and wide and range at will over the variety and diversity of the reasons. this Tribunal must pass on the merits. however. When the issue is simply the interpretation of legislation. are analogous. however. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed. Land Tenure Administration: "It suffices then that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same manner.The challenge to the provision in question is predicated on what was referred to as "a known fact in the province of Nueva Vizcaya that the aforesaid provision was concocted and designed precisely to frustrate any bid of herein petitioner to make a political come back [sic] as governor of Nueva Vizcaya. there is this relevant excerpt from McCray v. the plea for invalidating such provision is the motive attributed to the Interim BatasangPambansa. the forms of litigation are but slight retaining walls. We decline to void essentially on the ground that it is unwise legislation which Congress had the undoubted power to enact and which could be reenacted in its exact form if the same or another legislator made a 'wiser' speech about it. constitutional on its face. The point was likewise raised as to why should national officials be excluded in the above provision.

" As rightfully stressed in the opinion of the Court. The opinion of the Court invoked the constitutional presumption of innocence as a basis for its being annulled. It is not germane nor relevant to the alleged purpose of "infusing new blood" because such "old blood" retirees may continue in local governments since they are not disqualified at all to run for any other local elective office such as from provincial governor. Is there not here. they are disqualified only when they have received payment of the retirement benefits to which they are entitled under the law (which ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . mayor or councilor of 65 is entitled to run for governor (because the disqualification is for the retiree of 65 to run for the same elective office from which he retired) but petitioner is barred from doing so (although he may run for any other lesser office).I dissent from the majority's dismissal of the petition insofar as it upholds the discriminatory and arbitrary provision of Sec. a gross denial of the cardinal constitutional guarantee that equal protection and security shall be given under the law to every person. That it stopped short of possibly attaining the cure of other analogous ills certainly does not stigmatize its effort as a denial of equal protection. under analogous if not identical circumstances? Respondent's claim. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 32 of 75 I. e.dissenting: Files a separate opinion dissenting from the adverse ruling on Dumlao's candidacy and declining to rule on the invalidity of the first part of Section 4 of the questioned Law. That conclusion is well-founded. vice-governor. being a prima facie evidence of such fact and therefore justifying the disqualification of a candidate. but certainly not excluding eminent domain." To specially and peculiarly ban a 65-year old previously retired elective local official from running for the same elective office (of governor. yet one is barred from running for the office of governor. then a candidate would be hard put to destroy the presumption. and concurs with the pronouncement that the mere filing of charges shall be prima facie cause for disqualification is void. the provision in question was enacted. Such a constitutional right. Tuason and Co. a retired vice-governor. the invocation by petitioner of the equal protection clause is futile and unavailing. I would add that such a provision is moreover tainted with arbitrariness and therefore is violative of the due process clause. insurrection. therefore. In its opinion.. Hence my concurrence. It is a constitutional safeguard of the highest order. It is a response to man's innate sense of justice. is "not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will. simply because he is a retired provincial governor of said province "who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected. What is the valid distinction? Is this not an arbitrary discrimination against petitioner who has cause to complain that "the aforesaid provision was concocted and designed precisely to frustrate any bid of herein petitioner to make a political comeback as governor of Nueva Vizcaya — (since no other case of a former governor similarly barred by virtue of said provision can ever be cited). the time element may invariably preclude a full hearing on the charge against him and thus effectively negate the opportunity of an individual to present himself as a candidate." 3.finds relevance: "It was confronted with a situation that called for correction. Accordingly. saddled as he is with so many complaints filed on his desk would give in to the all-too-human propensity to take the easy way out and to file charges. rebellion or others of similar nature before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation. A sense of realism for me compels a declaration of nullity of a provision which on its face is patently offensive to the Constitution. as accepted by the majority. Inc. If. 52 which would impose a special disqualification on petitioner Patricio Dumlao from running for the elective local office of governor of his home province of Nueva Vizcaya and would in effect bar the electors of his province from electing him to said office in the January 30 elections. and the legislation that was the result of its deliberation sought to apply the necessary palliative. to quote from Luzon Surety Co." Thus.That brings us to the assailed provision as to the sufficiency of the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes as subversion. Persons similarly situated are not similarly treated. v. as has been invariably the case. city. Such being the case. And even in the case of 65-year old local elective officials. This it did under the challenged legislative provision.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests priorities. whether in a civil court or in a military tribunal. Both are 65 and are retirees. Beson. is running as the official KBL candidate for governor of his province.M. municipal or district mayor and vice-mayor to member of the SangguniangPanlalawigan. is that the purpose of the special disqualification is "to infuse new blood in local governments" but the classification (that would bar 65-year old retirees from running for the same elective local office) is not rational nor reasonable. oppressive and unreasonable.g. that 'the legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere to the policy of all "or none. to reiterate. Furthermore. Ubay who retired with full substantial retirement benefits as such judge in 1978 at age 70 and now at past 71 years of age. SangguniangPanglunsod and SangguniangBayan.. other 65-year olds who have likewise retired from the judiciary and other branches of government are not in any manner disqualified to run for any local elective office. what called for such a measure is the propensity of the local officials having reached the retirement age and having received retirement benefits once again running for public office.J .. Inc. TEEHANKEE. We have given our sanction to the principle underlying the exercise of police power and taxation. Its disregard is a matter of serious concern. as in the case of retired Court of First Instance Judge (former Congressman) Alberto S. in this case) previously held by him and from which he has retired is arbitrary. 4 of Batas PambansaBlg. a prosecutor. A portion of the opinion in the aforesaid J. other than the local elective office from which they retired. I am in full agreement.

the questioned provision would deny the bona fide candidate substantive due process and would be grossly violative of his constitutional right of presumption of innocence and of the above-quoted provision of the 1973 Constitution protecting candidates for public office from any form of harassment and discrimination. Arbitrary selection and discrimination against persons in thus ruled out. (J): 4 concur Facts: Governing Board Resolution 1. 52 which would make the mere filing of charges of subversion.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 33 of 75 amount to very little. As aptly restated by the Chief Justice. The disqualification in question therefore is grossly violative of the equal protection clause which mandates that all persons subjected to legislation shall be treated alike. 21 April 1995] First Division. Carlos P. such judgment of conviction must be final and unappealable. Suffice it to cite the outstanding case of the incumbent ebullient Minister of Foreign Affairs. no matter his age. those that full within a class should be treated in the same fashion. they are not disqualified. This is so specifically provided in Section 22 of the 1978 Election Code. which. which if not identical are analogous. compared to retirement benefits of other executive officials and members of the judiciary). The questioned provision should therefore at the least be declared invalid in its application insofar as it would disqualify petitioner from running for the office of governor of his province. The guarantee is meant to proscribe undue favor and individual or class privilege on the one hand and hostile discrimination and the oppression of inequality on the other. "is based on a presumption that elective local officials who have retired and are of advanced age cannot discharge the functions of the office they seek as those who are differently situated. paragraph 1 and Section L. issued on 14 January 1994." I also concur with the pronouncement made in the majority decision that in order that a judgment of conviction may be deemed "as conclusive evidence" of the candidate's disloyalty to the State and of his disqualification from office. Romulo. rebellion or other similar crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation prima facie evidence of the fact of commission of an act of disloyalty to the State on the part of the candidate and disqualify him from his candidacy. Certainly. there should be none as to the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . There can be no undue favoritism or partiality on the one hand or hostility on the other. Such a provision could be the most insidious weapon to disqualify bona fide candidates who seem to be headed for election and places in the hands of the military and civil prosecutors a dangerous and devastating weapon of cutting off any candidate who may not be to their liking through the filing of last-hour charges against him. who was elected at 80 as a member of the Interim BatasanPambansa and who has just this month completed 81 years of age and has been hailed by the President himself as "the best foreign minister the Republic has ever had. The mere fact that a candidate is less than 65 or has "young or new blood" does not mean that he would be more efficient. insurrection. under like circumstances and conditions. paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers. effective and competent than a mature 65-year old like petitioner who has had experience on the job and who was observed at the hearing to appear to be most physically fit. If they have not received such retirement benefits. a minimum age to hold public office has been required as a qualification to insure a modicum of maturity (now reduced to 21 years in the present batas). has always been recognized as supreme. binding on the rest. 5 Otherwise. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) [GR 114714. Section C. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumstances. Gen. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges. their disqualification or non-disqualification and consequent classification as "old blood" or "new blood" cannot hinge on such an irrelevant question or whether or not they have received their retirement benefits. whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally Finally. II. "Persons similarly situated should be similarly treated." II. Where no valid distinction could be made as to the relevant conditions that call for consideration. but no maximum age has ever been imposed as a disqualification for elective public office since the right and will of the people to elect the candidate of their choice for any elective office. At the most. Davide Jr." The classification is patently arbitrary and unreasonable and is not based on substantial distinction which make for real differences that would justify the special disqualification of petitioner. CASE 25: Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies vs.I concur with the majority's declaration of invalidity of the portion of the second paragraph of section 4 of Batas PambansaBlg. section 9(1) of the 1973 Constitution that "Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination. both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed." Such presumption is sheer conjecture. subarticle C. amended and increased the compensation and other benefits as specified under Part. Age has simply just never been a yardstick for qualification or disqualification. it is claimed. this arbitrary disqualification is likewise grossly violative of Article XII.

in the claim that the resolution and memorandum circular violate the contract clause of the Bill of Rights. nor atomism. Laurel. and accessibility to social. it (1) must rest on substantial distinctions. through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. through the adoption of measures legally justifiable. retired Justice-Cecilia Muñoz-Palma. It is restricted to contracts with respect to property or some object of value and which confer rights that maybe ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . the compensation payable shall be doubled. series of 1994. nor despotism. that "Upon effectivity." The Tripartite Technical Working Group mentioned in the Resolution. the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society. was convened on 7 January 1994. The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies. work environment. (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only. Section C.000 to each child under the age of 21 but not exceeding four children at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. among other things. all licensed manning agencies which hire and recruit Filipino seamen for and in behalf of their respective foreign shipownerprincipals. and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number. or extra-constitutionally. filed the petition to annul Resolution 1. shipowners. In Calalang vs." It also provided that "The maximum rate provided under Appendix I-A shall likewise be adjusted to US$50. speaking through Justice Jose P. the petitioners claim discrimination against The constitutional prohibition against impairing contractual obligations is not absolute and is not to be read with literal exactness . provided." Held: There is no merit to the claim that the assailed resolution and memorandum circular violate the equal protection and contract clauses of the Constitution. the new compensation and other benefits . The Article on Social Justice was aptly described as the "heart of the new Charter" by the President of the 1986 Constitution Commission. expounded on social justice thus: Social justice is "neither communism. Nor is there-merit. that the cause of action occurs after this Resolution takes effect". the new compensation and other benefits herein provided shall apply to any Filipino seafarer on board any vessel. nor anarchy. provided. and that "Upon effectivity. (2) Even granting that the POEA has that power. paragraph 1. and (4) The resolution and the memorandum circular are not valid acts of the Governing Board because the private sector representative mandated by the law has not been appointed by the President since the creation of the POEA. constitutionally. Where the death is caused by warlike activity while sailing within a declared warzone or war risk area. and that the "Resolution shall take effect after sixty (60) days from publication in a newspaper of general circulation. violated the standards for its exercise. The executive order creating the POEA was enacted to further implement the social justice provisions of the 1973. Section L. and its co-petitioners. informed them that Governing Board Resolution 1 adjusted the rates of compensation and other benefits in Part II. on the grounds that: (1) The POEA does not have the power and authority to fix and promulgate rates affecting death and workmen's compensation of Filipino seamen working in oceangoing vessels. shall apply to any Filipino seafarer already onboard any vessel. this. Issue: Whether the issuance of the challenged resolution and memorandum circular violate the equal protection and non-impairment of obligation of contracts clauses of the Constitution Social justice. therefore. of the Governing Board of the POEA Memorandum Circular 5. issued on 19 January 1994.000 regardless of rank and position of the seafarer". (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law. Inc. and Appendix 1-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contracts for Seafarers. The employer shall undertake appropriate warzone insurance coverage for this purpose. and incorporated association of licensed Filipino manning agencies. and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. . manning agencies.. must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life." Memorandum Circular 5. Court. only Congress can. safety. and quiet of all persons. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people. There can be no dispute about the dissimilarities between land-based and sea-based Filipino overseas workers in terms of. the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine Currency equivalent to the amount of US$50. by POEA Administrator Felicisimo Joson and addressed to all Filipino seafarers. paragraphs 1 and 2. which have been greatly enhanced and expanded in the 1987 Constitution by placing them under a separate Article. consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 34 of 75 foreign shipowners and principals employing Filipino seamen and in favor of foreign employers employing overseas Filipinos who are not seamen. series of 1994. through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community. It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not violated by legislation based on reasonable classification. . (3) The resolution and the memorandum circular are unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection and non-impairment of obligation of contracts clauses of the Constitution.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests providing therein that "In case of death of the seamen during the term of his Contract. Social justice is identified with the broad scope of the police power of the state and requires the extensive use of such power. nevertheless. and spiritual activities. managers and principals hiring Filipino seafarers. dangers and risks to life and limb. civic. it. that the cause of action occurs after the said compensation and benefits take effect. And for the classification to be reasonable. which adjustments took effect on 20 March 1994.000 and an additional amount of US$7." but the Humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Constitution. Williams. To support its contention of in equality. comfort.

but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time. “Tama na po.R.” Accused-appellant inquired if Rosilyn knows how to sing. “After all. dried her with a towel and applied lotion on her arms and legs. all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be established by the State. morals. Rosilyn and Simplicio were brought there and introduced by a talent manager by the name of Eduardo Suarez.000. Accused-appellant promised to help Rosilyn become an actress. hours of labor and similar subjects. accused-appellant came in and entered the bathroom. 797. He asked if she was already menstruating.” In his hand was a plain white T-shirt.” Again. wages. Romeo Jalosjos.” Accused-appellant then removed her panties and dressed her with the long white Tshirt.m. which was enacted under the police power of the State. removed her panties and placed her legs on his shoulders.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests asserted in a court of justice. November 16. It does not prevent a proper exercise by the State of its police power by enacting regulations reasonably necessary to secure the health. Rosilyn protested and told accused-appellant that she can do it herself. Rosilyn put on her clothes and went out of the bathroom.” Accused-appellant stopped. Rosilyn said. And under the Civil Code. “Tell Me You Love Me. working conditions. Nos. at about 8:30 to 9:00 p. he caressed her breasts and inserted his finger into her vagina. “Daddy mo naman ako. Simplicio came in and bid her goodbye. he was also engaged in the skin trade as a pimp. He then raised her shirt. he dried her hair and told her to dress up. Before Simplicio and Rosilyn went home. Simplicio answered. After some time. as the general. strikes and lockouts. Rosilyn was awakened by accused-appellant whom she found bent over and kissing her. When accused-appellant entered the room.. He told her to get up. he gave Rosilyn P10..” Accused-appellant then asked if Rosilyn has nice legs and then raised her skirt up to the mid-thighs.00 and told his ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Simplicio and Rosilyn returned to accused-appellant’s condominium unit at Ritz Towers. Thereafter. on the other hand. Therefore. After a while. ROMEO G. he rinsed her body. while he and accused-appellant stayed outside. He removed Rosilyn’s shirt and gave her a bath. accused-appellant assured them that he would help Rosilyn become an actress as he was one of the producers of the TV programs. accused-appellant turned off the lamp and the television. “Huwag po. She grew up in a two-storey apartment in Pasay City under the care of Simplicio Delantar. accused-appellant gave Rosilyn P2. He walked towards Rosilyn and kissed her on the lips. Accused-appellant told Rosilyn that he wanted to change her clothes. comfort.000. whom she treated as her own father. accused-appellant cupped Rosilyn’s left breast. it has no application to statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. Later. Accused-appellant. “Halik lang naman. closed shop. Rosilyn first met accused-appellant. The following morning. He continued to kiss her lips and fondle her breasts. Then. the freedom to contract is not absolute. 200 FACTS: Maria Rosilyn Delantar was a slim. and Simplicio said yes. such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions. When he saw Rosilyn. He turned to Rosilyn and kissed her lips. accused-appellant entered the bedroom and found Rosilyn watching television. then left the room again. Simplicio told Rosilyn to go inside the bedroom. collective bargaining. “Dakak.” Simplicio and Suarez then discussed the execution of a contract for Rosilyn’s movie career. 132875-76. he placed his tongue on her vagina. well-being of the community may require. sometime in February 1996 at his office located near Robinson’s Galleria. Accused-appellant ate breakfast while Rosilyn stayed in the bedroom watching television. Rosilyn told Simplicio that accused-appellant kissed her to which Simplicio replied. accused-appellant asked how old she was.” Accused-appellant then took off Rosilyn’s blouse and skirt. “Valiente” and “Eat Bulaga. JALOSJOS G. When nobody answered. 1996. On the side. CASE 26: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. “10. Rosilyn felt pain and cried out. The two of them watched television in bed. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. Thereafter. Article 1700 thereof expressly provides: Art. safety. After that. accused-appellant told Rosilyn to sleep. for such matters cannot be placed by contract beyond the power of the State to regulate and control them. took her hand and led her to the bathroom. Then. I am your Daddy. but accusedappellant answered. straight black hair and almond-shaped black eyes.” Rosilyn was left alone in the bedroom watching television. To hold otherwise is to alter long-established constitutional doctrine and to subordinate the police power to the contract clause. After sometime. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts lust yield to the common good. so she sang the song. He came out clad in a long white T-shirt on which was printed the word. No. accused-appellant told her. The challenged resolution and memorandum circular being valid implementations of E. touched her breasts and inserted his finger into her vagina. while accused-appellant took a shower. When accused-appellant came out of his bedroom. he knelt in front of her. or general welfare of the community. or as experience may demonstrate the necessity. Accused-appellant further inquired if Rosilyn already had breasts. Simplicio was a fifty-six year old homosexual whose ostensible source of income was selling longganiza and tocino and accepting boarders at his house. 1700. they cannot be struck down on the ground that they violate the contract clause. Simplicio told Rosilyn to sing. said that he would adopt Rosilyn and that the latter would have to live with him in his condominium at the Ritz Towers. Verily. or as the circumstances may change. She is BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 35 of 75 going to be 11 on May 11. eleven-year old lass with long. While accused-appellant rubbed soap all over Rosilyn’s body. even though contracts may thereby be affected. When he was about to take off her panties.00 n June 14. contracts of labor are explicitly subject to the police power of the State because they are not ordinary contracts but are impresses with public interest.O.

Jalosjos’ Contention: He claimed that it was his brother. who are allegedly determined to destroy his political career and boost their personal agenda. 1996 charges of acts of lasciviousness. Even the July 20. The following. which day eventually led to the filing of criminal charges against accused-appellant. the only added scene was that Jalosjos placed his penies in between her thighs and made thrusting motions. Rosilyn unequivocally testified that accused-appellant held his penis then poked her vagina with it. the testimony of the private complainant in rape cases is scrutinized with utmost caution. On that occasion. I will no longer include lahat ng details since pareho-pareho naman. In this jurisdiction.000. the peculiarity of prostitution. It should be noted that this portion of Rosilyn’s testimony refers to the June 15 and 21. she found P5. Accused-appellant was about to leave. He attributed the filing of the charges against him to a small group of blackmailers who wanted to extort money from him. accused-appellant may not have fully and for a longer period penetrated Rosilyn for fear of perpetrating his name through a child from the womb of a minor. This may be the reason why Simplicio Delantar gave his mocking fatherly advice to Rosilyn that it is bad if accused-appellant inserts his penis into her sex organ. Rosilyn was thereafter taken to the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). where she executed a sworn statement against Simplicio Delantar. surely she could have felt whether it was his penis or just his finger. Accused-appellant insisted that he was in the province on the dates Rosilyn claimed to have been sexually abused. The constitutional ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN .) The defense contends that the testimony of Rosilyn that accused-appellant ejaculated on her thighs and not in her vagina. once at accused-appellant’s Dakak office and twice at the Ritz Towers.” Pain inside her “ari” is indicative of consummated penetration. and pleaded for him not to bring her back to the Ritz Towers. And even if she did not actually see accusedappellant’s penis go inside her.” The “idiniin-diin niya” was succeeded by “Masakit po. When she returned to the Ritz Towers. 1996. and she gave this to Simplicio when he came to fetch her. and elevated with a pillow on her back while accused-appellant was touching. In any event.) Whether there was consummated rape. Simplicio told her that everything was alright as long as accused-appellant does not have sexual intercourse with her. accused-appellant was similarly ensconced between the parted legs of Rosilyn. Topped with the thrusting motions employed by accused-appellant.” to which you are referring? What is this “idinidiin niya?” A. In the early morning of July 21. whom Rosilyn had met. Masakit po. The defense contends that the testimony of Rosilyn that accused-appellant ejaculated on her thighs and not in her vagina. the resulting pain felt by Rosilyn in her sex organ was no doubt a consequence of consummated rape. or because of his previous agreement with his “suking bugaw.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests housemaid to take her shopping at Shoemart. Such instance of penile invasion would prompt Simplicio to demand a higher price. Simplicio was waiting for her. YES 2. and not the rape charges.) (BILL of RIGHTS-related)Whether there are alleged inconsistencies in the statement of the victim regarding the “insertion of the penis” which would prove that she was lying. one of their boarders. 1996. only proves that there was no rape. When she woke up later. There is no truth to the contention of the defense that Rosilyn did not see the penis of accused-appellant.m. as the Solicitor General calls it. after all. and to his political opponents. The child’s narration of the rape sequence is revealing. but she did not wake up. 2. The medical examination revealed that Subject is in non-virgin state physically and There are no external signs of application of any form of violence. 1996. particularly Ex-Congressman Artemio Adaza. Rosilyn felt somebody touching her sex organ. 1996. And. 1996 are consistent with the complainant’s testimony which shows that rape was legally consummated. while at the same time ordering her to call him if accused-appellant would penetrate her. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation. which is. The act of “idinikitdikit niya” was followed by “itinutok niya xxx at idiniin-diin niya.00 on the table. Q. only proves that there was no rape ISSUES: 1. this time. The environmental circumstances displayed by the graphic narration of what took place at the appellant’s room from June 14 to June 16 and June 21 to June 22. Idinidiin niya ang ari niya sa ari ko. As can be gleaned from the above-quoted portions of the transcripts. Rosilyn was conveniently rested on. The two of them went home. (The same scenario happened again for several times. And what did you feel when you said: he was “idinidiin niya ang ari niya sa ari ko?” A. the ejaculation on the victim’s thighs would not preclude the fact of rape. Dominador “Jun” Jalosjos. Simplicio again brought Rosilyn to the Ritz Towers and same thing happened again. The two did not return. Nevertheless. granting that it occurred during the twin instances of rape on June 18 and July 20. NO RULING: 1.On August 15. poking and pressing his penis against her vagina. Rosilyn and Simplicio went to the Ritz Towers at around 7:00 p. when you said “idinidiin po niya.) Excerpts from the trial records: BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 36 of 75 Q. Yamie accompanied Rosilyn to the Pasay City Police.” Simplicio Delantar. ) On July 20. that there would be no penetration. except that. 1996 encounter between Rosilyn and accused-appellant would not tax the sketchy visualization of the naïve and uninitiated to conclude that there was indeed penile invasion by accused-appellant of Rosilyn’s labia. –important poi to kasi ang nakalagay lang sa affidavit ng victim ay the penis was placed in between her thighs and the accused made thrusting motions. Rosilyn ran away from home with the help of Yamie Estreta. otherwise the latter would demand a higher price. so he told them to come back later that evening. Rosilyn narrated to Simplicio what accused-appellant did to her.

p. and that it is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts. the following was quoted with approval by the Court of Appeals from 1 Moore on Facts. Li Bun Juan. Buyok. is best made by the trial court because of its untrammeled opportunity to observe her demeanor on the witness stand. and to seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit: Books of accounts. 235 SCRA 622 [1996]).. journals. ledgers. may have given some ambiguous answers. Testimonies of rape victims especially those who are young and immature deserve full credence (People v. to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices. 46 O. At any rate. 96-1995. vouchers. typical answers of child witnesses like her. In People vs. 3222-3223. even assuming that Rosilyn. citing People v. on different dates. for acts of lasciviousness. Significantly. candid. On the demeanor and manner of testifying shown by the complainant. this Court held that: . they refer merely to minor and peripheral details which do not in any way detract from her firm and straightforward declaration that she had been molested and subjected to lascivious conduct by accused-appellant. false in everything). Accused-appellant makes much of his acquittal in Criminal Case Nos.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests presumption of innocence requires no less than moral certainty beyond any scintilla of doubt. and 96-1998. Liquiran. receipts. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence. CASE 27: Stonehill Vs. the trial court stated: Guided by the foregoing principles. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 37 of 75 When asked to describe what had been done to her. She answered in clear. typewriters. far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence. accused-appellant urges the application of the doctrine of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in part. He added that she was trained to give answers such as. 945) Being in the best position to discriminate between the truth and the falsehood. simple and natural words customary of children of her age. the trial court's assignment of values and weight on the testimony of Rosilyn should be given credence. they may accept some portions of his testimony and reject other portions. According to him. directed to the any peace officer. Thus. Yanson-Dumancas.” (People v. allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter allow herself to be perverted in a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. 1967 Facts: Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin — hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Prosecutors — several judges — hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Judges — issued. correspondence. Keller. As an inevitable consequence. 7. 96-1996.. --. In this connection it must be borne in mind that the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute one. The contention is without merit. the fact that the trial court sustained his defense of alibi in the said cases only shows that Rosilyn concocted her stories and the rest of her testimony ought not to be believed. such lapses could. as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General. “Parang po. clear and straightforward. pp. this court found no reason why it should not believe Rosilyn when she claimed she was raped. 961991. in People v. This applies with more vigor in rape cases where the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and is not allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.” Accused-appellant’s arguments are far from persuasive.” and “Sa tingin ko po. Stated differently. credit journals. portfolios. it should be borne in mind that the issue at hand hinges on credibility. Testimony may be partly credited and partly rejected. Accused-appellant next argues that Rosilyn’s direct and redirect testimonies were rehearsed and lacking in candidness. as oft-repeated. it is the rape victim herself that is actually put on trial. The case at bar is no exception.” “Medyo po. The above phrases quoted by accused-appellant as uttered by Rosilyn are. At times. financial records. 96-1997. it should be borne in mind that even the most candid witness oftentimes makes mistakes and confused statements. upon other facts and circumstances to be the truth… Even when witnesses are found to have deliberately falsified in some material particulars. Rosilyn was able to narrate spontaneously in detail how she was sexually abused. during her lengthy ordeals on the witness stand. He points to the supposed hesitant and even idiotic answers of Rosilyn on cross and re-cross examinations. 23: “18. but may credit such portions as they deem worthy of belief. the assessment of which. according to what seems to them. the jury are not required to reject the whole of their uncorroborated testimony. a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein and/or the corporations of which they were officers. and it remained to be so even during the intense and rigid cross-examination made by the defense counsel. and other documents ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Her testimony in this regard was firm. Moreover. 228 SCRA 62 (1993) considering that “no woman would concoct a story of defloration.G. No. indeed.Trier of facts are not bound to believe all that any witness has said.” (p. constitute signs of veracity. A reading of the pertinent transcript of stenographic notes reveals that Rosilyn was in fact firm and consistent on the fact of rape and lascivious conduct committed on her by accusedappellant. 96-1994. “Ano po?”. warehouses and/or residences. Diokno 20 SCRA 383 L-19550 June 19.

to be determined by the The documents." Whether or not those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein are Petitioners contentions are: obtained legally. Tariff and Customs Laws. papers. and (2) that the warrant shall warrants in question may be split into two (2) major groups. papers and things seized in the residences of (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance petitioners herein. to be disposed of in accordance with law — objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents. and herein Respondents-Prosecutors from using them in evidence against petitioners (3) that. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . books and things to be Held: The petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested seized. Code. and things seized under the alleged authority of the judge in the manner set forth in said provision. lifted the writ of with law. Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal corporations are obtained legally. were actually seized. preliminary injunction previously issued by this Court." which is described in the applications adverted to above as "violation of Central Whether or not those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned Bank Laws. as "the subject of the offense. it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be (5) the documents. separate and distinct from the (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners personality of herein petitioners. thereby. and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations. regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of in deportation cases filed against them. in effect. Respondents-prosecutors contentions With respect to the documents. regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures. and whatever the offices they hold (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner. papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. were cured by petitioners' consent.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 38 of 75 and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts. not mentioned in the warrants. the interest of each of them in said corporations. for the simple reason that (2) cash money. in any event. and seized in the residences of petitioners herein. warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof. petitioners. the aforementioned resolution of June 29. stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the Issue: offense. the effects seized are admissible in evidence against herein herein. namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. said corporations have their respective personalities. if any. namely: (a) those found particularly describe the things to be seized. Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate. restraining (2) that the defects of said warrants. Indeed. and therein may be. and (b) those found balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers). and that the that issued the warrants. 1962." or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense.

the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. Chief Insp. The team turned over the jeep and the red plastic bag with its contents to the General Assignment Section for proper disposition. Reynaldo Belocura y Perez. Manila. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws. Captain Sukila called Belocura to request the release of the suspect (ina-arbor ang huli ko). for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. Nelson Yabut of the WPD. Tariff and Customs Laws.00. Indeed. to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).00. REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ.000. It would be the legal heresy. The first brick bore the marking "RB-1" and weighed 830. that it was not unusual for a policeman like him to incur the ire of a superior officer or a fellow policeman. On appeal. Tariff and Customs Laws. 7659. accused-appellant." In other words. Divina directed PO2 Santos to inspect the contents of the red plastic bag. the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction on January 23. that he told Captain Sukila that they should meet the next day so that he could turn over the suspect. She conducted a chemical examination of the marijuana bricks pursuant to the request for laboratory examination from Chief Insp. The State's Evidence Belocura denied owning or possessing the bricks of marijuana. that on the day following the arrest of the suspect.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. and that on the next day.000.532 grams while the other bore the marking "RB2" and weighed 959. no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause." — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without reference to any determinate provision of said laws.789. which turned out to be two bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspaper. When PO2 Santos searched Belocura's jeep. CASE 28: (LIRIO MUNOZ) Evidence of the Defense Happy reading guys  PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Coronel attested that her office received from the General Assignment Section of the WPD one red plastic bag labeled "SHIN TON YON" containing two bricks of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops individually wrapped in newspaper at about 12:30 pm of March 23. for a total weight of 1. 2003 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila. RTC: convicted Belocura of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of P500. and recovered a red plastic bag under the driver's seat. and he was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500.823 grams. as amended by Republic Act No. Forensic Chemist Insp. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . vs. or committed specific omissions.291 grams. was found guilty of the crime charged on April 22. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 39 of 75 According to Chief Insp. He insisted that it was physically impossible for the bricks of marijuana to be found under the driver's seat of his jeep on account of the clearance from the flooring being only about three inches. Belocura said that his arrest was effected possibly because he had incurred the ire of a superior. plaintiff-appellee. but the suspect turned out to be the nephew of Captain Sukila of Precinct 2 who admitted to him that Captain Sukila owned the drugs. this final appeal for his acquittal. violating a given provision of our criminal laws. of the highest order. Hence. a prohibited drug. Tondo. that he had arrested a suspect for drug pushing and had detained him in Police Precinct 2. the team returned with Belocura to the WPD Headquarters on board the Tamaraw FX. 1999. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. Afterwards. saying that he saw the bricks of marijuana for the first time only in court. a police officer charged with illegal possession of marijuana in violation of Republic Act No. As a matter of fact. As a consequence. and concluded as the result of three qualitative examinations that the submitted specimen tested positive for marijuana. TOPIC: ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID SEARCH WARRANT. 2006. Divina he was in his office in the headquarters of the Western Police District (WPD) in Manila when he received a tip about a robbery to be staged along Lopez Street. he was surprised to learn that the suspect had already been released.

search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. Among the circumstances are those mentioned in Section 5. Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution. namely: (a) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 13. and particularly describing the place to be searched. and that any irregularity attendant to the arrest was cured by Belocura's failure to object to the validity of his arrest before entering his plea and by his submission to the jurisdiction of the RTC when he entered his plea and participated in the trial. however. (c) search of a moving vehicle. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. arrest. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. HELD: No arrest. and the persons or things to be seized. . shall be inviolable. the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of the following exceptions. the person to be arrested has committed. . On the other hand. in his presence. or search and seizure. (f) stop-and-frisk situations (Terry search). So sacred are the right of personal security and privacy and the right from unreasonable searches and seizures that no less than the Constitution ordains in Section 2 of its Article III. viz. NOTE: In these exceptional situations. that the arresting policemen had a reasonable ground to effect his warrantless arrest. namely: (a)When. that his warrantless arrest was unlawful considering that his only violation was only a breach of traffic rules and regulations involving the illegal use of a government plate on his newly-assembled jeep. being the fruit of a poisonous tree. the necessity for a search warrant is dispensed with. . According to the court an evaluation of the totality of the evidence on record indicates. although warrantless. the right against warrantless arrest. were inadmissible against him. and the right against warrantless search and seizure are not absolute. houses. and C (c)When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. and (g) exigent and emergency circumstances. This rule of exclusion is set down in Section 3 (2). to wit: Section 3. Even so. is actually committing. the search being incidental to a valid.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests In convicting Belocura as charged. The consequence of a violation of the guarantees against a violation of personal security and privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures is the exclusion of the evidence thereby obtained. (e) customs search. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE OF THE MARIJUANA DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF ITS SEIZURE DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT? YES! with conviction!  BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 40 of 75 (2)Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (b)When an offense has in fact just been committed. and that the bricks of marijuana supposedly seized from him.: Section 2. are nonetheless valid or reasonable. (d) consented warrantless search. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. There are circumstances in which the arrest. (b) seizure of evidence under plain view. or is attempting to commit an offense. Article III of the Constitution. the RTC relied on the testimonies of Chief Insp. PARTIES CONTENTIONS: Belocura argues that the Prosecution did not establish his guilt for the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that Belocura's arrest and the ensuing search of the jeep were valid. that the warrantless search of his jeep was contrary to law for violating his right against illegal search and seizure protected under Section 17. which then resulted in the recovery of the dried bricks of marijuana from under the driver's seat. Divina and SPO1 Rojas to establish the fact of possession of the marijuana bricks. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. which lists down when a warrantless arrest may be lawfully made by a peace officer or a private person. that it became their duty following the lawful arrest to conduct the warrantless search not only of the person of Belocura as the arrestee but also of the areas within his reach. that the corpus delicti of the crime charged was not established ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN .The right of the people to be secure in their persons. albeit warrantless.

193636 July 24. In Gamboa vs. 275). In sum the court said that: in all criminal prosecutions. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed. Upon the conclusion of its investigation. and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. RTC DECISION was REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision promulgated on January 23.R. Thus. the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence. No. for the evidence must also be sufficiently connected to and tied with the facts in issue. The omission naturally raises grave doubt about any search being actually conducted and warrants the suspicion that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence. that is. should not sway judgment against him. Chan was the Officer-in-Charge. CASE 29: Based on the foregoing. In doing all these. which was later on referred to as the Zeñarosa Commission. Hence. that he must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. the weakness of the defense put up by the accused is inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactor responsible for it. The Prosecution presented no other witnesses to establish the seizure of the marijuana bricks from Belocura. 275 (A. the accused has no burden of proof. discharging this burden. 2006. and to report his action hereon to this Court within 10 days from receipt. That linkage was not dispensable. their testimonies could not be accorded probative value. It is not enough that the evidence offered has probative value on the issues.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests beyond reasonable doubt. If neither of them was personally competent to be an eyewitness regarding the seizure of the marijuana bricks from Belocura. the Prosecution's duty is to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. because the failure to prove that the specimens of marijuana submitted to the forensic chemist for examination were the same marijuana allegedly seized from Belocura irreparably broke the chain of custody that linked the confiscated marijuana to the marijuana ultimately presented as evidence against Belocura during the trial. This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation for the introduction of evidence are important. only to those facts derived from his own perception. considering that the Rules of Court requires that a witness could testify only to facts that he knew of his own knowledge. The Prosecution must further prove the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. Divina and SPO1 Rojas' declarations were insufficient to incriminate Belocura. Gamboa (Gamboa) was the Mayor of Dingras. the presumption of innocence in his favor was not overcome.O. The chain-of-custody requirement ensures that all doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs. much less to convict him. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demanded that unwavering exactitude must be observed in establishing the corpus delicti — the body of the crime whose core was the confiscated prohibited substances. Indeed. the Zeñarosa Commission released and submitted to the Office of the President a confidential ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . That account goes to the weight of evidence. DIRECT the immediate release from detention of REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ. In other words. Mere suspicion of his guilt. Ilocos Norte. Every evidence favoring him must be duly considered. former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Administrative Order No. the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. as to his innocence. The chain of custody is essential in establishing the link between the article confiscated from the accused to the evidence that is ultimately presented to the court for its appreciation. 2012 Facts: Petitioner Marynette R.) Marlou C. unless he is also detained for some other lawful cause. Conversely. of the Ilocos Norte Police Provincial Office. On 8 December 2009. “Creating an Independent Commission to Address the Alleged Existence of Private Armies in the Country. Chan G. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 41 of 75 The Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted the corpus delicti itself. The Prosecution thereby failed to establish the linkage between the bricks of marijuana supposedly seized by PO2 Santos from Belocura's jeep following his arrest and the bricks of marijuana that the Prosecution later presented as evidence in court. every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. and ORDER the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to forthwith implement this decision upon receipt. ACQUIT accused REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ for failure of the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is not relevant merely because it is available but that it has an actual connection with the transaction involved and with the parties thereto. Chief Insp. the Prosecution must account for the custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. Meanwhile. his acquittal should follow.” The body. The Court holds that the guilt of Belocura for the crime charged was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. no matter how strong.was formed to investigate the existence of private army groups (PAGs) in the country with a view to eliminating them before the 10 May 2010 elections and dismantling them permanently in the future. respondent Police Senior Superintendent (P/SSUPT.

Lt.The PNP was rationally expected to forward and share intelligence regarding PAGs with the body specifically created for the purpose of investigating the existence of these notorious groups. 1985 MELENCIO-HERRERA. The fact that the PNP released information to the Zeñarosa Commission without prior communication to Gamboa and without affording her the opportunity to refute the same cannot be interpreted as a violation or threat to her right to privacy since that act is an inherent and crucial component of intelligencegathering and investigation. making a resort to the extraordinary remedy of the writ of habeas data unnecessary and improper.R. Pursuant to the state interest of dismantling PAGs. Held: The right to privacy. In this case.Taking into account these constitutional fiats. she claimed that her malicious or reckless inclusion in the enumeration of personalities maintaining a PAG as published in the Report also made her.Purportedly without the benefit of data verification. the latter collected information on individuals suspected of maintaining PAGs. et al. Thus. NOLASCO. there are other reliefs available to her to address the purported damage to her reputation. and thus had the power to request assistance from the latter. Gamboa filed a Petition dated 9 July 2010 for the issuance of a writ of habeas dataagainst respondents in their capacities as officials of the PNP-Ilocos Norte. No. J. the Zeñarosa Commission was explicitly authorized to deputize the police force in the fulfillment of the former’s mandate. Saldajeno of the CSG. PNP–Ilocos Norte forwarded the information gathered on her to the Zeñarosa Commission. Gamboa averred that her association with a PAG also appeared on print media. vs. L-69803 October 8. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.O.P. monitored them and counteracted their activities. That it was leaked to third parties and the media was regrettable.: FACTS: The case at bar is a question on the validity of the search warrant and arrest of the petitioner charged for the crime of rebellion. It is expressly recognized in section 3 (1) of the Bill of Rights: Sec.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests report entitled “A Journey Towards H. and is controlled and administered by a national police commission. 1984. Clearly. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO. In any event. One of those individuals is herein petitioner Gamboa. thereby causing her inclusion in the Report’s enumeration of individuals maintaining PAGs. liberty or security. On August 6th. In the case at bar. even warranting reproach. the right to privacy is considered a fundamental right that must be protected from intrusion or constraint. she was publicly tagged as someone who maintains a PAG on the basis of the unverified information that the PNP-Ilocos Norte gathered and forwarded to the Zeñarosa Commission. applied ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Contrary to the ruling of the trial court. Executive Judge. Prior to August 6. On 6 and 7 July 2010. respondents admitted the existence of the Report. susceptible to harassment and police surveillance operations. however. Issue: Whether or not Petitioner Gamboa’s right to privacy was violated.E. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court. it is clear that the issuance of A.. 3. HON. The Constitution explicitly mandates the dismantling of private armies and other armed groups not recognized by the duly constituted authority. Howeverthis Court underscored that the right to privacy is not absolute. She was then still at large.: The Independent Commission Against Private Armies’ Report to the President” (the Report). Contending that her right to privacy was violated and her reputation maligned and destroyed.O. Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police in Ilocos Norte (PNP– Ilocos Norte) conducted a series of surveillance operations against her and her aides. as an inherent concept of liberty. as well as her supporters and otherpeople identified with her. at around 9:00 A.As a result. It also provides for the establishment of one BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 42 of 75 police force that is national in scope and civilian in character. AGUILAR-ROQUE was one of the accused of Rebellion. CASE 30: CYNTHIA D. 275 articulates a legitimate state aim. and classified her as someone who keeps a PAG. et al. Col.M. or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. G. But it must be stressed that Gamboa failed to establish that respondents were responsible for this unintended disclosure. which is to investigate the existence of PAGs with the ultimate objective of dismantling them permanently. has long been recognized as a constitutional right. ABS-CBN broadcasted on its evening news program the portion of the Report naming Gamboa as one of the politicians alleged to be maintaining a PAG. Moreover. as well as the foregoing powers and functions accorded to the Zeñarosa Commission and the PNP. but emphasized its confidential nature. Virgilio G. the forwarding of information by the PNP to the Zeñarosa Commission was not an unlawful act that violated or threatened her right to privacy in life.

A. Plans of these groups. search warrants of similar description were considered null and void for being too general. and that probable cause has not been properly established for lack of searching questions propounded to the applicant's witness. Considering that AGUILAR-ROQUE has been charged with Rebellion. Section 3. and that the search of her dwelling was made within a half hour of her arrest. subversive books and instructions. Notwithstanding the irregular issuance of the Search Warrant and although. manuals not otherwise available to the public. Some searches may be made without a warrant. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized The disputed Search Warrant (No. 198554 Facts: Major General Carlos Garcia was charged with Failure to disclose his assets on his SALN (statement of assets and liabilities). which is a crime against public order. The "probable cause" required to justify the issuance of a search warrant comprehends such facts and circumstances as will induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuant thereof. AGUILARROQUE and NOLASCO were arrested by a Constabulary Security Group (CSG) at the intersection of Mayon Street and P. which includes everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front. 239-B Mayon Street. List of possible supporters. After sentence was rendered upon him by the military board review finding him ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . the personalities seized may be retained by CSG. Such being the case. stating/making untruthful statements with regard his assets and bank deposits on banks which resulted to the conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman by maintaining an immigrant/permanent residence in the U. It is an all-embracing description. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Quezon City. for possible introduction as evidence in the Rebellion Case. In the recent BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 43 of 75 rulings of this Court. leaving it to AGUILAR-ROQUE to object to their relevance and to ask Special Military Commission No.R. papers and other records of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army and/or the National Democratic Front. 239-B Mayon Street.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests for a Search Warrant from respondent Hon. He was tried under the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial (GCM) on violations of the articles of war.S. houses. It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized. charges of subversion and rebellion were filed but the fiscal's office merely charged her and Nolasco with illegal possession of subversive materials. what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. HELD: We find merit in the Petition. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are. determined tyo be the leased residence of AGUILAR-ROQUE. On the basis of the documents seized. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. Article IV of the Constitution." On the same day at 11:30 A.1 to return to her any and all irrelevant documents and articles. Programs. a portable typewriter and 2 boxes were seized. Executive Secretary 677 SCRA 750 2012 G. the search at No. then after the petitioner turned 56 years old and had retired from service while his case pending. for possible effective results in the interest of public order. they cannot be ordered returned in the case at bar to AGUILAR-ROQUE. It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional mandate requiring particular description of the things to be seized. the articles seized under an invalid search warrant should be returned. such as Minutes of the Party Meetings. Margall Street. It also specifically provides that no Search Warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law.M. Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City. guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. No warrant of arrest had previously been issued against NOLASCO. did not need a search warrant. as an incident of an arrest. The lack of particularization is also evident in the examination of the witness presented by the applicant for Search Warrant. after almost a month of "round the clock surveillance" of the premises as a "suspected underground house of the CPP/NPA. No. the place or premises where the arrest was made can also be search without a search warrant. and support money from foreign or local sources. to be served at No. 428 documents. Mere generalization will not suffice and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause upon which a warrant may issue.. Quezon City. The examination conducted was general in nature and merely repetitious of the deposition of said witness. Quezon City. It is also a general rule that. Ernani Cruz Paño. ordinarily. CASE 31: Garcia v. ISSUE: Whether the Search Warrant is void because it is a general warrant since it does not sufficiently describe with particularity the things subject of the search and seizure. this. Quezon City "late on the same day". he was also arraigned while being detained in a military facility of the AFP. Elements of the CSG searched the premises at 239-B Mayon Street. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize. that the warrant for her arrest has not been served for a considerable period of time. 80-84) describes the personalities to be seized as follows: Documents. we are of the opinion that in her respect. that she was arrested within the general vicinity of her dwelling.

Thus. Such classification. however. J. It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. Indeed. the application of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code in the Articles of War is in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state's jurisdiction against BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 44 of 75 intentional and arbitrary discrimination. he is entitled to the rights accorded to them. Thus. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. and (4) it applies equally to all members of the same class. It must be grave abuse of discretion. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. So also.JULIETA G. "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification”. with this petitioner filed for certiorari and petition for habeas corpus with this court/ Issue: WoN the GCM lost its jurisdiction on the petitioner upon his retirement from duty under the law? WoN Art. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. CASE 32: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. No. such discharge does not terminate his amenability to trial for the offense. (3) it is not limited to existing conditions only. 29 of the Revised Penal Code is inapplicable to petitioner since his violation is with the articles of war and he is a military person? WoN the Office of the President commited Grave abuse of discretion in confirming the sentence of the petitioner? Held: it is a settled in law that jurisdiction once acquired cannot be lost until a case ceases or judgment is rendered. where an officer holding a reserve commission is discharged from said commission by reason of acceptance of a commission in the Regular Force. following the same reasoning. but merely the accomplishment of a change in his status from that of a reserve to that of a regular officer. and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. According to a long line of decisions. The GCM has exclusive jurisdiction over military persons which is also cognizable by the civil courts which means the GCM is like any other court exercising the same plenary power under the Law. The test has four requisites: (1) the classification rests on substantial distinctions. as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially. It. there being no interval between services under the respective commissions. In other words. (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law. where a dishonorable discharged general prisoner is tried for an offense committed while a soldier and prior to his dishonorable discharge. In the present case. whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's duly-constituted authorities. Then after President Aquino acting as Commander in Chief of the AFP confirmed the sentence of the Military board review of discharge from duty without any retirement benefit dishonorably and a term of imprisonment of 2 years not to be deducted from his 6 years of detention. 198589 July 25. petitioner is also entitled to the basic and time-honored principle that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. petitioner belongs to the class of those who have been convicted by any court. to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction.R. Finally Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. FOURTH DIVISION and . 2012 ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . court-martial jurisdiction does not terminate.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests guilty of all charges. vs. and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. ANDO REYES. however. there is no terminating of the officer's military status. The GCM has jurisdiction upon petitioner because the offense was committed prior his discharge. It must be remembered that the provisions of the Articles of War which the petitioner violated are penal in nature.: G. there is no substantial distinction between those who are convicted of offenses which are criminal in nature under military courts and the civil courts. Petitioner served 6 years in detention in the PNP facility in quezon city. this Court finds that the Office of the President did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Confirmation of Sentence in question. Being a “court” this court finds that since the 2 years penalty is a punitive in character it cannot see why Article 29 of Revised Penal Code cannot apply on this case because the GCM is a criminal court in accordance with the constitution. thus. Military commission the court ruled in that case that the MC has a separate jurisdiction over civil courts during the time of Marcos that’s why the court struck down that commission in that case. the equal protection clause permits classification. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. applying. Nevertheless. equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. the earlier disquisitions. As for the second issue the OSG relying on the Olaguer v. Clearly. and that court-martial jurisdiction to try him for an offense (striking enlisted men for example) committed prior to the discharge is not terminated by the discharge. Furthermore. where the person's discharge or other separation does not interrupt his status as a person belonging to the general category of persons subject to military law.

That Tee Ong was already dead at the time the subject documents were executed and notarized coupled with Ando’s use thereof to her benefit sufficed to conclude that there was forgery and that Ando was responsible therefor. disturbed and set aside without violating the rule against double jeopardy. There was likewise no necessity to produce an Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s decision and acquitting the petitioner herein? HELD: The petition cannot be given due course. Tee attributes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. Ando deserves to be acquitted of the charges against her in view of the prosecution’s failure to prove that the subject documents were indeed falsified. Ando (Ando) was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC). an Affidavit. evidence that the prosecution’s right to due process was violated or the proceedings before the CA were a mockery such that Ando’s acquittal was a foregone conclusion. 1996. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . 1996. CASE 33: (LUCAYLUCAY) NO. For the writ to issue. The petition is bereft of any allegation. According to the CA the prosecution did not eliminate the possibility that Tee Ong may have signed the said documents before he died on December 15. Affidavit. who was the owner of To Suy Hardware. signed. not Ando. Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila affirmed the MeTC’s findings. 1996. making it unnecessary to address and extrapolate on the numerous factual issues raised by Tee against the CA’s Decision dated July 28. Dismissal of this petition is inevitable in view of the principle of double jeopardy. On appeal. much less. the CA’s findings can no longer be reversed. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 45 of 75 expert witness to determine if Tee Ong’s thumb mark and signature were forged. 2011 and the procedural lapses Ando attributes to Tee. Branch 26 of three (3) counts of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The burden is on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. and Transfer of Rights were forged on the basis of the undisputed fact that Tee Ong was already dead at the time that such documents were notarized on January 31. 1995. According to the Court of Appeals. Although the dismissal order is not subject to appeal. (ii) Ando was in possession of the allegedly falsified documents. the prosecution did not present any expert witness or caused the examination of the subject documents to determine whether Tee Ong’s thumb mark and signature were indeed forged. 2008. notwithstanding the alleged errors in the interpretation of the applicable law or appreciation of evidence that the CA may have committed in ordering Ando’s acquittal. clouding Ando’s supposed guilt with moral uncertainty. the appeal from the petitioner. and (iii) Ando used the allegedly falsified documents to cause the transfer in her favor of the rights to the business name "TO SUY HARDWARE". Specifically. alleging that the latter has no reason to reverse the MeTC’s and RTC’s finding of guilt as the inconsistencies in Ando’s statements and her possession and use of the subject documents prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was the one who forged Tee Ong’s thumb mark and signature. executed and sworn a Deed of Sale. thus. In a Decision 3 rendered on May 2. Tee Ong. ISSUE: Ando’s conviction was premised on the following factual findings: (i) Tee Ong was already dead at the time the allegedly falsified documents were executed and notarized on January 31.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests FACTS: Respondent Julieta G. The mere fact that the decision being brought for this Court’s review is one for acquittal alerts one’s attention to a possible violation of the rule against double jeopardy. the MeTC found Ando guilty beyond reasonable doubt of making it appear that Tee’s father. thus dismissed. What the CA found as certain from the evidence of the prosecution is the notarization of the subject documents after Tee Ong’s death and not the impossibility of Tee Ong’s voluntary execution thereof before his death. Hence. it is the notary public who notarized the subject documents. The execution and notarization of the subject documents are two (2) different acts and the irregularities attending their notarization do not necessarily affect the validity of their execution. 34 CASE. and a Transfer of Rights on January 31. The CA gave due course to Ando’s appeal and reversed the RTC Decision dated November 6. it is still reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA found the lower courts to have erred in sweepingly concluding that the signatures on the Deed of Sale. In this petition. 2008. Accordingly. Accordingly. absent any showing that the CA acted with caprice or without regard to the rudiments of due process. the trial court must be shown to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham thus rendering the assailed judgment void. who should be held liable for any irregularities that may have attended the notarization. giving rise to the presumption that she was responsible therefor.

and the complaint was thereupon shelved. That Leoncio Quiambao. the justice told him that he could still win if he would pay P50. numerous citizens of the Province of Pampanga assembled. and contained the statements set out in the information as libelous. and prepared and signed a petition to the Executive Secretary through the law office of Crossfield and O'Brien. 1916. justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol. had instituted the charges for personal reasons. including a letter sent by the municipal president and six councilors of Masantol. Returning again to the office of the justice of the peace in order to appeal. G. The Executive Secretary referred the papers to the judge of first instance for the Seventh Judicial District requesting investigation. The justice of the peace was notified and denied the charges. Pampanga. recommended to the Governor-General that the respondent be removed from his position as justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol. defendants-appellant are not guilty of libel – ACQUITTED. documents were introduced. and a few days later was informed that he had lost the case. was instituted on October 12. ISSUE: WON the defendant-appellants are guilty of libel for filing a petition for malfeasance against the justice of the peace to the Executive Secretary? HELD: NO. asserting that the justice of the peace was the victim of prosecution. Briefly stated the specific charges against the justice of the peace were. and it is ordered that the proceedings had in this case be transmitted to the Executive Secretary. In view of this result.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 46 of 75 BILL OF RIGHTS Digest cases. was of the opinion "that it must be. Pampanga. FELIPE BUSTOS. the Honorable Percy M. and it is hereby. Province of Pampanga. desiring to make complaint against Mariano de los Reyes.. afterwards he said he would take P3 which she paid. MALCOLM. Sunga gave the justice nothing. who first told her that he would draw up complaint for P5. having filed a complaint for assault against four persons. and five individuals signed affidavits.. The judge of first instance found the first count not proved and counts 2 and 3 established. the judge. including councilors and property owners (now the defendants). and was told by the justice of the peace that if he wished to win he must give him P50. Crossfield and O'Brien submitted this petition and these affidavits with a complaint to the Executive Secretary. and that one Agustin Jaime. ET AL. Moir. charging Roman Punsalan. J. proper action. with malfeasance in office and asking for his removal. Not having this amount. 3. went to see the justice of the peace to ascertain the result of the trial. Criminal action against the petitioners. on the day of the trial the justice called him over to his house. also kept her in the house for four days as a servant and took from her two chickens and twelve "gandus. 1918 THE UNITED STATES. plaintiff-appellee. where he secretly gave him (Quiambao) P30.: FACTS In the latter part of 1915. Attorneys for complainants thereupon appealed to the Governor-General. the judge of first instance granted the motion and reopened the hearing. The petition transmitted by these attorneys was signed by thirty-four citizens apparently of considerable standing. No.R. defendants-appellants." 2. That Francisca Polintan. That Valentin Sunga being interested in a case regarding land which was on trial before the justice of the peace. 1. now become the defendants. and report. but whether the papers were forwarded to the Governor-General as requested the record does not disclose. the auxiliary justice of the peace. visited the justice of the peace." Later the justice of the peace filled a motion for a new trial. and the judge of first instance ordered a suppression of the charges against Punsalan and acquitted him the same. vs. L-12592 March 8. Complaint was filed in GOOD FAITH and WITHOUT MALICE by the defendants- ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN .

On the contrary. Attempted terrorization of public opinion on the part of the judiciary would be tyranny of the basest sort. Personal injury is not necessary. The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct.[N. A further element of the law of privilege concerns the person to whom the complaint should be made. Completely liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The privilege is not defeated by the mere fact that the communication is made in intemperate terms. The sword of Damocles in the hands of a judge does not hang suspended over the individual who dares to assert his prerogative as a citizen and to stand up bravely before any official. It is further the duty of all who know of any official dereliction on the part of a magistrate or the wrongful act of any public officer to bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty it is to inquire into and punish them. but only in a despotism. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation. Of course. 474. as an incidental result. B. The administration of the law is a matter of vital public concern. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . The inevitable and incontestable result has been the development and adoption of the doctrine of privilege.]. R." A pertinent illustration of the application of qualified privilege is a complaint made in good faith and without malice in regard to the character or conduct of a public official when addressed to an officer or a board having some interest or duty in the matter. 85 E.. 'which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice. 25 L. S. such statements against the justice is covered by PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. 5 E. we are not concerned. In the words of Mr. But the statements must be made under an honest sense of duty.. C. 344. Tacoma [1899]. Bush. therefore. if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty. Nevertheless. J. the complaint was filed before the proper authority and thus. though. (Harrison vs. or in reference to which has a duty. 3 W. "The people are not obliged to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free government. 409. The rule is that if a party applies to the wrong person through some natural and honest mistake as to the respective functions of various officials such unintentional error will not take the case out of the privilege. 411.' (Abbott vs. so must expected criticism be born for the common good. A communication made bona fide upon any subject-matter in which the party communicating has an interest. is privileged. The rule is thus stated by Lord Campbell. Q. if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith. Only thus can the intelligence and the dignity of the individual be exalted. to the Chief of Executive. to the Legislature. The duty under which a party is privileged is sufficient if it is social or moral in its nature and this person in good faith believes he is acting in pursuance thereof although in fact he is mistaken. As to qualified privilege. 846. although it contained criminatory matter which without this privilege would be slanderous and actionable. it is a duty which every one owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of any alleged misconduct.. All persons have an interest in the pure and efficient administration of justice and of public affairs. S. a self-seeking motive is destructive. With the first. who contributed so largely to the law of libel. Even when the statements are found to be false. the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual. it is as the words suggest a prima facie privilege which may be lost by proof of malice.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests appellants. Moreover. Justice Gayner. C. If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer. Public policy. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is.) The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. public opinion will be effectively muzzled. J. and such is guranteed by the constitutional right of free speech. a fit subject for proper comment. 1 Jur. 175 U.. to the Judiciary — to any or all the agencies of Government — public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy. Rising superior to any official or set of officials. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 47 of 75 The doctrine of privileged communications rests upon public policy. as the individual is less than the State. 25. National Bank of Commerce. it may in some instances afford an immunity to the evil-disposed and malignant slanderer. the welfare of society. criticism does not authorize defamation.) Privilege is classified as either absolute or qualified. and B. 344. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts.. and the orderly administration of government have demanded protection for public opinion. L.

para sure lang  ): With these facts pleading justification. we should rather commend them for their good citizenship. 31 Phil. the Attorney-General says. for discussion purposes  Pati na rin ang Concurring Opinion. but of charges predicated on affidavits made to the proper official and thus qualifiedly privileged." (See Mabini. and associations. . they were believed to be true by the petitioners. The Filipino patriots in Spain. In this connection it is sufficient to note that justices of the peace are appointed by the Governor-General. must begin by declaring the press in the Philippines free and by instituting Filipinos delegates. made against reputable members of the judiciary. although the charges are probably not true as to the justice of the peace.. 690). W. before testing them by certain principles which make up the law of libel and slander. who wants his reforms to be reforms. Further." Malicious and untrue communications are not privileged. Turning to the pages of history.) The Malolos Constitution. La Revolucion Filipina. A prime cause for revolt was consequently ready made. zealously guarded freedom of speech and press and assembly and petition. but which were sufficient in an investigation by a judge of first instance to convince him of their seriousness. that they may be removed by the Governor-General upon the recommendation of a Judge of First Instance. Julio Bustos ([1909]. But as suggested in the beginning we do not have present a simple case of direct and vicious accusations published in the press. (2 pages lang ang digest pero ito additional lang. 365). History ng freedom of speech in the Philippines from pre-1900s to American period. Good faith surrounded their action. 122 So. said: " The minister. Commonwealth [1909]. We conceive that the time is ripe thus to clear up certain misapprehensions on the subject and to place these basic rights in their proper light. In no way did they abuse the privilege. The charges might also under certain conceivable conditions convict one of a libel of a government official. (Note also Yancey vs. we feel warranted in seizing the opportunity to intrude an introductory and general discussion of freedom of speech and press and assembly and petition in the Philippine Islands. These respectable citizens did not eagerly seize on a frivolous matter but on instances which not only seemed to them of a grave character. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . through the columns of "La Solidaridad" and by other means invariably in exposing the wants of the Filipino people demanded "liberty of the press. Moreover. The defendants and appellants are acquitted END. might well be considered libelous per se. 13 Phil. of cults. . if said of a private person. Probable cause for them to think that malfeasance or misfeasance in office existed is apparent. pages 62 et seq. or on the Governor-General's own motion. Galeza ([1915]. A later case and one more directly in point to which we invite especial attention is United States vs. with no basis in fact. Express malice has not been proved by the prosecution. The Julio Bustos case. The ends and the motives of these citizens— to secure the removal from office of a person thought to be venal — were justifiable. growing out of constitutional guaranties in our bill of BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 48 of 75 rights. 123. . "to persons who could not furnish protection. As a general rule words imputing to a judge or a justice of the peace dishonesty or corruption or incapacity or misconduct touching him in his office are actionable. The manner of commenting on the conduct of the justice of the peace was proper. in the Julio Bustos case we find wild statements. And finally the charges and the petition were submitted through reputable attorneys to the proper functionary. The Attorney-General bases his recommendation for confirmation on the case of the United States vs. Publicity is immaterial if the charge against Punsalan is in fact a privileged communication.) We find the defendants and appellants entitled to the protection of the rules concerning qualified privilege. the Executive Secretary. in its Bill of Rights. is identical with the Felipe Bustos case. should now be protected and carried forward as one would protect and preserve the covenant of liberty itself.) describing "the reforms sine quibus non.. No undue publicity was given to the petition. we state nothing new when we set down that freedom of speech as cherished in democratic countries was unknown in the Philippine Islands before 1900. and that at the time this action took place the Executive Bureau was the office through which the Governor-General acted in such matter. with the exception that there has been more publicity in the present instance and that the person to whom the charge was made had less jurisdiction than had the Secretary of Justice in the Julio Bustos case.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests It is true that the particular words set out in the information. the work of the Revolutionary Congress. Jose Rizal in "Filipinas Despues de Cien Años" (The Philippines a Century Hence.." which the Filipinos insist upon. Instead of punishing citizens for an honest endeavor to improve the public service. Mention is made of the foregoing data only to deduce the proposition that a reform so sacred to the people of these Islands and won at so dear a cost.

The Constitution of the United States and the State constitutions guarantee to the right of freedom of speech and press and the right of assembly and petition. 31 Phil. vs. Galeza [1915].. the Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission. the Act of Congress of August 29. The truth is that the doctrine of the prevailing opinion in the former Bustos case has long since been abandoned by this court. [1904]. It appears that. concurring: I concur. S. The RTC convicted the accused which was affirmed by the CA. We mention the foregoing facts only to deduce the position never to be forgotten for an instant that the guaranties mentioned are part and parcel of the Organic Law — of the Constitution — of the Philippine Islands. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . 195 U. (Kepner vs. not surprised to find President McKinley in that Magna Charta of Philippine Liberty.. Contreras [1912]. Rep. [1909]. 100. the warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise illegal. the failure to wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. U. and the Jones Law. vs. 13 Phil. No. 1900. (2) search of evidence in “plain view”. Non of the above – mentioned instances. an ordinance requiring the use of helmet by motorcycles and riders in the City of Naga. ipso facto and solely for this reason arrested. Serra vs. We are therefore. 98-012. (3) 1 pair of scissors. 1916. I think it proper to observe. There was no valid arrest of the accused in this case. (4) 1 swiss knife. U. February 29. S. Montalvo [1915]. 365. The Police Officers noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket. Bustos. J. continued this guaranty. vs. and U. 2012 667 SCRA 421 Sereno. 595. laying down the inviolable rule "That no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 338.. S. 690). The language carries with all the applicable jurisprudence of great English and American Constitutional cases. then the requirements for a valid arrest were not complied with (2)YES. People G. Rep.. 197788. These paragraphs found in the Philippine Bill of Rights are not threadbare verbiage. 98-012. (6) a “stop and frisk” search. (3) search of a moving vehicle. (4) consented warrantless search. that in my opinion the AttorneyGeneral is entirely correct when he says that this case is substantially identical with the former "Bustos case (The United States vs. There being no valid arrest. (2) 2 cellphones. 1902. CARSON. S. the Act of Congress of July 1. (Cf. U. according to the City Ordinance No. The following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (1) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. for they are the counterpart of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. however. Rep. 14 Phil. 23 Phil. the accused was arrested for illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs. 513. in so many words. Sedano. Rep. 29 Phil.R.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 49 of 75 CASE 35: Next comes the period of American-Filipino cooperative effort. Even if one were to work under the assumption that the accused was deemed “arrested” upon being flagged down for a traffic violation and while awaiting for the issuance of a traffic ticket. J: Facts: The accused Rodel Luz was flagged down and was apprehended by Police Officers Alteza and Brillante for violation of City Ordinance No. vs. which the American people demanded before giving their approval to the Constitution. in the nature of organic acts for the Philippines. S. which was violated by the accused... It may be stated as corollary that neither can the warrantless arrest be made for such an offense." The Philippine Bill. S. Issue: (1)WON the accused was validly arrested (2)WON the warrantless arrest was likewise illegal Held: (1)NO. The police officers required the accused to take off all the contents of his jacket which were found as follows: (1) nickle – like tin container contained 4 sachets of suspected “shabu”.. he was not. U. 339. (7) exigent and emergency circumstance. Rep. The words quoted are not unfamiliar to students of Constitutional Law. I believe that a careful reading of our decisions in these cases is sufficient to demonstrate that fact. As a result thereof. and in my opinion it would make for the more efficient administration of the Libel Law in these Islands to say so. When the accused was flagged down for the commission of an offense for vioaltion of a traafic oridinace.) Luz vs. (5) custom search. especially a search incident to a lawful arrest are applicable to this case. of April 7. Mortiga [1907].

and after the SSS deducted certain amounts from the salaries of the employees and allegedly committed acts of discrimination and ULP. or transactions. 85279 July 28.00. Caniza filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to preserve harmony and cooperation among officers in the same municipality. CASE 36: BALDOZA v. the flow inevitably ceases. 1987. might do more harm than good to the citizenry of Taal.As found by the Investigating Judge. of the same municipality. As such. No. It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after the SSS failed to act on the union's demands. The New Constitution expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to information on matters of public concern and thus are expressly granted access to official records. FACTS: On June 11."However. but after formal investigation. 1987. access restrictions imposed to control civil insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of immediate and impending danger that renders ordinary means of control inadequate to maintain order. Any evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible as evidence for any purpose and for any proceeding. the trial court issued a TRO pending resolution of the application for a writ of prelim injunction. which included: 1. al. It has not been shown that the rules and conditions imposed by the respondent were unreasonable. And notwithstanding the Public Sector Labor-Management Council’s order for strikers to return to work. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure. allowances and benefits given to other regular employees of the SSS. the respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of respondent certain conditions BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 50 of 75 and under his control and supervision. alleging that on June 9. preventing non-striking employees from reporting for work and SSS members from transacting business w/ the SSS. vs. or decisions. as well as documents of official acts. As has been aptly observed: "Maintaining the flow of such information depends on protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since. charges Municipal Judge Rodolfo B. 2. Taal Mayor Corazon A. The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. the public has a legitimate interest in matters of social and political significance. Batangas. restrictions on access to certain records may be imposed by law. Respondent. 1987. and payment of the children's allowance of P30. Petition was granted. when. CASE 37: G. This motion was denied by the Investigating Judge. implementation of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA CBA on check-off of union dues. Thus. SSS et. CA. to allow an indiscriminate and unlimited exercise of the right to free access. SSS suffered damages as a result of the strike. stated that there has never been an intention to refuse access to official court records. the SSS filed w/ the RTC of QC a complaint for damages w/ a prayer for a writ of prelim injunction against petitioners. in answer to the complaint. The access to public records predicated on the right of the people to acquire information on matters of public concern. He further asserted that a court has unquestionably the power to prevent an improper use or inspection of its records and the furnishing of copies therefrom may be refused where the person requesting is not motivated by a serious and legitimate interest but acts out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to gratify private spite or to promote public scandal. yet the same is always subject to reasonable regulation as to who. Undoubtedly in a democracy. Dimaano. Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the times. 4. nor a meaningful democratic decision making if they are denied access to information of general interest. night differential pay and holiday pay. that although court records are among public documents open to inspection not only by the parties directly involved but also by other persons who have legitimate interest to such inspection. the decision of the RTC and the CA convicting the accused was REVERSED and SET ASIDE.R. There can be no realistic perception by the public of the nation's problems. 3. Respondent significantly observed that under the circumstances. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge denied the petitioner’s right to access on matters of public concern. In the meantime. the officers and members of SSSEA staged an illegal strike and barricaded the entrances to the SSS Building. Disorder and chaos might result defeating the very essence of their request. houses. conversion of temporary or contractual employees w/ six (6) months or more of service into regular and permanent employees and their entitlement to the same salaries. if either process is interrupted.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their person. On June 11. DIMAANO 71 SCRA 14 FACTS: The Municipal Secretary of Taal. where and how they may be inspected. subject to such limitations imposed by law. HELD: No. with abuse of authority in refusing to allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court to secure data in connection with their contemplated report on the peace and order conditions of the said municipality. payment of accrued overtime pay. Accused Rodel Luz was ACQUITTED. he recommended the exoneration of respondent. petitioners filed a motion ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . 1989 SSS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION et. they refused to return to work. al.

" But are employees of the SSS covered by the prohibition against strikes? The Court is of the considered view that they are. HON." The President was apparently referring to Memorandum Circular No. walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service. 1987. and not the NLRC.1986. 6. Baguio City. were taken down in writing. 2. since it is the Council. collective bargaining and negotiations. WON the employees of the SSS have the right to strike? 2. Unlike the NLRC. 180 vests the Public Sector Labor Management Council with jurisdiction over unresolved labor disputes involving government employees. are prohibited to stage strike. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON. WON the RTC have jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS and to enjoin the strikers from continuing w/ the strike and to order them to return to work? HELD: 1. 1986. and agencies of the Govt.: FACTS: Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL). s. 85215 July 7. More importantly. subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress. NARVASA. assigned at its Baguio City station. CASE 38: (ILAGAN) CASE 39: G. which had jurisdiction over the SSS' complaint for damages. 1987 issued EO No. Regional Trial Court. No compromise agreement was reached much less consummated. the PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted into the matter of February 9.O. and peaceful concerted activities. No. Cruz. "perhaps (by) shame. 129. Ramos gave to his superiors a handwritten notes reading as follows: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: THE UNDERSIGNED WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT HE IS WILLING TO SETTLE IRREGULARITIES ALLEGEDLY CHARGED VS. It having allegedly come to light that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. in the presence of Station Agent Antonio Ocampo. On the day before the investigation. 1989 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1986 to January 29." Thereafter. J. resort to the general courts of law for the issuance of a writ of injunction to enjoin the strike is appropriate. instrumentalities. No. Trial Court (and CA on appeal) denied the MTD and converted the restraining order into an injunction upon posting of a bond.Management Council has not been BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 51 of 75 granted by law authority to issue writs of injunction in labor disputes within its jurisdiction. subdivisions." that he was still willing to settle his obligation. that the proceeds had been "misused" by him. In Section 14 thereof. 1987 which. as jurisdiction lay w/ the Department of Labor and Employment or the National Labor Relations Commission. 1986. ISSUES: 1. vs. and FELIPE RAMOS. that has jurisdiction over the instant labor dispute. This being the case. 180 which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right to organize of Govt employees. (s) Felipe Ramos At the investigation of February 9. Felipe Ramos was informed "of the finding of the Audit Team. Thus. mass leaves. Presiding over Branch 6. Although the 1987 Constitution. RTC as court of general jurisdication.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests to dismiss alleging the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter as the RTC had no jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS and to issue the restraining order and the writ of prelim injunction. petitioner.P. the strike staged by the employees of the SSS was illegal. and proferred a "compromise x x to pay on staggered basis. an information was filed against Felipe Ramos charging him with the crime of estafa allegedly committed in Baguio City during the period from March 12. February 8. as amended. OF P 76. and PALEA Shop Steward Cristeta Domingo." and that he was willing to sign his statement (as he in fact afterwards did).) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS MAY BE IMPOSED BY PAL ON OR BEFORE 1700/9 FEB 86. Ticket Freight Clerk Rodolfo Quitasol. Edgardo R. respondents. it is provided that “the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the Govt service shall be observed. Ramos' answers were to the effect inter alia that he had not indeed made disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the Audit Team's findings. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . from continuing with their strike. from assuming jurisdiction over the SSS's complaint for damages and issuing the injunctive writ prayed for therein. he had been prevented from doing so.R. his answers in response to questions by Cruz. the President on June 1. First Judicial Region. rules and regulations. This being the case. E. since the case involves a labor dispute. all Govt officers and employees from staging strikes." and that he should be represented therein by "Shop stewardees ITR Nieves Blanco. are government employees. including the right to strike in accordance w/ law". The employees of SSS. (and) the amount would be known in the next investigation. 1987 of the Civil Service Commission under date April 21. provides that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization. being those subjected to Civil Service Law. and may be enjoined by the RTC. that although he had planned on paying back the money. Considering that under the Constitution “the civil service embraces all branches. In that place and during that time.000 (APPROX. has the authority of law for the issuance of a writ of injunction to enjoin the strike. About two (2) months later. Blg. Clearly." that he desired the next investigation to be at the same place. The Labor Code itself provides that terms and conditions of employment of government employees shall be governed by the Civil Service Law. the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the dispute. HIM IN THE AMT. the Public Sector Labor . and affirming the contention of SSS that the strike was illegal since the employees of the SSS. conducted by the PAL Branch Manager in Baguio City. demonstrations. "prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by Govt employees enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions. therefore they are covered by the Civil Service Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes. including GOCCs w/ original charters". in the exercise of its general jurisdiction under B. they are not allowed to strike. "Baguio CTO. the RTC was not precluded.

violence. and to be informed of such right.." ISSUE: WON it was grave abuse of discretion for respondent Judge to have excluded the People's Exhibits A and K." also above referred to. with the express obligation to remit all the proceeds of the sale. The lights of a person in custodial interrogation. At the close of the people's case. The section reads as follows: BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 52 of 75 SEC.. intimidation. which have been made more explicit.e. . the 1987 Constitution indicates much more clearly the individuality and disparateness of these rights. to wit: said accused . did then and there . dealt with in the section. It should at once be apparent that there are two (2) rights. Baguio Branch. Furthermore. the rights of every suspect "under investigation for the commission of an offense.incrimination. to the damage and prejudice of the offended party . be sworn and answer questions. By Order dated August 9." Parenthetically. which included "the (above mentioned) statement of accused Felipe J. mentioned in Section 20... or the investigation was administrative in character could not operate to except the case "from the ambit of the constitutional provision cited.. failed and refused to make good his obligation. 20. misapply and convert the value of the tickets in the sum of P76. Article III of the 1935 Constitution. the right can be claimed only when the specific question. i. 1986 at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office. It will now proceed to resolve it HELD: YES. criminal. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena. It simply secures to a witness. it appearing that it is the statement of accused Felipe Ramos taken on February 9. and is similar to that accorded by the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution." except Exhibits A and K. in the very nature of things. any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of his right against self-incrimination. to which respondent Judge has given a construction that is disputed by the People. whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena. is accorded to every person who gives evidence. he (Ramos) — with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence.700. The right against self. defraud the Philippine Airlines. which appears to be a confession. in accordance with the well known axiom that every one is presumed to know the law. namely: 1) the right against self-incrimination — i. which had been marked as Exhibit K. The defendant's attorneys filed "Objections/Comments to Plaintiffs Evidence. or administrative proceeding. whether he be a party or not. 1986 at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office. 1988. It cannot be claimed at any other time. . 1986 x x for the same reason stated in the exclusion of Exhibit 'A' since it does not appear that the accused was assisted by counsel when he made said admission. 13 Right Against Self-Incrimination The first right. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.. neither the judge nor the witness can be expected to know in advance the character or effect of a question to be put to the latter. . That first sentence of Section 20. was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. in an investigation conducted by the Branch Manager x x since it does not appear that the accused was reminded of this constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. which it rejected.." He also declared inadmissible "Exhibit K.e. No force. or to refuse to testify altogether.65 and in spite of repeated demands.. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. is actually put to the witness. On arraignment on this charge. against self-incrimination. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. At the core of the controversy is Section 20. Ramos. appear as required. or sets of rights. with intent to defraud. and that when he waived the same and gave his statement." Particularly as regards the peoples' Exhibit A. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution." and trial thereafter ensued.. take the stand. i.." Respondent Judge pointed out that the investigation of Felipe Ramos at the PAL Baguio Station was one "for the offense of allegedly misappropriating the proceeds of the tickets issued to him' and therefore clearly fell "within the coverage of the constitutional provisions.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests according to the indictment." and the fact that Ramos was not detained at the time. 1986. that ignorance of the law excuses no one.. 12 and 2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation.." which had been marked as Exhibit A. having been entrusted with and received in trust fare tickets of passengers for one-way trip and round-trip in the total amount of P76.e. the right of a person not to be compelled to be a witness against himself — set out in the first sentence. it was with the assistance actually of a counsel. 1988. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on the judge. It has placed the rights in separate sections. are now contained in Section 12 of the same Article III. incriminatory in character. to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. hearing or investigation. the handwritten admission made by accused Felipe J. as well as his "handwritten admission x x given on February 8. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . or other officer presiding over a trial. once in possession thereof and instead of complying with his obligation.." is now embodied in Section 17. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it.. Felipe Ramos entered a plea of "Not Guilty.65.700. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel.. misappropriate. Inc. in the following manner. the respondent judge admitted all the exhibits "as part of the testimony of the witnesses who testified in connection therewith and for whatever they are worth. His Honor declared Exhibit A "inadmissible in evidence. in any civil." Exhibit K was objected to "for the same reasons interposed under Exhibits 'A'. "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. which is a verbatim reproduction of Section 18. the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question. The right is NOT to "be compelled to be a witness against himself" The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning. the objection was that "said document. It is a right that a witness knows or should know. account for it and/or to return those unsold.. the private prosecutors made a written offer of evidence dated June 21. However. threat. did then and there willfully . given on February 8. Ramos taken on February 9.. one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime.

undue ascendancy and undue influence. for preliminary investigation). such opportunity afforded him. After such warnings have been given.e. the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. not to be subjected to force. annulled and set aside. The requirement entails the making of statements. Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in some crime is within the scope of the constitutional protection. indiscriminately applies to any person testifying in any proceeding. that against self-incrimination which. has the following rights in the matter of his testifying or producing evidence. to refuse to answer a specific question which tends to incriminate him for some crime other than that for which he is then prosecuted. as aforestated. It is also clear. His Honor sought to substantiate his thesis by arguments he took to be cogent and logical." or "under investigation for the commission of an offense.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Rights in Custodial Interrogation Section 20. and on being interrogated by the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to counsel. Chief Justice Warren summarized the procedural safeguards laid down for a person in police custody. i. The employee may. and to have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected. A person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged with its commission in court. unlike the police agencies who have no propriety or pecuniary interest to protect. that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. whether employees or not. February 9. c) to testify in his own behalf. that Ramos had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not therefore come into play. too. that he has the right to the presence of an attorney. oral or written. they may in their over-eagerness or zealousness bear heavily on their hapless suspects. and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. It should by now be abundantly apparent that respondent Judge has misapprehended the nature and import of the disparate rights set forth in Section 20. It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation. The thesis was however so far divorced from the actual and correct state of the constitutional and legal principles involved as to make application of said thesis to the case before him tantamount to totally unfounded. the day before the investigation. or complaining employers because being interested parties. intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will.. he has grossly erred. to wit: 1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the public prosecutor. were of no relevance to the inquiry. He has taken them as applying to the same juridical situation. or administrative. The constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under Section 20. threat. no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. with opportunity to solicit the assistance of counsel. (1) that against self-incrimination and (2) those during custodial interrogation apply to persons under preliminary investigation or already charged in court for a crime. "suspects" under investigation by police authorities. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 53 of 75 b) not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. of course. that is his privilege. whimsical or capricious exercise of power. If not made "under custodial interrogation.1986. or better said. by which is meant that the latter must be informed of the offenses ascribed to him and afforded adequate time and opportunity to explain his side. criminal. His Honor adverts to what he perceives to be the "greater danger x x (of) the violation of the right of any person against self-incrimination when the investigation is conducted by the complaining parties. These rights apply to persons "under investigation for the commission of an offense. equating one with the other. But if he ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Opportunity to exercise those rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. His Orders were thus rendered with grave abuse of discretion. refuse to submit any statement at the investigation. civil. offering to compromise his liability in the alleged irregularities. and to be informed thereof. d) WHILE TESTIFYING. but after having been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way. just as it is obvious that the note (later marked as Exhibit K) that he sent to his superiors on February 8. In so doing. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent. They may not be excluded on the ground that the socalled "Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos. complaining companies." the statement is not protected. They should be as they are hereby. 1986 and agreed that the proceedings should be recorded. the record having thereafter been marked during the trial of the criminal action subsequently filed against him as Exhibit A. "in-custody interrogation" being regarded as the commencement of an adversary proceeding against the suspect. to give statements under an atmosphere of moral coercion. violence. was a free and even spontaneous act on his part. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution also treats of a second right. and 2) AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT — 37 a) to refuse to be a witness. To be sure. prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. In Miranda." It suffices to draw attention to the specific and peremptory requirement of the law that disciplinary sanctions may not be imposed on any employee by his employer until and unless the employee has been accorded due process. and this is what makes these rights different from that embodied in the first sentence. Rights of Defendant in Criminal Case As Regards Giving of Testimony It is pertinent at this point to inquire whether the rights just discussed.e.. by the employee under such administrative investigation in his defense. group of rights." i. as the term should be properly understood. But unless and until such warnings and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial. or his colleagues and friends. subject to cross-examination by the prosecution.

testified that on January 15. are submitted by him precisely so that they may be admitted and duly considered by the investigating officer or committee. J: Facts: On January 15. are relevant only in custodial investigations. In court. CASE 40: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. in his defense to the accusation against him. The testimony of the policeman that the accused admitted he was with the victim on the evening of January 12. prior to his making and presenting them. Both the accused-appellant and the appellee invoke the constitutionally guarded presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the latter's right to remain silent and to counsel. Santiago City and asked him to come with him for questioning. November 22. accusedappellant. plaintiff-appellee. Santiago City. 1994 she saw the appellant talking to Len-len while the two girls were watching television from her open window and that when she looked again towards the end of the program to the direction where the girls were situated. Both counsels for the accused-appellant and the appellee plead for the acquittal of the accused. 1994 but the latter was too drunk to remember what happened should have been held ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN .POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests should opt to do so. The appellant agreed. Evelyn positively identified the appellant as the person last seen with Len-len before she was found dead. Rosario. Ernesto Pastor.m. 135562. and prepared to go to work. it is self-evident that the employee's statements. 1994 he was invited to go on a drinking spree at Purok 1. Mico found the appellant at his place of work at the Spring Garden Resort at Sinsayon.R. On January 15. whether called "position paper. Her body was found between two concrete fences half naked. to counsel and of his right against self-incrimination before the appellant made the said admission because according to Mico he was only informally interviewing the accused when he made the admission and that custodial interrogation proper was conducted by the assigned investigator. This case is before us on automatic review in view of the penalty imposed by the trial court. it would be absurd to reject his statements. because he had not been accorded. Evelyn San Mateo an eight year old second grader and neighbor and cousin of the victim testified that she was with the deceased the night before she disappeared. Indeed. He woke up the following morning at around 4:30 a. whether at the administrative investigation. Mico further narrated in court that at the police station the appellant admitted he was with the girl and he carried her on his shoulder but he was so drunk that night that he does not remember what he did to her. to repeat. Mico BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 54 of 75 stated that he interviewed San Mateo who pointed to the appellant as the man last seen with the deceased. etc. his "Miranda rights" (to silence and to counsel and to be informed thereof. the brother of the appellant testified that the appellant stayed home on the night of January 12. Appellant admitted in court that he passed by the house of Gracia Monahan but stated that he did not see the two girls watching television along the road. Santiago City where he and four other men consumed five round bottles of gin until 7:30 that evening. corroborated Evelyn's testimony that on the evening of January 12. for three years prior to this proceedings. or at a subsequent criminal action brought against him. The appellant Benito Bravo testified in court that on his way home after work at around five o'clock in the afternoon of January 12." etc. 1994 his office received a report that a dead body was found in a vacant lot. 1994 to take care of their sick mother who died a few days thereafter. Mico informed him that he is a suspect in the killing of a girl in Rosario. The scalp on the left side of her head was detached exposing a fracture on the left temporal lobe of her skull.. Len-Len went alone with the accused. 1994 a policeman came to his place of work and apprehended him without a warrant of arrest and at the police station he was forced to admit commission of the crime of rape with homicide of Juanita Antolin. The cause of death was cerebral hemorrhage. testified that he has known the appellant for a long time and that he knows him to be hardworking and of good moral character. Rosario Santiago City. 1994 the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Upon seeing Bravo. She stated that while they stood on the roadside watching "Home Along Da Riles" from an open window of a neighbor's house the appellant approached them and asked Len-Len to come with him to a birthday party and then he will buy her Coke and balut. BENITO BRAVO. vs. he found his mother very sick and so he decided to stay home all night. The appellant denied the accusation and stated that the deceased was his godchild and that he has known Fely Handoc. shirtless and skirt pulled up. The Chief of the Intelligence Section of the Santiago Police Department. The owner of the house where Len-len and Evelyn watched television. Pastor corroborated the appellant's testimony that police investigator Mico came to the Spring Garden Resort and arrested Bravo without a warrant. 1994 the decomposing body of nine year old girl Juanita Antolin (Len-len) was found in a vacant lot along the road leading to Patul." "answer. On May 25. Monahan testified that she is familiar with the appellant and the two children because they are neighbors. Len-Len asked her to go with them but she did not want to because she was watching television. 1994 an Information for rape with homicide was filed against herein accused-appellant. On August 25. On September 26. The body was later identified as Juanita Antolin. Her body was found about 700 meters from her house. 1999 GONZAGA-REYES. The following morning Len-Len's mother told Evelyn and her mother that Len-Len was missing. Vaginal examination showed fresh laceration at 2:30 o'clock and old lacerations at 5:00 and 7:00 o'clock and easily accepts two fingers. Gracia Monahan. At home. G. Juanito Bravo.) which. He then headed for home. No. On cross-examination Mico admitted that he did not inform the appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent. the foreman at the Spring Garden Resort where the appellant was employed. only Evelyn was left watching television. in negation or mitigation of his liability. 1998 the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the crime charged and held that abuse of confidence and treachery attended the commission of the crime. her panty stuffed in her mouth. the mother of the child. Alexander Mico.

alleging grave abuse of discretion. hearings were held. CASE 41: BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 55 of 75 CRISTOPHER GAMBOA. committed by the respondent judge in issuing the questioned order. Thereafter. The exclusionary rule sprang from a recognition that police interrogatory procedures lay fertile grounds for coercion. respondent. Facts: On 19 July 1979. however. if he voluntarily and intelligently so desires but to protect the accused from admitting what he is coerced to admit although untrue. HON. It has been held. The mantle of protection under this constitutional provision covers the period from the time a person is taken into custody for investigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime although not yet in custody. The accused was under arrest for the rape and killing of Juanita Antolin and any statement allegedly made by him pertaining to his possible complicity in the crime without prior notification of his constitutional rights is inadmissible in evidence. Bernal pointed to petitioner and said. The instant petition is one for certiorari. It is basic. ALFREDO CRUZ. the prosecution formally offered its evidence and then rested its case. To warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Manila. The exclusionary rule presumes that the alleged admission was coerced. Thereafter. Petitioner contends that the order denying his Motion To Acquit. without a warrant of arrest by Patrolman Arturo Palencia. petitioner was arraigned. or abuse of discretion must be so gross or grave.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests inadmissible by the trial court in view of the policeman's own admission in court that although he informed the accused that he is a suspect in the rape and killing of one Juanita Antolin he did not inform the accused of his constitutional rights before he asked him of his participation in the crime under investigation. or to a ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . We resolve to acquit Benito Bravo. At the time the alleged admission was made the appellant was in custody and had been arrested as the prime suspect in the rape and killing of Juanita Antolin. Gamboa was arrested for vagrancy. without notice to. the very antithesis of judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions. as when power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion. manifested in open court that he was filing a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to Evidence. Any information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent assistance of an independent counsel should be struck down as inadmissible. It was not intended as a deterrent to the accused from confessing guilt. or the abuse must be so patent as to amount to an evasion of positive duty. petitioner filed said Motion predicated on the ground that the conduct of the line-up. The appellant was not invited to the police station as part of a general inquiry for any possible lead to the perpetrators of the crime under investigation. petitioner was brought to Precinct 2. During investigation among the lineup of five (5) detainees. Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of accused's constitutional rights. is null and void for being violative of his rights to counsel and to due process. XXIX. The policeman's apparent attempt to circumvent the rule by insisting that the admission was made during an "informal talk" prior to custodial investigation proper is not tenable. On 2 April 1980. Courts are not allowed to distinguish between preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying the exclusionary rule. instead of presenting his defense. prejudice or personal hostility. excess thereof. On 23 July 1979. including petitioner. Any measure short of this requirement is considered a denial of such right. that an admission made to news reporters or to a confidant of the accused is not covered by the exclusionary rule. Ruling of the respondent court: denied the Motion to Acquit: Hence. that for certiorari to lie. the instant petition.On 22 August 1979.on the following day. Issues: 1. the very evil the rule stands to avoid. where he was booked for vagrancy and then detained therein together with several others. Br. The alleged admission should be struck down as inadmissible. petitioner. by counsel. vs. complainant Erlinda B. however. JUDGE of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Held: YES. and in the absence of. petitioner. of the suspect to admit responsibility for the crime under investigation. Law enforcement agencies are required to effectively communicate the rights of a person under investigation and to insure that it is fully understood. an information for robbery was filed against the petitioner. "that one is a companion. Supportive of such presumption is the absence of a written extra-judicial confession to that effect and the appellant's denial in court of the alleged oral admission. On 13 August 1980. W/N the petitioner' s right to counsel has been violated? right to due process has been violated Held: The court finds no merit in the contentions of petitioner. the alleged lack of jurisdiction. there must be a capricious. physical and psychological. his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution embodies the mandatory protection afforded a person under investigation for the commission of a crime and the correlative duty of the State and its agencies to enforce such mandate. arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power. On 14 July 1980. Both the appellant and the appellee are in agreement that the trial court grievously erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the sole circumstantial evidence that the victim was last seen by her cousin in the company of the accused. W/N the petitioner's 2. amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Inc. On June 14. Bautista with the said gun. (e) at the police station. with intent to kill. shouted. or to act at all. he. (l) he was informed by one bystander that Bautista was shot and the bag was taken away from him. Sumulong went to the police station and informed him that he saw Lara walking along Dr. assault. Barangay San Miguel. Pasig City. Lara was informed of his rights and subsequently detained. As aptly observed. the said accused. in this case) was not part of the custodial inquest. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation. The respondent court considered petitioner's arguments as well as the prosecution's evidence against him. i. whether it be the 1973 or 1987 Constitution. (m) when barangay officials and the police arrived. (San Sebastian). The rights to counsel and to due process of law are indeed two (2) of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Atie and Manacob identified Lara as the one who shot and robbed them of San Sebastian’s money. however. thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which directly caused his death. This is not the situation in the case at bar. by the Solicitor General. Pilapil Street. (i) seein Bautista.00 from the Metrobank-Mabini Branch. he ran towards Mercedes Plaza and called up the office of San Sebastian to relay the incident. ARTURO LARA ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . (b) at around 7:55 in the evening of June 7. did then and there wilfully. In a democratic society. armed with a gun. violence and intimidation. and PO3 Calix testified that: (a) he was a member of the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Pasig City Police Station. 2001. Pasig City. and by means of force.000. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense. y FACTS: SPO1 Cruz testified that: (a) he was assigned at the Follow-Up Unit of the Pasig City Police Station. (j) when he had the chance to get out of the pick-up. that on the occasion of said robbery. Pilapil Street where they saw Lara. Pasig City to defray the salaries of the employees of San Sebastian. together with three (3) other police officers. vs. Accused-Appellant. proceeded to the crime scene. he and his two (2) other companions were brought to the police station for investigation. an Information 3 charging Lara with robbery with homicide was filed with the RTC. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. at such stage. the petition is DISMISSED. the accused. steal and divest from Joselito M. (d) upon CASE 42 : G. 2001. petitioner was not yet entitled. 2001. in contemplation of law. Pilapil Street. (c) he. "Akin na ang pera.R. iyong bag. Sumulong testified that: (a) he was an accounting staff of San Sebastian Allied Services. unlawfully and feloniously take. only that he chose not to. At such point or stage. did then and there wilfully. (d) he placed the amount withdrawn in a black bag and immediately left the bank. who Sumulong identified. Bautista cash money amounting to P230. 2001. he threw the bag in Bautista’s direction. to counsel. Jeff Atie (Atie) and Joselito Bautista (Bautista). What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard WHEREFORE. the police line-up (at least. he was informed of a robbery that took place at the corner of Mercedes and Market Avenues.00 more or less and belonging to San Sebastian Allied Services. (k) when he went back to where the pick-up was parked. while they were at the intersection of Mercedes and Market Avenues. every person is entitled to the full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. unlawfully and feloniously attack. Manacob and Atie. in Pasig City. who was seated at the back. and required him to present his evidence. (b) on May 31. Pasig City. hence. as he was duly represented by a member of the Bar. Lara suddenly appeared at the front passenger side of the pick-up and pointed a gun at him stating. (c) in going to the bank. and shoot said Joselito M.000. Bautista alighted from the pick-up and ran. with intent to gain. he withdrew the amount of P230. Lara ran after him while firing his gun. (b) on May 31. the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation. Plaintiff-Appellee. (f) Bautista. The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: Enrique Sumulong (Sumulong). the Court finds that petitioner was not. nasaan?". 199877 August 13. like ours.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 56 of 75 virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. he rode a pick-up and was accompanied by Virgilio Manacob (Manacob). represented by Enrique Sumulong. among other things. (g) heeding Bautista’s advice. and (p) at the police station. Pasig City. and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. No. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. while on his way to Barangay Maybunga. SPO1 Bernard Cruz (SPO1 Cruz) and PO3 Efren Calix (PO3 Calix). both of them mutually helping and aiding one another. 2001 and at around 9:00 in the morning. ORBISTA. (c) four (4) police officers and Sumulong went to Dr. in any way.e. Inc. deprived of this substantive and constitutional right. conspiring and confederating together with one unidentified person who is still at-large. he saw Lara walking along Dr. (d) they then approached Lara and invited him for questioning. Any person under investigation must. (o) he alerted the police and Lara was thereafter arrested. 2001. for the commission of an offense. Lara was placed in a line-up where he was positively identified by Sumulong. be assisted by counsel. and (f) after being identified. "Wag mong ibigay". On the right to due process. he went to the rear portion of the vehicle and saw blood on the ground. (e) at around 10:30 in the morning. stating that on or about May 31. (h) after getting hold of the bag. (n) on June 7. 2012 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

that he was not provided with counsel when he was placed in a police line-up did not invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction. Sumulong merely presumed that he was the one who shot Bautista and who took the bag of money from him. The CA allegedly erred in this wise considering that only direct and not circumstantial evidence can overcome the presumption of innocence. (h) when he told the police that he was at home when the subject incident took place. if in another place we will kill you" (sic). he interviewed Sumulong. this does not by itself suggest the existence of bias or impair their credibility. The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial investigation begins and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or a part of custodial investigation. such as when he surrenders to the police or to the court. the police officers asked him to go with them to the Barangay Hall. That he stood at the police line-up without the assistance of counsel did not render Sumulong’s identification of Lara inadmissible. hence. Second. one of the policemen said. (c) they were working from 8:00 in the morning until 3:00 in the afternoon. Moreover. c. otherwise the objection is deemed waived. one of the police officers who were able to respond ahead of them. (b) on May 31. It is apparent from the assailed decision of the CA that the finding of guilt against Lara is based on circumstantial evidence. An accused submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court upon entering a plea and participating actively in the trial and this precludes him invoking any irregularities that may have attended his arrest. police officers arrived and asked him if he was Arturo Lara. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 57 of 75 ISSUES: a. Lara pointed out several errors that supposedly attended his conviction. (d) on June 7. digging a sewer trench while his brother. Wilfredo. In his defense. she saw Lara working on a sewer trench from 9:00 in the morning to 5:00 in the afternoon. Fourth. 2001. Manacob at the police station. Third. To corroborate his testimony. Atie. While his two (2) witnesses were his sister and neighbor. (i) when his witnesses arrived at the station. (j) while he was at the police line-up holding a name plate. "You are lucky. 2001. he was at his house. he was not assisted by counsel when the police placed him in a line-up to be identified by the witnesses for the prosecution in violation of Section 12. it is not inadmissible. 2001 On appeal.9 Lara also presented his sister. it cannot be reasonably claimed that his conviction was attended with moral certainty. that he was arrested without a warrant under circumstances that do not justify a warrantless arrest rendered void all proceedings including those that led to his conviction. while she was manning her store. Edjosa Manalo. (f) he voluntarily went with them and while inside the patrol car. and (f) before Bautista died. or the so-called Miranda rights. Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea. Atie and Manacob in the police line-up is inadmissible because Lara stood therein without the assistance of counsel Whether or not Lara’s supposedly illegal arrest may be raised for the first time on appeal for the purpose of nullifying his conviction Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict Lara Whether or not Lara’s alibi can be given credence so as to exonerate him from the crime charged HELD: a) No. one of the police officers told them to come back the following day. may be invoked only by a person while he is under custodial investigation. the trial court erred in discounting the testimony of his witnesses. She testified that on May 31. (e) as part of his investigation. Without any showing that they were impelled by improper motives in testifying in his favor. Specifically. "Ituru nyo na yan at uuwi na tayo". was constructing a comfort room. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired through compulsory process such as a warrant of arrest or through his voluntary appearance. and (k) when his witnesses arrived the following day. indicating that he did not have a fair glimpse of the perpetrator. (e) after confirming that he was Arturo Lara. b. Pilapil Street. (g) he was brought to the police station and not the barangay hall as he was earlier told where he was investigated for robbery with homicide. Lara presented one of his neighbors. he was able to interview Bautista at the hospital where the latter was brought after the incident. San Miguel. 2001 and at around 7:00 in the evening. Whether or not the identification made by Sumulong. 12 (1). Hence. d. who testified that he was working on a sewer line the whole day of May 31. they were told that he will be subjected to an inquest. the police challenged him to produce witnesses. Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements. c. a police officer told Sumulong and Atie. Pasig City. Contrary to Lara’s claim. the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage. Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . the prosecution failed to present a witness who actually saw him commit the alleged acts.) Yes. Article III of the Constitution. The physical description of Lara that Sumulong gave to the police was different from the one he gave during the trial. First. the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient ground to reverse and set aside a conviction that was arrived upon a complaint duly filed and a trial conducted without error. The guarantees of Sec. while he was at the house of one of his cousins. handed to him eleven (11) pieces of empty shells and six (6) deformed slugs of a 9mm pistol. Lara testified that: (a) he was a plumber who resided at Dr. Art. Simplicia Delos Reyes. The police line-up is part of custodial investigation and his right to counsel had already attached. b) No.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests arriving thereat. their testimonies should have been given the credence they deserve. III of the 1987 Constitution. this gives rise to the possibility that it was his unidentified companion who shot Bautista and took possession of the money. we were able to caught you in your house. Furthermore. the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus. ISSUE: Whether or not there were violations of the constitutional rights of the accused. Lara’s intent to gain is proven by Sumulong’s positive narration that it was Lara who pointed the gun at him and demanded that the bag containing the money be turned over to him. And. the prosecution is left without sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime charged. the CA was correct in denying Lara’s alibi outright. counsel came in only a day after the custodial investigation with respect to accused Dionanao. which the trial court found to be forthright and credible. hence. the Municipal Attorney of Tanjay. it is against the natural order of events and of human nature and against the presumption of good faith that a prosecution witness would falsely testify against the former. Assuming as true Lara’s claim and that of his witnesses that he was digging a sewer trench on the day of the incident. i. It is well-settled that positive identification prevails over alibi. for as a defense.R. Judge Cruz that "[t]he right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. Lara and his witnesses failed to prove that it is well-nigh impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. We further said in Gamboa v. No. we laid down the procedure for peace officers to follow when making an arrest and conducting a custodial investigation. In several cases promulgated even before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. it is possible that his witnesses may not have noticed him leaving and returning given that the distance between his house and the place where the subject incident took place can be negotiated. HELD: YES. On top of this. however perjurious. is worthy of full faith and credit and should not be disturbed. in just a matter of minutes. J. convincingly demonstrate that Sumulong was impelled by improper or malicious motives to impute upon him. much less. counsel who supposedly assisted both accused was Atty. the proximity of Lara’s house at the scene of the crime wholly negates his alibi. they had no counsel present. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. after hearing twelve prosecution and nine defense witnesses..POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests In this case. by the nature of his position.) In view of Sumulong’s positive identification of Lara. On 5 May 1989. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. and difficult to disapprove In this case. If an accused had nothing to do with the crime. by any person on his behalf. For his death and the loss of their things on the occasion thereof. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. who was running away from the pick-up in order to prevent Lara from taking possession of the money. if any. the trial court rendered judgment finding accused Aurelio Bandula guilty of the crime BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 58 of 75 charged. in whole or in part. At the time a person is arrested. was found dead with three gunshot wounds. Teofilo Dananao and Victoriano Ejan were haled to court for robbery with homicide. However. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. even by walking. That Lara resorted to violence in order to actualize his intent to gain is proven by Sumulong’s testimony that he saw Lara fire the gun at the direction of Bautista. and two weeks later with respect to appellant Bandula. his three co-accused were acquitted "for insufficiency of evidence. alibi is easy to concoct. CASE 43: PEOPLE vs. without the extrajudicial confessions. inadmissible in evidence considering that they were extracted under duress and intimidation. Certainly. it can be gleaned that when accused-appellant Bandula and accused Dionanao were investigated immediately after their arrest." Thus the trial court disregarded the following defenses of the four accused. Aurelio Bandula. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means —by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. his testimony. a lawyer. a relative. If at all. From the records. 1994 BELLOSILLO. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. Appellant Bandula argues that the extrajudicial confessions he and accused Dionanao executed suffer from constitutional infirmities. Pantaleon Segudo. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. such a serious charge. d. these are blatant violations of the Constitution. and that any statement he might make could be used against him. which is inherently a weak defense. Simply put. shall be inadmissible in evidence. and were merely countersigned later by the municipal attorney who. Consequently. 89223 May 27. Juanito Garay. was not entirely an independent counsel nor counsel of their choice. Ruben Zerna. Lara did not allege. Such is the rule.e. there are tell tale signs that violence was used against the accused. BANDULA G.: FACTS: After he and his wife were individually hog-tied and their house ransacked.

FABIAN VER. Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. What is most upsetting however is the allegation of the four (4) accused that they were mauled into owning the crime. he provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people. L-69866. they were arrested without denied visits of relatives and lawyers. As a legal officer of the municipality. he cannot be a special counsel. seeking to annul and set aside the respondent court’s resolutions and order. any statement elicited from the accused is inadmissible in evidence against him." Hence. (2) Whether or not respondents may invoke state immunity from suit for acts done in the performance of official duties and functions. Where there is doubt as to their voluntariness. et al. claimed that (1) the wrti of habeas corpus was suspended. In fine. if there is no counsel at the start of the custodial investigation. After their motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC. in their motion to dismiss. It is thus seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests. counsel of the police.emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses in view of increasing reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in Metro Manila. or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. the instant case is analogous to the more recent case of People v. torture and other forms of violence in order to obtain incriminatory information or confessions and in order to punish them. declared the finality of said Order against petitioners. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus bars a civil action for damages for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. Gen. petitioners then filed the instant petition for certiorari. CASE 44: ROGELIO ABERCA. On November 8. At such point or stage. Based on the records. thus giving credence to petitioners’ detention. Obviously. certain members of the raiding TFM confiscated a number of purely personal items belonging to the 20 petitioners. April 15. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . et al. A motion to set aside the order dismissing the complaint. even before attempting to elicit statements that would incriminate them? Why did the investigators not advise the accused that if they could not afford the services of counsel they could be provided with counsel free of charge before conducting any investigation? Why did the investigators continuously disregard the repeated requests of the accused for medical assistance? How did accused Sedigo get his "black eye" which even Pat. GR No. It is when questions are initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. including the maintenance of peace and order. without acting on the motion to set aside the Order of Nov. He is no better than a fiscal or prosecutor who cannot represent the accused during custodial investigations. For. 1988 FACTS: Sometime in the early 1980s. and that (3) the complaint did not state a cause of action against respondents. vs. on March 15. This Court is greatly disturbed with the way the accused were treated or maltreated. Zerna does not qualify as an independent counsel. through threats. public or private prosecutor. preferably of their own choice. For some period after their arrest. 8. Baldejera admitted? How and why did accused- BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 59 of 75 appellant Bandula suffer a fractured rib? We cannot close our eyes to these unanswered questions. the TFM raided several places. we are strongly drawn to the belief that violence indeed attended the extraction of statements from the accused. Indeed. Petitioners were arrested without proper arrest warrants issued by the courts. 1984. why did the investigators not inform the accused of their right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. the same must be rejected in toto. the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of the offense. interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel. employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants. The Constitution also requires that counsel be independent. In compliance thereof.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests from respondent/accused. still their confessions are inadmissible in evidence considering that Atty. various Intelligence units of the AFP known as Task Force Makabansa (TFM) were ordered by respondents then Maj. (2) respondents were immune from liability for acts done in the performance of their official duties. 1983. Fabian Ver to conduct pre. and a supplemental motion for reconsideration were filed by petitioners. On May 11. 1983. Zerna assisted accused Dionanao and Bandula when they executed their respective extrajudicial confessions. 1985. Respondents. De Jesus where we said that admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution. the RTC granted the motion to dismiss the case. Granting that Atty. During these raids. the trial court. Plaintiffs then filed an action for damages before the RTC of Quezon City against respondents-officers of the AFP headed by Ver. we cannot accept the extrajudicial confessions of the accused and use the same against them or any of them.

1986. Even assuming that the suspension of the PWHC suspends petitioners’ right of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention. the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. snatching of ballot boxes perpetrated by the armed men of Pacificador. COMELEC FACTS: Javier and Pacificador. duress. the proclamation made by the board of canvassers was set aside as premature. constitutional and legal safeguards must be observed. Opinion. and in pursuance of such objective. Further. 1984. HELD: (1) The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (PWHC) does not destroy petitioners’ right and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention and other violations of their constitutional rights. the same must be brought within one year. to launch pre-emptive strikes against alleged CT underground houses. the law speaks of an officer or employee or person “directly” or “indirectly” responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. In Feb 1986. vote-buying. when the action (for injury to the rights of the plaintiff or for quasi-delict) arises from or out of any act. Javier was gunned down. Moreover. the 2nd Division of the Commission on Elections directed the provincial board of canvassers of Antique to proceed with the canvass but to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate until further orders. Also. were rivals to be members of the Batasan in May 1984 in Antique. having been made before the lapse of the 5-day period of appeal. The question became moot and academic since the suspension of the PWHC had been lifted with the issuance of then Pres. What is meant is that in carrying out their task and mission. under the notion of respondeat superior. In the battle of competing ideologies. It has been generally limited in its application to principal and agent or to master and servant relationships. On June 7. Javier pointed out that the irregularities of the election must first be resolved before proclaiming a winner. Javier complained of ”massive terrorism. rebellion and subversion” in accordance with Proclamation No. otherwise. or any private individual. their right and cause of action for damages are explicitly recognized in PD 1755 which amended Art. or from within or without. seeking to destroy or subvert our democratic institutions and imperil their very existence. On the same complaint.” COMELEC just referred the complaints to the AFP. it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under Art. despite the lifting of Martial Law on January 27. the very fabric of our faith will start to unravel. insurrection. the same 2nd Division ordered the board to immediately convene and to proclaim the winner without prejudice to the outcome of the case before the Commission. activity or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from martial law including the arrest. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 60 of 75 This is not say that military authorities are restrained from pursuing their assigned task or carrying out their mission with vigor. to disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined and protected by the Constitution. What is suspended is merely the right of the individual to seek release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty. as pointed out by petitioners. it does not and cannot suspend their rights and causes of action for injuries suffered because of respondents’ confiscation of their private belongings. to protect the Philippines from its enemies. the proclamation was made by only the 2nd Division but the Constitute requires that it be proclaimed by the COMELEC en banc. fraud. However. During election. (3) The doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable in this case. 32 makes the persons who are directly as well as indirectly responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors CASE 45: Javier v. On certiorari before the SC.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests (3) Whether or not a superior officer. 1981. Art. whether of the left or of the right. Once that faith is lost or compromised. one of the Commissioners should inhibit himself as he was a former law partner of Pacificador. 32. intimidation. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. as members of the AFP. a member of the KBL under Marcos. Article 32 of the Civil Code. 1146 of the Civil Code by adding the following text: However. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article. provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Revised Penal Code or other penal statute. tampering and falsification of election returns under duress. during pendency. Civil Code. the struggle of mind is just as vital as the struggle of arms. “to prevent or suppress lawless violence. to the person whose constitutional rights and liberties have been violated. Corazon Aquino of Proclamation No. which renders any public officer or employees. No such relationship exists superiors of the military and their subordinates. the decisive factor in this case is the language of Art. threat and intimidation. were merely responding to their duties. The linchpin in that psychological struggle is faith in the rule of law. as they claim. liable in damages for violating the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Marcos. be answerable for damages jointly and severally with his subordinates. 32. (2) It may be that the respondents. 2054 of Pres. But this cannot be construed as a blanket license or roving commission untrammeled by any constitutional restraint. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . detention and/or trial of the plaintiff. does not exempt the respondents from responsibility. the violation of their right to remain silent and to counsel and their right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. Thus. which the Javier had seasonably made. the struggle may well be abandoned. 2 on March 25.

During the 29 March 2010 hearing. Canon 2 (Rule 2. however. Gacad failed to produce the P50. The following day. Compostela Valley. both written and spoken.000 for Judge Clapis. and 14 April 2010. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. He set a continuous hearing for the petition for bail on 12 April 2010. Without such confidence.01). They must trust the judge. They must believe in his sense of fairness. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Javier and has overruled the Sol-Gen’s tenor. Arafol handed to Gacad a postdated BPI check allegedly issued by Judge Clapis as assurance of payment. his language. find Judge Clapis liable for gross misconduct.05) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.000. and Canon 3 (Rule 3. Judge Clapis set a hearing for a petition for bail on 29 March 2010. Thereafter. Jr. Thus. It is an ironclad principle that a judge must not only be impartial. In Kaw v. They met provincial prosecutor GracianoArafol. from then on. in that case. further. any gross misconduct seriously undermines the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary. and 1 March 2010. he must also appear to be impartial at all times. 2 Judge Clapis set hearings on 4 February 2010. Jr. HELD: GACAD v. The SC has repeatedly and consistently demanded “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge” as the indispensable imperative of due process. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Osorio. 8 February 2010. told Gacad to prepare an amount of P50. To bolster that requirement. Gacad (Gacad) filed a Verified Complaint 1 dated 9 June 2010 against Judge Hilarion P. otherwise they will not seek his judgment. on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent law. the Notices for Hearings were mailed only on 1 March 2010 and were received by Gacad only on 3 March 2010. There is no writer to foreordain the ending. we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. Gross Ignorance of the Law. Arafol told Gacad that Judge Clapis was borrowing P50. 13 April 2010. Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. may not be held liable for extortion and corruption as it was not substantially proven. and violations of Canon 1 (Rule 1. CLAPIS FACTS: Criselda C. Gacad alleged that. who advised them not to hire a private counsel.01. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT CLAPIS IS LIABLE. for Grave Misconduct and Corrupt Practices. Fair play calls for equal justice. he should be made accountable for gross misconduct. Arafol informed Gacad that he filed a complaint for murder against the suspect but the Provincial Governor kept on pressuring him about her brother’s case. The judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed. Branch 3. which Gacad came to know only inadvertently since she received no notice for the hearing. otherwise they will not go to him at all. Grave Abuse of Discretion. Judicial (and also extrajudicial) proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which the parties are supposed to make the motions and reach the denouement according to a prepared script. ISSUE: Whether or not there had been due process in the proclamation of Pacificador. Judge Clapis calendared the case for speedy trial.02). They should be sure that when their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. (Judge Clapis). However. 1. there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect. must be guarded and measured lest the best of intentions be misconstrued. the counsel for the accused manifested that he was not prepared for a written petition because it was only right before the hearing that the accused informed him of Arafol’s agreement to bail. On the second week of January 2010. Arafol and Judge Clapis began to "play different hideous schemes" to prejudice their case. 8 the Court held that while the respondent judge. Arafol suggested that they see Judge Clapis so he would deny the Motion for Reinvestigation to be filed by the accused Rodolfo Comania (accused). (Arafol). 17 Needless to state. Subsequently.000 from her for his mother’s hospitalization. There cannot be equal justice where a suitor approaches a court already committed to the other party and with a judgment already made and waiting only to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 61 of 75 Arafol. However. 16 Being in constant scrutiny by the public. Public Prosecutor AlonaLabtic moved that the petition for bail be put in writing. We. Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Arafol showed to Gacad a copy of Judge Clapis’ Order dated 4 January 2010 denying the Motion for Reinvestigation filed by the accused. Clapis. Nabunturan.The SC dismissed Judge CLapis from service. However.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests The Solicitor General then moved to have the petition close it being moot and academic by virtue of Javier’s death.

Cap. No hearing was conducted on the application for bail – summary or otherwise. the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons. When the penalty prescribed by law is reclusion perpetua.00. filed a Motion to lift order allowing accused to post bail. Warrants of arrest were issued against him. It is the judge’s duty first to determine if evidence of guilt is strong before bail is granted. Olalia. Cruz was charged with parricide which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. for the judge has no right to presume that the prosecutor knows what he is doing on account of familiarity with the case. Asst. He was thereby detained.R. 1992. The CA even found that only 10 minutes had elapsed between the filing of the Motion and the granting of bail. Without such hearing. CASE 46: Narciso vs. he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge. City Prosecutor Myrna Dimaranan Vidal of Quezon City recommended and thereafter filed. the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. 1995.Also. The RTC. Cruz Facts: After conducting a preliminary investigation on the death of Corazon Sta.D. Issue The Petitioner is the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. RomanaNarciso. G. On September 13. If convicted. The absence of objection from the prosecution is never a basis for the grant of bail in such cases. Branch 1 Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P. there was no basis for the granting of the bail. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud. 2007 This case discusses whether the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extradite in an extradition 1 proceeding. Even if the prosecutor did not object to the motion. wife of JoselitoNarciso.) No. the information for parricide against JoselitoNarciso. sister of the deceased wife.On August 3. "Said reasoning is tantamount to ceding to the prosecutor the duty of exercising judicial discretion to determine whether the guilt of the accused is strong. CASE 47. Gov’t of Hong Kong vs. April 19. allowing accused to post bail at P150." in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. No. 201 of Hong Kong. Judicial discretion is the domain of the judge before whom the petition for provisional liberty will be decided. the order granting bail is void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion." It took effect on June 20. He then filed a motion for reinvestigation and to lift warrant of arrest.000. On January 30. a hearing must be conducted by the trial judge before the bail can be granted. accused filed an ‘Urgent Ex-Parte (Ex AbundantiCautela) to Allow Accused JoselitoNarciso to Post Bail’. The Public Prosecutor registered no objection and said motion was granted on the same day. 1997. In the case. the judge still had no basis to grant the bail.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 62 of 75 The mandated duty to exercise discretion has never been reposed upon the prosecutor. Such lapse of time could not be deemed sufficient for the trial court to receive and evaluate any evidence. Facts: Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent. 153675. penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Jurisprudence is replete with decisions compelling judges to conduct the required hearings in bail applications." ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government. represented by the Philippine Department of Justice Is the grant of bail valid? The Respondents are Judge Felix Olalia and Juan Antonio Muñoz Ruling: No. in which the accused stands charged with a capital offense.Flor Cruz. The judge had no reason to presume that that prosecutor knew what he was doing. 1999.

the investigating team finished their task. That same day. 2007. but one that is merely administrative in character.: FACTS: This case involves a search of office computer assigned to a government employee who was then charged administratively and was eventually dismissed from the service. this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order. proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. 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. At around 10:00 p. but it was denied by respondent judge." Issue: Whether or not respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee. Thus.m.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 63 of 75 19. committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. Under these treaties. liberty. then Associate Justice Puno. provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met. the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. to which the Philippines is a party.” 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. On January 3. inhibited himself from further hearing the case. J. holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk. there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. issued an Order denying the petition for bail. not only by our Constitution.R. The ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . for the purpose of trial or punishment. No. but also by international conventions. Extradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee." If not. along with the other members of the family of nations. Given the foregoing. where these rights are guaranteed. extraditee of his right to apply for bail. Ratio: The Philippines. deprive an WHEREFORE. IV (CSC-ROIV) has been lawyering for public officials with pending cases in the CSC. This case is REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence. In this case. the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. of the same day. Clearly. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings. G. Hence. the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention. Private respondent filed a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner. 2011 DECISION (En Banc) VILLARAMA. Held: No. the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. we DISMISS the petition. it was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided by respondent judge.. October 18. Manila issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. Judge Bernardo. It does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations. conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch. We should not. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan. Consequently. the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired. Karina Constantino-David. the premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. According to him. The employee’s personal files stored in the computer were used by the government employer as evidence of his misconduct. More so. 181881. and due process. the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life. the NBI agents arrested and detained him. 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. Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled. After hearing. this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. This was witnessed by several employees. Jr. the instant petition. Pollo v. JR. CASE 48: Briccio “Ricky” A." Judge Bernardo. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. therefore. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail and this was granted by respondent judge. and thereafter. Jr. Nor is it a full-blown civil action.

On March 14. Chairperson David thus issued a Show-Cause Order requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from notice. Simons where the defendant Simons. The diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the hard disk of PALD and LSD computers were then turned over to Chairperson David. citing the letter dated January 8. He is meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with all its accessory penalties. Mark L. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. which are related to law enforcement. Petitioner filed his Comment. denying that he is the person referred to in the anonymous letter-complaint. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. The CSC denied this omnibus motion. He asserted that he had protested the unlawful taking of his computer done while he was on leave. 2007 Show-Cause Order and February 26. the CA dismissed the petitioner’s petition for certiorari after finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondents CSC officials. By a Decision dated October 11. while Simons had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office. The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and seizures but only of “unreasonable” searches and seizures That the Fourth Amendment [of the U.] ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . he did not have such legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to the files in his computer. Thus. On July 24. were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. and the search was not excessively intrusive. Simons’ violation of the agency’s Internet policy happened also to be a violation of criminal law. The [U. such power pertaining solely to the court. petitioner brought this appeal before the Supreme Court.” The CSC found prima facie case against the petitioner and charged him withDishonesty. numbering about 40 to 42 documents. 2007. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of R. Supreme] Court thus laid down a balancing test under which government interests are weighed against the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy.In O’Connor the [U. Constitution] equally applies to a government workplace was addressed in the 1987 case of O’Connor v. In this case. ISSUE: Whether or not article III section 2 of the 1987 constitution was violated HELD: The supreme court held in the negative stating that Squarely raised by the petitioner is the legality of the search conducted on his office computer and the copying of his personal files without his knowledge and consent. 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. No. the files/documents copied from his computer without his consent [are] thus inadmissible as evidence. the CSC issued a Resolution finding petitioner GUILTY of Dishonesty. to Dismiss and/or to Defer) assailing the formal charge as without basis having proceeded from an illegal search. friends and some associates and that he is not authorizing their sealing.A. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. O’Connor was applied in subsequent cases raising issues on employees’ privacy rights in the workplace. 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. an employee of a division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). all the computers in the PALD were sealed and secured.S. as the employer was already aware that Simons had misused his Internet access to download over a thousand pornographic images. In view of the illegal search. alleged BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 64 of 75 as a transgression on his constitutional right to privacy. Supreme] Court recognized that “special needs” authorize warrantless searches involving public employees for work-related reasons. This Resolution was also brought to the CA by herein petitioner. 2007 Resolution as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or total absence of jurisdiction. Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion (For Reconsideration. Ortega. He pointed out that though government property. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. the employer had “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that the hard drive would yield evidence of misconduct.S. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.S. One of these cases involved a government employer’s search of an office computer. including its use for personal purposes. which is beyond the authority of the CSC Chairman. which provides: SEC. 2. Grave Misconduct. 2007. 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. petitioner filed an Urgent Petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing both the January 11. relatives. the US Supreme Court held that the search remains valid under the O’Connor exception to the warrant requirement because evidence of the crime was discovered in the course of an otherwise proper administrative inspection. this does not mean that said employer lost the capacity and interests of an employer. United States v. duplicating and printing as these would violate his constitutional right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination and warrantless search and seizure. houses. His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA. The warrantless entry into Simons’ office was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment standard announced in O’Connor because at the inception of the search. papers. The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure under Section 2. This reasonableness test implicates neither probable cause nor the warrant requirement. 2007. The retrieval of the hard drive was reasonably related to the objective of the search. Grave Misconduct. copying. Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of Republic Act 6713.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests next day. was convicted of receiving and possessing materials containing child pornography. being “fruits of a poisonous tree.

he normally would have visitors in his office like friends. they could easily be destroyed at a click of a button. the search conducted on petitioner’s computer was justified at its inception and scope. If. reasonable in its inception and scope? (1) NO. then such a case would have shattering repercussions. On the contrary. Concomitantly. 2002 “Computer Use Policy (CUP)”]. whom he even allowed to use his computer which to him seemed a trivial request. At the inception of the search. to impose the need to comply with the probable cause requirement would invariably defeat the purpose of the wok-related investigation. it can hardly be deduced that petitioner had such expectation of privacy that society would recognize as reasonable. His other argument invoking the privacy of communication and correspondence under Section 3(1). and that the CSC may monitor the use of the computer resources using both automated or human means. we now address the following questions: (1) Did petitioner have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files?. in the absence of allegation or proof of the aforementioned factual circumstances. or that his office was always locked and not open to other employees or visitors. Neither did he allege that he used passwords or adopted any means to prevent other employees from accessing his computer files. was reasonable in its inception and scope. that in fact he stays in the office as a paying customer. We likewise find no merit in his contention that O’Connor and Simons are not relevant because the present case does not involve a criminal offense like child pornography. Petitioner failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued computer which contained his personal files. which involved the copying of the contents of the hard drive on petitioner’s computer. necessitated drastic and immediate action. As already mentioned. 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. a complaint was received recounting that a certain division chief in the CSCRO No. indeed. The search of petitioner’s computer files was conducted in connection with investigation of work-related misconduct prompted by an anonymous lettercomplaint 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. such is negated by the presence of policy regulating the use of office computers [CSC Office Memorandum No. Under the facts obtaining. [which involved] the copying of the contents of the hard drive on petitioner’s computer. receiving documents. on the same date that the complaint was received. the search authorized by the respondent CSC Chair. the computers would be a likely starting point in ferreting out incriminating evidence. petitioner’s claim of violation of his constitutional right to privacy must necessarily fail. unknown people” and that in the past 22 years he had been discharging his functions at the PALD. in charge of accomplishment report.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Applying the analysis and principles announced in O’Connor and Simons to the case at bar. consistent as it were with the guidelines established by O’Connor: Even conceding for a moment that there is no such administrative policy.” Under this scenario. as in Simons. Petitioner did not allege that he had a separate enclosed office which he did not share with anyone. Thus. He described his office as “full of people. We quote with approval the CSC’s discussion on the reasonableness of its actions. he submits that being in the public assistance office of the CSC-ROIV. Considering the damaging nature of the accusation. drafting cases on appeals. The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put its employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy in anything they create. there is no doubt in the mind of the Commission that the search of Pollo’s computer has successfully passed the test of reasonableness for warrantless searches in the workplace as enunciated in the above-discussed American authorities. This implies that on-the-spot inspections may be done to ensure that the computer resources were used only for such legitimate business purposes. It is settled that a court or an administrative tribunal must not only be actually impartial but must be seen to be so. (2) YES. Correction of name. Thus. 10. and in the process. a CSC employee was found to be furtively engaged in the practice of “lawyering” for parties with pending cases before the Commission would be a highly repugnant scenario. render it less effective in fulfilling its mandate as an impartial and objective dispenser of administrative justice. the ephemeral nature of computer files. IV was “lawyering” for parties having pending cases with the said regional office or in the Commission. that petitioner had at least a subjective expectation of privacy in his computer as he claims. 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 ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Mamamayan Muna Program. that is. he is “personally assisting incoming clients. Public Sector Unionism. It bears emphasis that the Commission pursued the search in its capacity as a government employer and that it was undertaken in connection with an investigation involving a work-related misconduct. store. associates and even unknown people. S. It would undeniably cast clouds of doubt upon the institutional integrity of the Commission as a quasi-judicial agency. and hardly had any time for himself alone. Indeed. a search was forthwith conducted involving the computer resources in the concerned regional office. as it was grievously disturbing. send or receive on the office computers. if only to arrest or limit any possible adverse consequence or fall-out. one of the circumstances exempted from the warrant requirement. accreditation of service. That it was the computers that were subjected to the search was justified since these furnished the easiest means for an employee to encode and store documents. the Commission had to act fast. A search by a government employer of an employee’s office is justified at inception when there are BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 65 of 75 reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct. Moreover. even assuming arguendo. Pointedly. and (2) Was the search authorized by the CSC Chair. The nature of the imputation was serious. his friends. otherwise the general public would not have any trust and confidence in it. the petitioner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files.

and second. or by legitimate regulation. because “some government offices may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable”. Because the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a personal telephone call. and particularly describing the place to be searched. and next. and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. an employer’s intrusion on that expectation “for noninvestigatory. the Court categorically declared that “[i]ndividuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights merely because they work for the government instead of a private employer. United States. [32] in their workplace. This situation clearly falls under the exception to the warrantless requirement in administrative searches defined in O’Connor. Marti[29]: Ortega. Justice Harlan. like similar expectations of employees in the private sector. x x x The employee’s expectation of privacy must be assessed in the context of the employment relation. headquarters that he shared with other union officials. Simply put. the US Supreme Court held that the act of FBI agents in electronically recording a conversation made by petitioner in an enclosed public telephone booth violated his right to privacy and constituted a “search and seizure”. consultations. other employees. as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct. IF YOU HAVE TIME OK DIN BASAHIN TO.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 66 of 75 subject of the anonymous complaint.” (Sec. 1[3].” [35] A plurality of four Justices concurred that the correct analysis has two steps: first. As the Court declared in People v. O’Connor teaches: x x x Public employees’ expectations of privacy in their offices. and business and personal invitees. As such.” But to fully understand this concept and application for the purpose of resolving the That the Fourth Amendment equally applies to a government workplace was issue at hand. worded as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons. where an employee has a legitimate privacy expectation. it is essential that we examine the doctrine in the light of addressed in the 1987 case of O’Connor v. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. and the persons or things to be seized. that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective). should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances. the Court may turn to the pronouncements of the United States Federal Supreme Court and State Appellate Courts which are considered doctrinal in this jurisdiction. Instead. searched his office and seized personal items from his desk and filing cabinets. In the concurring opinion of Mr. In that case. and other work-related visits. claimed a violation of his Fourth Our present constitutional provision on the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure had its origin in the 1935 Charter which. sexual harassment of female hospital employees and other irregularities involving his private patients under the state medical aid program. the US Supreme Court held that a union employee had Fourth Amendment rights with regard to an office at union ETO UNG DISCUSSION SA ORIGINAL. In Mancusi v. work-related purposes. who was employed by a state hospital. Dr. it is the nature of government ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . Ortega[34] where a physician. desks. a court must consider “[t]he operational realities of the workplace” in order to determine whether an employee’s Fourth Amendment rights are implicated. An office is seldom a private enclave free from entry by supervisors. to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. and file cabinets. houses.” [36] On the matter of government employees’ reasonable expectations of privacy [31] In the 1967 case of Katz v. Magno pronouncements in another jurisdiction. that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy.[30] Amendment rights when hospital officials investigating charges of mismanagement of the psychiatric residency program. the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to such area. may be reduced by virtue of actual office practices and procedures. DeForte[33] which addressed the reasonable expectations of private employees in the workplace. Article III) was in turn derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. in many cases offices are continually entered by fellow employees and other visitors during the workday for conferences. it was further noted that the existence of privacy right under prior decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first. even as the latter or their guests could enter the office. The Court thus “recognized that employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusions by police.

the question of whether an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy must be addressed on a case-bycase basis. Similarly. they have an interest substantially different from “the normal need for law enforcement. Ortega had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office. x x x Given the great variety of work environments in the public sector. work-related searches are merely incident to the primary business of the agency.” x x x “[t]o hold that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by [public employers] is only to begin the inquiry into the standards governing such searches…[W]hat is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place. We come to a similar conclusion for searches conducted pursuant to an investigation of work-related employee misconduct. control. Imposing unwieldy warrant procedures in such cases upon supervisors. rooted as it is in the criminal investigatory context.) the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion. the concept of probable cause has little meaning for a routine inventory conducted by public employers for the purpose of securing state property.” x x x but some government offices may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable. Ortega has a reasonable expectation of privacy at least in his desk and file cabinets. desk. the US Supreme Court declared that Dr.[38] Proceeding to the next inquiry as to whether the search conducted by hospital officials was reasonable. and the work of these agencies would suffer if employers were required to have probable cause before they entered an employee’s desk for the purpose of finding a file or piece of office correspondence. and the efficient operation of the workplace. Ortega’s Fourth Amendment rights are implicated only if the conduct of the hospital officials infringed “an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider as reasonable.[37] (Citations omitted.” x x x outside his office. and there being no evidence that the hospital had established any reasonable regulation or policy discouraging employees from storing personal papers and effects in their desks or file cabinets (although the absence of such a policy does not create any expectation of privacy where it would not otherwise exist). We agree with JUSTICE SCALIA that “[c]onstitutional protection against unreasonable searches by the government does not disappear merely because the government has the right to make reasonable intrusions in its capacity as employer. Ortega did not share his desk or file cabinets with any other employees. kept personal correspondence and other private items in his own office while those work-related files (on physicians in residency training) were stored In our view. x x x To ensure the efficient and proper operation of the agency. supervisors. noninvestigatory reasons. Indeed. emphasis supplied.” x x x Public employers have an interest in ensuring that their agencies operate in an effective and efficient ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . we must determine the appropriate standard of reasonableness applicable to the search. we must balance the invasion of the employees’ legitimate expectations of privacy against the government’s need for supervision.” Given the undisputed evidence that respondent Dr. the Court of Appeals simply concluded without discussion that the “search…was not a reasonable search under the fourth amendment. the O’Connor plurality decision discussed the following principles: Having determined that Dr. Even when employers conduct an investigation. therefore. consensual visitors. x x x Thus. Under these circumstances. A determination of the standard of reasonableness applicable to a particular class of searches requires “balanc[ing] xxxx The governmental interest justifying work-related intrusions by public employers is the efficient and proper operation of the workplace. requiring an employer to obtain a warrant whenever the employer wished to enter an employee’s office. much meaning when the purpose of a search is to retrieve a file for work-related reasons. xxxx On the basis of the established rule in previous cases. Government agencies provide myriad services to the public. or file cabinets for a work-related purpose would seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business and would be unduly burdensome. who would otherwise have no reason to be familiar with such procedures. is simply unreasonable. the imposition of a warrant requirement would conflict with the “common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter.” x x x In the case of searches conducted by a public employer. and the general public – may have frequent access to an individual’s office. the Court concluded that Dr. it is difficult to give the concept of probable cause. supervisors in offices such as at the Hospital are hardly in the business of investigating the violation of criminal laws. public employers must be given wide latitude to enter employee offices for work-related. In contrast to other circumstances in which we have required warrants. Rather.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 67 of 75 offices that others – such as fellow employees.

Mark L. The Court “Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first. an employee of a division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A standard of reasonableness will neither unduly burden the efforts of government employers to ensure the efficient and proper operation of the workplace. Indeed. Days later. therefore. one must determine whether the search as actually conducted ‘was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. a search of an employee’s office by a supervisor will be “justified at its inception” when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work- from Simons’ computer. second. The agency had instituted a policy on government business only and that accessing unlawful material was specifically prohibited. One of these cases involved a government employer’s search of an office computer. upon initial discovery of prohibited internet activity originating Ordinarily. Under this reasonableness standard. Simons was provided with an office which he did not share with anyone. therefore. x x x xxxx BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 68 of 75 related misconduct. The policy also stated that users shall understand that the agency will periodically audit. In our view.a probable cause requirement for searches of the type at issue here would impose intolerable burdens on public employers. In contrast to law enforcement officials.” x x x for legitimate. incompetence. public employers are not enforcers of the criminal law. The delay in correcting the employee misconduct caused by the need for probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion will be translated into tangible and often irreparable damage to the agency’s work. public employees are entrusted with tremendous responsibility. which are related to law enforcement. x x x The search will be permissible in its scope when “the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of …the nature of the [misconduct].’ x x x . and the work of these agencies inevitably suffers from the inefficiency. to conduct a remote monitoring and examination of Simons’ computer.” x x x[39] (Citations omitted. CIA agents instructed its contractor for the management of the agency’s computer network. we conclude that the “special needs. This reasonableness test implicates neither probable cause nor the warrant requirement. should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances. beyond the normal need for law enforcement make the…probablecause requirement impracticable. the ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN .’” x x x computer use stating that employees were to use the Internet for official thus laid down a balancing test under which government interests are weighed against the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. In O’Connor the Court recognized that “special needs” authorize In sum. and ultimately to the public interest.) Since the District Court granted summary judgment without a hearing on the factual dispute as to the character of the search and neither was there any finding made as to the scope of the search that was undertaken. instead. was convicted of receiving and possessing materials containing child pornography. mismanagement. as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct. that public employer intrusions on the constitutionally protected privacy interests of government employees for noninvestigatory. or that the search is necessary for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose such as to retrieve a needed file. work-related noninvestigatory intrusions as well as investigations of work-related misconduct. the case was remanded to said court for the determination of the justification for the search and seizure. emphasis supplied. After confirming that Simons had indeed downloaded pictures that were pornographic in nature. in many cases. United States v. therefore.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests manner. public employers have a direct and overriding interest in ensuring that the work of the agency is conducted in a proper and efficient manner. inspect. one must consider ‘whether the…action was justified at its inception. all the files on the hard drive of Simon’s computer were copied from a remote work station. both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable: warrantless searches involving public employees for work-related reasons. nor authorize arbitrary intrusions upon the privacy of public employees. Simons [41] where the defendant Simons. and/or monitor the user’s Internet access as deemed appropriate. We hold. and the consequences of their misconduct or incompetence to both the agency and the public interest can be severe. or other workrelated misfeasance of its employees. and a computer with Internet access. and evaluation of the reasonableness of both the inception of the search and its scope.[40] O’Connor was applied in subsequent cases raising issues on employees’ privacy rights in the workplace. work-related purposes.

and various documents. videotapes. Simons must show that his subjective expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable. the agency secured warrants and searched Simons’ office in the evening when Simons was not around. x x x[42] (Citations omitted. Simons has shown that he had an office that he did not share. the operational realities of Simons’ workplace may have diminished his legitimate privacy expectations.” x x x This policy placed employees on notice that they could not reasonably expect that their Internet activity would be private. The retrieval of the hard drive was reasonably related to the objective of the search. on this record. Simons’ violation of the agency’s Internet policy happened also to be a violation of criminal law. x x x Accordingly. x x x xxxx In the final analysis. replaced it with a copy. the employer had “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that the hard drive would yield evidence of misconduct. there is no evidence in the record of any workplace practices. this case involves an employee’s supervisor entering the employee’s government office and retrieving a piece of government equipment in which the employee had absolutely no expectation of privacy – equipment that the employer knew contained evidence of crimes committed by the employee in the employee’s office. Thereafter. The warrantless entry into Simons’ office was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment standard announced inO’Connor because at the inception of the search. “as deemed appropriate. FBIS’ actions in remotely searching and seizing the computer files Simons downloaded from the Internet did not violate the Fourth Amendment. the district court denied the motion and Simons was found guilty as charged. Additionally. in ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN .) x x x We conclude that the remote searches of Simons’ computer did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights because. he did not have such legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to the files in his computer. regardless of whether Simons subjectively believed that the files he transferred from the Internet were private. Simons moved to suppress these evidence. Thus. Simons must first prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or the item seized. this does not mean that said employer lost the capacity and interests of an employer. and/or monitor” employees’ use of the Internet. there was a conjunction of the conduct that violated the employer’s policy and the conduct that violated the criminal law. arguing that the searches of his office and computer violated his Fourth Amendment rights. including personal correspondence. x x x To establish a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. including all file transfers. and the search was not excessively BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 69 of 75 light of the Internet policy. and gave the original to the agency security officer. in order to prove a legitimate expectation of privacy. However. removed the original hard drive on Simon’s computer. Simons lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the files downloaded from the Internet. Therefore.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests contractor’s representative finally entered Simon’s office. Here. xxxx intrusive. we conclude that Simons’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by FBIS’ retrieval of Simons’ hard drive from his office. The US Supreme Court ruled that the searches of Simons’ computer and office did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights and the first search warrant was valid. as the employer was already aware that Simons had misused his Internet access to download over a thousand pornographic images. and all e-mail messages. Simons possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office. or regulations that had such an effect. We therefore conclude that. The policy clearly stated that FBIS would “audit. After a hearing. As noted above. such a belief was not objectively reasonable after FBIS notified him that it would be overseeing his Internet use. It held that the search remains valid under the O’Connor exception to the warrant requirement because evidence of the crime was discovered in the course of an otherwise proper administrative inspection. computer files stored on the zip drive or on zip drive diskettes. At his trial. The search team copied the contents of Simons’ computer. emphasis supplied. We consider that FBIS’ intrusion into Simons’ office to retrieve the hard drive is one in which a reasonable employer might engage. computer diskettes found in Simons’ desk drawer. Simons did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to the record or fruits of his Internet use in light of the FBIS Internet policy. xxxx The burden is on Simons to prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office. all websites visited. inspect. This situation may be contrasted with one in which the criminal acts of a government employee were unrelated to his employment. x x x Here. while Simons had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office. Simons appealed his convictions. procedures. x x x And.

and persons charged had a separate enclosed office which he did not share with anyone. On the contrary. and hardly had anytime for himself alone. and the inherent right of the employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. In this inquiry. 2002 “Computer Use Policy (CUP)” explicitly provides: POLICY 1. and (2) Was the the aforementioned factual circumstances. intrudes. he submits that being in the public assistance office of the CSC-ROIV. The Computer Resources are the property of the Civil Service Commission and may be used only for legitimate business purposes. in charge of accomplishment report. did not share his office with co-workers and kept the same locked.” [46] Under this scenario.A. which effects a search within the meaning of Sec. that petitioner had at least a subjective search authorized by the CSC Chair. and we consider the two questions together. he is “personally assisting incoming clients. [45] ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . that in fact he stays in the office as a paying customer. he had a legitimate expectation of privacy and any search of that space and items located therein must comply with the Fourth Amendment. the copying of the contents of the hard drive on expectation of privacy in his computer as he claims. the relevant surrounding circumstances to consider include “(1) the employee’s relationship to the item seized. it can hardly be deduced that petitioner had such expectation of privacy that society would recognize as reasonable. Office Memorandum No. 9165 requiring mandatory an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his office or government- drug testing of candidates for public office. drafting cases on appeals. accreditation of service. No. receiving documents. (Emphasis supplied. He described his office as “full of people. and (3) whether the employee took actions to maintain his privacy in the item. in the absence of allegation or proof of reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files?. S. whom he even allowed to use his computer which to him seemed a trivial request.) from accessing his computer files. entered into by management and the bargaining unit. Use of the Computer Resources is a privilege that may be revoked at any given time. even assuming arguendo. The employees’ privacy interest in an office is to a large extent circumscribed by the company’s work policies. reduced. the collective bargaining agreement. III of the Constitution. In this case. associates and even unknown people. such is negated by the petitioner’s computer reasonable in its inception and scope? presence of policy regulating the use of office computers. 2. 2. the office or workplace serves as the backdrop for the analysis of the privacy expectation of the employees and the reasonableness of drug testing requirement.” These factors are relevant to both the subjective and objective prongs of the reasonableness inquiry. where the employee used a password on his computer. Petitioner did not allege that he schools. [44] Thus. (2) whether the item was in the immediate control of the employee when it was seized. Users shall be permitted access to Computer Resources to assist them in the performance of their respective jobs. or that his office before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses. Petitioner failed to prove that he had involved the constitutionality of a provision in R. he normally would have visitors in his office like friends. and a degree of impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. Mamamayan Muna Program. Art. Neither did he that there may be such legitimate intrusion of privacy in the workplace. we now address the following questions: (1) Did petitioner have a Moreover. his friends. 10. allege that he used passwords or adopted any means to prevent other employees The first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the nature of the privacy interest upon which the drug testing. Public Sector Unionism. if any.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 70 of 75 This Court. Their privacy expectation in a regulated office environment is. in fine. students of secondary and tertiary issued computer which contained his personal files. officers and employees of public and private offices. Applying the analysis and principles announced in O’Connor and Simons to the case at bar. in Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board [43] which We answer the first in the negative. have also recognized the fact was always locked and not open to other employees or visitors. as in Simons. unknown people” and that in the past 22 years he had been discharging his functions at the PALD. 3. Correction of name.

the undersigned has received several text messages from unknown sources adverting to certain anomalies in Civil Service Commission ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . store. the US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit held that a state university employee has not shown that he had a 6. It can be shared or operated by other users. including e-mail. Users expressly waive any right to privacy in anything they create. A computer resource is not a personal property or for the exclusive use of a User to whom a memorandum of receipt (MR) has been issued. send. and that the CSC may monitor the use of the The Head of the Office for Recruitment.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 71 of 75 particular User’s password. store. send. store. or receive on the computer system. 13. Usersunderstand that the CSC may use human or automated means to monitor the use of its Computer Resources. Non-exclusivity of Computer Resources. Responsibility for passwords. Passwords do not imply privacy. The user is specifically told that computer files. reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer files where the university’s computer policy. Users shall be responsible for safeguarding their passwords for access to the computer system. The search of petitioner’s computer files was conducted in connection with investigation of work-related misconduct prompted by an anonymous lettercomplaint 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. Individual passwords shall not be printed. That prior to this. can be searched when the university is responding to a discovery request in the course of litigation. The Civil Service Commission has global passwords that permit access to all materials stored on its networked computer system regardless of whether those materials have been encoded with a As to the second point of inquiry on the reasonableness of the search conducted on petitioner’s computer. No User may access the computer system with another User’s password or account. Petitioner employee thus cannot claim a violation of Fourth Amendment rights when university officials xxxx conducted a warrantless search of his computer for work-related materials. Only members of the Commission shall authorize the application of the said global passwords. computer resources using both automated or human means. as early as 2006. Use of passwords to gain access to the computer system or to encode particular files or messages does not imply that Users have an expectation of privacy in the material they create or receive on the computer system. or given to others. One of the factors stated in O’Connor which are relevant in determining whether an employee’s expectation of privacy in the workplace is reasonable is the existence of a workplace privacy policy. Users shall be responsible for all transactions made using their passwords. [49] Passwords 12. x x x x[47] (Emphasis supplied. [48] In one case.) The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put its employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy in anything they create. we answer in the affirmative. No expectation of privacy. Chairperson David stated in her sworn affidavit: 8. xxxx No Expectation of Privacy 4. However. Users except the Members of the Commission shall not have an expectation of privacy in anything they create. or receive on the computer through the Internet or any other computer network. 5. he is accountable therefor and must insure its care and maintenance. the computer user is informed not to expect privacy if the university has a legitimate reason to conduct a search. This implies that onthe-spot inspections may be done to ensure that the computer resources were used only for such legitimate business purposes. stored online. Examination and Placement shall select and assign Users to handle the confidential examination data and processes. send or receive on the office computers. Waiver of privacy rights.

a complaint was received recounting that a certain division chief in the CSCRO No. the Commission had to act fast. If. the defendant employee’s computer hard drive was first remotely examined by a computer information technician after his supervisor received complaints that he was inaccessible and had copied and distributed nonwork-related e-mail messages throughout the office. [51] Thus. the search conducted on petitioner’s computer was justified at its inception and scope. It is settled that a court or an administrative tribunal must not only be actually impartial but must be seen to be so. a CSC employee was found to be furtively engaged in the practice of “lawyering” for parties with pending cases before the Commission would be a highly repugnant scenario. and in the process. 9. x x x x[50] A search by a government employer of an employee’s office is justified at inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct. BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 72 of 75 employer can investigate work-related misconduct so long as any search is justified at inception and is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it in the first place. Indeed. Even conceding for a moment that there is no such administrative policy. “selling” cases and aiding parties with pending cases. and therefore evidence found during warrantless search of the computer was admissible in prosecution for child pornography. indeed. The initial remote search of the hard drive of petitioner’s computer. That said text messages were not investigated for lack of any verifiable leads and details sufficient to warrant an investigation. otherwise the general public would not have any trust and confidence in it. It bears emphasis that the Commission pursued the search in its capacity as a government employer and that it was undertaken in connection with an investigation involving a work-related misconduct. in contravention of the express policy of the agency. the reasonableness of its actions. as it was grievously disturbing.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Regional Office IV (CSCRO IV) such as. his computer tower and floppy disks were taken and examined. that is. 11. We quote with approval the CSC’s discussion on That the anonymous letter provided the lead and details as it pinpointed the persons and divisions involved in the alleged irregularities happening in CSCRO IV. the ephemeral nature of computer files. The nature of the imputation was serious.[52] Under the facts obtaining. staff working in another government agency. At the inception of the search. if only to arrest or limit any possible adverse consequence or fall-out. a search was forthwith conducted involving the computer resources in the concerned regional office. 10. IV was “lawyering” for parties having pending cases with the said regional office or in the Commission. on the same date that the complaint was received. all done during office hours and involved the use of government properties. In that case. the computers would be a likely starting point in ferreting out incriminating evidence. consistent as it were with the guidelines That in view of the seriousness of the allegations of irregularities happening in CSCRO IV and its effect on the integrity of the Commission. Thus. render it less effective in fulfilling its mandate as an impartial and objective dispenser of administrative justice. there is no doubt in the mind of the Commission that the search of Pollo’s computer has successfully passed the test of reasonableness for warrantless searches in the workplace as enunciated in the above-discussed American authorities. they could easily be destroyed at a click of a ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . one of the circumstances exempted from the warrant requirement. When the supervisor confirmed that defendant had used his computer to access the prohibited websites. It would undeniably cast clouds of doubt upon the institutional integrity of the Commission as a quasi-judicial agency. I decided to form a team of Central Office staff to back up the files in the computers of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) and Legal Division. then such a case would have shattering repercussions. the government employee had no legitimate expectation of privacy as to the use and contents of his office computer. That it was the computers that were subjected to the search was justified since these furnished the easiest means for an employee to encode and store documents. it was held that where a government agency’s computer use policy prohibited electronic messages with pornographic content and in addition expressly provided that employees do not have any personal privacy rights regarding their use of the agency information systems and technology. as well as the subsequent warrantless searches was held as valid under the O’Connor ruling that a public established by O’Connor: Considering the damaging nature of the accusation. Concomitantly. A formal administrative investigation ensued and later search warrants were secured by the police department. in the 2004 case decided by the US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

we now proceed attending to personal cases. using office supplies. contention that O’Connor and Simons are not relevant because the present case does not The above case is to be distinguished from the case at bar because. the Court cannot use the evidence obtained from his personal computer against him for it violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. the computer of petitioner’s computer was justified there being reasonable ground for suspecting from which the personal files of herein petitioner were retrieved is a government- that the files stored therein would yield incriminating evidence relevant to the issued computer. 2007 on Computer Use Policy. vitiated with unconstitutionality. Morales. the evidence derived from the questioned search are deemed admissible. Morales should be found guilty of gross All in all. Consequently. As already mentioned. It was a reasonable exercise of the managerial prerogative of the Commission as an employer aimed at ensuring its operational effectiveness and efficiency by going after the work-related misfeasance of its employees. In addition. necessitated drastic and immediate action. apart from the pleadings. unlike involve a criminal offense like child pornography. but with Worthy to mention. failed to establish that petitioner had a reasonable The Court is not unaware of our decision in Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. The team was able to access charges and dismissing him from the service. The Court found no evidence to support the claim of OCA that they were able to obtain the subject pleadings with the consent of Atty. Morales) who was investigated on the basis Having determined that the personal files copied from the office computer of an anonymous letter alleging that he was consuming his working hours filing and of petitioner are admissible in the administrative case against him. American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. of the search and the concomitant retrieval of files from his computer. Morales. too. Morales as no one from the OCC personnel who were interviewed would give a categorical and positive statement affirming the charges against Atty. along with other court personnel also charged in the same case.[53] misconduct. Morales may have fallen short of the exacting standards required of every court employee. as in fact the latter immediately filed an administrative case against the persons who conducted the spot investigation. were on hand to observe the process until its completion. hence government property the use of which the CSC has absolute investigation being conducted by CSC as government employer of such misconduct right to regulate and monitor. Such relationship of the petitioner with the item subject of the anonymous complaint. Pointedly. equipment and utilities. The Court En Banc held that while Atty. the Commission is convinced that the warrantless search done on computer assigned to Pollo was not. one filed in the CA and another in the RTC of Manila. in any way. notably the existence of CSC MO 10. both in the name of another lawyer. the Court had no choice but to dismiss the charges against him for insufficiency of evidence. The OCA disagreed with the report of the Investigating Judge that there was no evidence to support the charge against Atty. This situation clearly falls under the exception seized (office computer) and other relevant factors and circumstances under to the warrantless requirement in administrative searches defined in O’Connor. Clerk of Court. Metropolitan Trial Court expectation of privacy in the office computer assigned to him. The OCA recommended that Atty.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 73 of 75 button. to hold him administratively liable. of Manila[54]involving a branch clerk (Atty. is the fact that the Commission effected the warrantless search in an open and transparent manner. Morales’ personal computer and print two documents stored in its hard drive. the search the former which involved a personal computer of a court employee. to impose the need to comply with the probable cause requirement would invariably defeat the purpose of the wok-related investigation. retrieved from the unduly confiscated personal computer of Atty. Petitioner’s claim of violation of his constitutional right to privacy must necessarily fail. Officials and some employees of the regional office. who happened to be in the vicinity. Atty. through text messaging. We likewise find no merit in his questioning the validity of the investigation and specifically invoking his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN . S. Morales. the respondent himself was duly notified. which turned out to be two pleadings. Morales’ computer was seized and taken in custody of the OCA but was later ordered released on his motion. The OCA to the issue of whether the CSC was correct in finding the petitioner guilty of the conducted a spot investigation aided by NBI agents. His other argument invoking the privacy of communication and correspondence under Section 3(1). 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. And as there is no other evidence. order to the MISO to first retrieve the files stored therein. Miguel Morales. Atty.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests BILL OF RIGHTS (PART 8) Page 74 of 75 ABUBAKAR-ANG-BALICAS-BASCONCILLO-CABRERA-CALDINO-CATBAGAN-COSICO-CRUZ-DIZON-GERONILLA-GODUCO ILAGAN-JAVIER-JOAQUIN-JOSOL-LUCAYLUCAY-MANGUNAY-MARAVILLA-MEJIA-MERIS-MORAL-MUNOZ-NITURA ORIOSTE-PAAYAS-PASTORES-RIGOR-SAGUINSIN-SICCUAN-SIMBRE-TOLENTINO(JAY)-TOLENTINO(JULIE)-UY-VILLASIN .

i ii iii iv v vi .