You are on page 1of 4

Roco vs Contreras

Facts: Domingo Roco was engaged in the business of buying and selling dressed
chicken. Sometime in 1993, he purchased his supply of dressed chicken from private
respondent Cals Poultry Supply Corporation (Cals Corporation, for short), a domestic
corporation controlled and managed by one Danilo Yap. As payment for his purchases,
Roco drew five (5) checks payable to Cals Corporation against his account with the
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB). Cals Corporation deposited the
checks in its account with PCIB but the bank dishonored them for having been drawn
against a closed account. Thereafter, Cals Corporation filed criminal complaints against
petitioner for violation of Batas Pambasa Blg. 22 (BP 22), otherwise known as the
Bouncing Checks Law. fter preliminary investigation, five (5) informations for violation of
BP 22 were filed against Roco before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Roxas
City, thereat docketed as Crim. Cases No. 94-2172-12 to 94-2176-12, all of which were
raffled to Branch 2 of said court but even before trial could commence, Roco filed with
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) at Iloilo City a denunciation letter against Cals
Corporation for the latters alleged violation of Section 258 in relation to Section 263 of
the National Internal Revenue Code in that it failed to issue commercial invoices on its
sales of merchandise. Upon BIRs investigation, it was found that Cals Corporations
sales on account were unavoidable, hence, the corporation had to defer the issuance of
Sales Invoices until the purchases of its customers were paid in full and the
investigation disclosed that the same could not, as yet, be issued by the corporation
precisely because the checks drawn and issued by him in payment of his purchases
were dishonored by PCIB for the reason that the checks were drawn against a closed
account. Accordingly, the BIR found noprima facia evidence of tax evasion against Cals
Corporation then trial of the criminal cases proceeded. After the prosecution rested, the
MTCC declared the cases submitted for decision on account of Roco failure to adduce
evidence in his behalf. Later, the same court rendered a judgment of conviction against

Issue: Whether the subpoena calls for the production of specific
documents, or rather for specific proof
Held: The issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, it must appear, by clear and
unequivocal proof, that the book or document sought to be produced contains
evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court, and that the precise book,
paper or document containing such evidence has been so designated or described that
it may be identified. oing by established precedents, it thus behooves the petitioner to
first prove, to the satisfaction of the court, the relevancy and the definiteness of the
books and documents he seeks to be brought before it. Admittedly, the books and
documents that petitioner requested to be subpoenaed are designated and described in
his request with definiteness and readily identifiable. The test of definiteness, therefore,
is satisfied in this case. It is, however, in the matter of relevancy of those books and

Here. Issue: WON the Commissioner of the CID can issue warrants of arrest and if so. However. and petitioner has not shown any. at least. either by the drawer or by the drawee bank. or. would serve no purpose but to further delay the proceedings in the pending criminal cases. albeit payment of the value of the check. In their return . WON such warrants can only be issued to enforce a final order of deportation.documents to the pending criminal cases that petitioner miserably failed to discharge his burden. Summary deportation proceedings were initiated at the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) against the petitioner. Jackson vs Macalino Jackson vs. based on the hold departure order in one of the criminal cases. the respondents alleged inter alia that the detention was on the basis of the summary deportation order issued and the hold departure order of the Makati RTC. Raymond Jackson for violation of Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code. We do not find any justifiable reason. The CID then issued an order for his arrest for being an undesirable alien. The court directed its issuance as well as a return of the writ by the respondents. We stress that the gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. why this Court must have to disbelieve the factual findings of the appellate court. Jackson filed a petition for habeas corpus against the Commissioner of the CID. Roco would want it appear that the books and documents subject of his request for subpoena duces tecum are indispensable. within five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor given to the drawer is a complete defense because the prima facie presumption that the drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds or credit at the time of the issuance of the check and on its presentment for payment is thereby rebutted by such payment. The offense is already consummated from the very moment a person issues a worthless check. . relevant to prove his innocence. he could not be deported because he filed a petition to lift the summary order of deportation with the CID which had not yet been resolved. the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum or ad testificandum to compel the attendance of Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap of Cals Corporation or their duly authorized representatives. The Court disagrees. Macalino Facts: Am information was filed against an American citizen. to testify and bring with them the records and documents desired by the petitioner. In short.

it is incumbent on him to allege and prove new matter that tends to invalidate the apparent effects of such process. in the President the power of preventive arrest incident to the suspension of the privilege of the writ. the burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondents rests on the petitioner who attaches such restraints. In a motion dated and filed on March 1. The term “court” includes quasi-judicial bodies like the Deportation Board of the Bureau of Immigration. such constitute sufficient grounds for the arrest and deportation of aliens from the Philippines. 1974. the present petition of Josefina. all the 14 detainees were under surveillance as they were then identified as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines. not a judicial. Jackson was arrested and detained based on the order of the BOC which had become final and executory. 1973." After defendants' attorney had twice sought and obtained cancellation of trial settings. As a general rule. 1974 in . Padua commenced presentation of his evidence on December 6.Held: The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. It is essentially a writ of inquiry and is granted to test the right under which he is detained. 1974. Padua was litigating in forma pauperis. with the cause or causes of their arrest subjected to review by the President or the by the Review Committee created for the purpose. a PDA constitute an authority to arrest and preventively detain persons committing the aforementioned crimes. Whether the return sets forth process where on its face shows good ground for the detention of the petitioner. If it appears that the detained person is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law. the hearing of December 17. 1973. However. it should be noted that the PCO has been replaced by Preventive Detention Action (PDA) pursuant to PD 1877. based on the return of the writ by the respondents. the petition was dismissed. At the close of his examination. Padua vs Ericta FACTS : Domingo Padua. however. Based on previous jurisprudence. and on motion of defendants' counsel. Padua's counsel alleged that he had "another hearing on March 6. hence. Hence. petioner sought to recover damages for the injures suffered by his eightyear old daughter. assuming a law is necessary. 1973 was cancelled. it was plaintiff Padua's counsel who next moved for cancellation of a hearing date. Ramos. Trial of the case having been set in due course. for a period of one year. His passports were also cancelled by the US consul on the ground that they were tampered with. Sabino Padilla and 8 others out of the 14 detainees were then having a conference in the dining room at Dr. In re: Issuance of Habeas Corpus FACTS: The case is an application for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus on behalf of 14 detainees. as narrated. the previously scheduled hearing of December 12. As provided for in the said decree. Luzviminda. who pleaded sickness as ground therefor. all at 9:00 o'clock in the morning. question and that the right to bail cannot be invoked during such a period.1973 was also cancelled. the return shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint. In addition. March 7 and 13. In this case. ISSUE: Whether or not the arrests done to the present detainees are valid HELD: The suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus raises a political. He gave testimony on direct exqmination in the course of which reference was made to numerous documents. They were arrested and later transferred to a facility only the PCs know. for writ of habeas corpus. Parong's residence. Prior thereto. caused by her being hit by a truck driven by Rundio Abjaeto and owned by Antonio G. PD 1836 and LOI 1211 have vested. and trial was once more slated to "take place on March 6. mother of Sabina. again at the instance of defendants' counsel. and Padua's cross-examination was reset on December 17. engaging in subversive activities.

1974." Still.. During trial. he was convictedof the crime of murder only. result in the precipitate loss of a party's right to present evidence and either in plaintiff's being non-suited or the defendant's being pronounced liable under an ex parte judgment. since according to witnesses. capricious and oppressive. He was accused of causing such harm to a ten year old Editha Talan. Apart from filing this motion on March 1. The child's body was later found in the same area. The taking of pictures of an accused even without the assistance of counsel.Tarlac and that the cancellation would "at any rate . Issue: WON Gallarde's constitutional right against self-incrimination was violated. The desideratum of a speedy disposition of cases should not. Padua did. not of the complex crime of rape with homicide because of the lack of proof of carnal knowledge. he asked "that the hearing on March 6. Judge's action was unreasonable. It goes without saying. with his hands and knees covered with soil. Padua moved for reconsideration. he was the last person seen talking to the child. however.. but this was denied. Some reasonable deferment of the proceedings may be allowed or tolerated to the end that cases may be adjudged only after full and free presentation of evidence by all the parties. 1974 . This. if at all possible.. March 6. is not a violation of his constitutional right against selfincrimination. the when they were looking for her. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt. that is. based on circumstantial evidence. be ordered cancelled. The respondent Judge however denied the application and dismissed the case. Gallarde was seen several meters where Editha's slipper was found. the night before her death. leave plaintiff and defendants two (2) hearing dates on March 7 and 13. RULING: Courts should not brook undue delays in the ventilation and determination of causes. in the light of the attendant circumstances. . and should be as it is hereby annulled. being a purely mechanical act.The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material.. the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act." and on these premises. Postponements of trials and hearings should not be allowed except on meritorious grounds. to verbally reiterate his application for cancellation of the hearing on that day." No opposition was filed by the defendants to the motion. ISSUE : Whether or not the respondent judge erred in dismissing the case on the ground that it violates the right to a speedy disposition of cases. Also. 1974. Mrs. that that discretion must be reasonably and wisely exercised. People vs Gallarde Facts: Radel Gallarde was charged with the special complex crime of rape with homicide. It should be their constant effort to assure that litigations are prosecuted and resolved with dispatch. Held: No. and the grant or refusal thereof rests entirely in the sound discretion of the Judge. The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion. plaintiffs counsel took the additional step of sending his client's wife to the Court on the day of the trial.1974. the court rejected photographs of Gallarde immediately after the incident on the ground that "the same were taken while was already under the mercy of the police. hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. Hence. this petition. specially where the deferment would cause no substantial prejudice to any part.