You are on page 1of 11




Singson v. NLRC aiguel Singson, an employee of W/N the subsequent NLRC NO. The officer who reviews a Requisites of procedural due
GR No. 122389 PAL, was dismissed from his job decision is valid even if the same case on appeal should not be the process in administrative
19 June 1997 as Traffic Representative labor arbiter who previously same person whose decision is proceedings:
d  Passenger when after an decided on the case actively the subject of review. Singson (a) the right to a hearing, which
investigation, it was found that participated during the was denied due process when includes the right to present
he solicited money from a proceedings of PAL¶s appeal. Commissioner Aquino one¶s case and submit evidence
passenger without issuing a participated, as presiding in support thereof;
receipt. commissioner of the Second (b) the tribunal must consider the
Division of the NLRC, in evidence presented;
Upon appeal to the NLRC, labor reviewing PAL¶s appeal. The (c) the decision must have
arbiter Raul Aquino declared infirmity of the resolution was something to support itself;
Singson¶s dismissal illegal. On not cured by the fact that (d) the evidence must be
appeal by PAL, the division Singson¶s aR was denied by 2 substantial;
assigned to the case included the commissioners and without (e) the decision must be based on
same Raul Aquino, but this time participation of Aquino. the evidence presented at the
as Commissioner. The division Singson¶s right to an impartial hearing, or at least contained in
ruled in favor of PAL. review of his appeal started from the record and disclosed to the
the time he filed his appeal. He is parties affected;
When Singson filed a motion for not only entitled to an impartial (f) the tribunal or body or any of
reconsideration, it was denied by tribunal in the resolution of his its judges must act on its own
the two members of the division, aR²his right is to an impartial independent consideration of the
without the participation of review of three commissioners. law and facts of the controversy,
Aquino. The denial of Singson¶s right to and not simply accept the views
an impartial review of his appeal of a subordinate; and
is not an innocuous (harmless) (g) the board of body should, in
error; it negated his right to due all controversial questions,
process. render its decision in such
manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various
issues involved, and the reason
for the decision rendered.

Administrative due process

(a) the right to notice, be it actual
or constructive, of the institution
of the proceedings that may
affect a person¶s legal right;
(b) reasonable opportunity to
appear and defend his rights and

to introduce witnesses and

relevant evidence in his favor;
(c) a tribunal so constituted as to
give him reasonable assurance of
honesty and impartiality, and one
of competent jurisdiction;
(d) a finding or decision by that
tribunal supported by substantial
evidence presented at the hearing
or at least ascertained in the
records or disclosed to the

The reviewing officer must

perforce be other than the officer
whose decision is under review.
Parada v. Veneracion Parada was being tried for 4 W/N Parada was denied due YES. It is worthy to stress that No less than the Constitution
Aa No. RTJ-96-1353 counts of estafa. He was on bail, process. due process of law in judicial provides that no person shall be
11 aarch 1997 and bonded with Eastern proceedings requires that the held to answer for a criminal
{  Assurance and Surety Corp. accused must be given an offense without due process of
(EASCO) When he changed his opportunity to e heard. He has law. A violation therefore of any
residence, he informed EASCO the right to be present and defend of the rights accorded the
and the court formally through in person at every stage of the accused constitutes a denial of
counsel. proceedings. Incidentally, the due process of law.
right to a hearing carries with it
When his case was re-raffled to the right to be notified of every Unless charged with offenses
the sala of Judge Veneracion, a incident of the proceedings in punishable by 
notice of hearing was sent to his court. Notice to a party is and the evidence of guilt is
old address. When Parada was essential to enable him to adduce strong, all persons detained,
unable to appear on the date of his own evidence and to meet arrested, or otherwise under the
the hearing, Judge Veneracion and refute the evidence custody of the law are entitled to
ordered his arrest, issuing a submitted by the other party. bail as a matter of right.
warrant ³with no bail Parada was not duly notified of
recommended.´ His bond was the trial date as the notice of
also confiscated, and a trial in hearing was sent to his former
absentia ensued. address. It is thus an invalid
service and cannot in any way
When Parada¶s counsel moved bind him. The circumstantial
that they be allowed to present setting of the instant case as
evidence, it was denied because weighed by the basic standards
his failure to appear was taken as of fair play impels us to so hold
a waiver of his right to adduce that the trial in absentia of
evidence. Parada and his subsequent


conviction are tainted with the

Subsequently, Parada was vice of nullity, for evidently
convicted and the decision was Parada was denied due process
promulgated despite his absence. of law.
On appeal, the CA reversed the
RTC decision, declaring it to be
null and void for not affording
Parada the right to rebut the
prosecution¶s evidence against
him, and to adduce evidence in
his own favor.

Parada then filed a complaint for

Judge Veneracion¶s dismissal for
being ignorant of the law,
leading to Parada¶s conviction
and premature incarceration. The
Office of the Court
Administrator found that Judge
Veneracion did indeed deny
Parada due process.
People v. de Guzman Ricardo de Guzman was accused W/N de Guzman should be made NO. The factual recitals in the It has long been the rule that
GR No. 134844-45 of having raped 13-year-old to suffer the death penalty. two Informations as to how the qualifying circumstances must be
17 January 2001 aarlyn Perlas, the daughter of crime of rape was committed in properly pleaded in the
a  his live-in partner. He was then the case at bar, failed to indictment. If the same are not
sentenced to suffer 2 death specifically allege the qualifying pleaded but proved, they shall be
penalties. circumstances which would considered only as aggravating
elevate rape to a heinous crime, circumstances, since the latter
In the automatic review, de warranting the imposition of the admit of proof even if not
Guzman stressed that he could death penalty. It would be a pleaded.
not have been sentenced to 2 denial of the right of the accused
death penalties when the to be informed of the charges The death penalty may be
information did not allege that he against him and, consequently, a imposed only if the information
was the common-law spouse of denial of due process, if he is for rape has alleged and the
the victim¶s mother. charged with simple rape and be evidence has proven both the age
convicted of its qualified form of the victim and her relationship
punishable with death, although to the offender.
the attendant circumstance
qualifying the offense and
resulting in capital punishment
was not alleged in the indictment
on which he was arraigned.
People v. Hon. Laguio Lawrence Wang was accused of W/N an appeal by the People YES. Although a judgment of The right to appeal is neither a


GR No. 128587 illegal possession of firearms, as from a judgment of acquittal acquittal in a criminal case may natural right nor a part of due
16 aarch 2007 well as the violation of the would deny Wang of due be assailed in a petition for process, it being merely a
 Dangerous Drugs Act and the process. certiorari under Rule 65 of the statutory privilege which may be
Comelec Gun Ban. Rules of Court (upon a clear exercised only in the manner
showing by the petitioner that the provided for by law.
During his arraignment, he lower court, in acquitting the
interposed a continuing objection accused, committed not merely Appeal in criminal cases throws
to the admissibility of evidence reversible errors of judgment but the whole records of the case
obtained by the police also grave abuse of discretion wide open for review by the
operatives. He then filed a amounting to lack or excess of appellate court, that is why any
demurrer of evidence, which was jurisdiction or a denial of due appeal from a judgment of
subsequently granted by the process, thus rendering the acquittal necessarily puts the
court. It was declared that the judgment void), what the accused in double jeopardy.
confiscation of evidence was petitioner did was to file an
illegal, and Wang was acquitted. appeal by way of a petition for An order granting an accused¶s
review on certiorari under Rule demurrer to evidence is a
45 raising a pure question of law. resolution of the case on the
For being the wrong remedy merits, and it amounts to an
taken, the petition is outrightly acquittal. The general rule in this
dismissible. The Court cannot jurisdiction is that a judgment of
reverse the assailed dismissal acquittal is final and
order of the trial court by appeal unappealable.
without violating Wang¶s right
against double jeopardy. Generally, any further
prosecution of the accused after
an acquittal would violate the
constitutional proscription on
double jeopardy. The exceptions
(a)V when the prosecution
is denied due process
of law; and
(b)V when the trial court
commits grave abuse
of discretion in
dismissing a criminal
case by granting the
accused¶s demurrer to

Where there is a violation of

basic constitutional rights, courts
are ousted of their jurisdiction.


Legal jeopardy attaches only:

(a)V upon valid indictment
(b)V before a competent
(c)V after arraignment
(d)V a valid plea having
been entered
(e)V the case was dismissed
or otherwise
terminated without the
express consent of the

Rationale behind double

jeopardy: to afford the defendant,
who has been acquitted, final
repose and safeguard him from
government oppression through
the abuse of criminal processes.



Estrada v. Sandiganbayan Erap Estrada, the highest-ranking W/N RA 7080 violates the rights NO. A statute or act may be said to be
GR No. 148560 official to be prosecuted under of the accused to due process. 1. As it is written, the Plunder vague when it lacks
19 November 2001 RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Law contains ascertainable comprehensible standards that
   Penalizing the Crime of standards and well-defined men of common intelligence
Plunder), assails the parameters which would enable must necessarily guess at its
constitutionality of the said law. the accused to determine the meaning and differ in its
nature of his violation. In fact, application. In such instance, the
He avers that it violates the the Information itself closely statute is repugnant to the
fundamental rights of the tracks the language of the law, Constitution in 2 respects: it
accused to due process and to be indicating with reasonable violates due process for failure to
informed of the nature and cause certainty the various elements of accord persons, especially the
of the accusation against him, as the offense which Erap is alleged parties targeted by it, fair notice


the said law (a) suffers from the to have committed. Thus, Erap is of what conduct to avoid; and, it
vice of vagueness; (b) dispenses completely informed of the leaves law enforcers unbridled
with the ³reasonable doubt´ accusations against him as to discretion in carrying out its
standard in criminal enable him to prepare for an provisions and becomes an
prosecutions; and (c) abolishes intelligent defense. A fortiori, he arbitrary flexing of the
the element of    in cannot feign ignorance of what government muscle. But the
crimes already punishable under the Plunder Law is all about. doctrine does not apply as
the RPC. Being one of the Senators who against legislations that are
voted for its passage, he must be merely couched in imprecise
aware that the law was language but which nonetheless
extensively deliberated upon by specify a standard though
the Senate and its appropriate defectively phrased; or to those
committees by reason of which that are apparently ambiguous
he even registered his affirmative yet fairly applicable to certain
vote with full knowledge of its types of activities. The first may
legal implications and sound be ³saved´ by proper
constitutional anchorage. construction, while no challenge
2. The thesis that Sec. 4 of the may be mounted as against the
law does away with proof of second whenever directed
each and every component of the against such activities. With
crime suffers from a dismal more reason, the doctrine cannot
misconception of the import of be invoked where the assailed
that provision. The legislature statute is clear and free from
did not refashion the standard ambiguity.
quantum of proof in the crime of
plunder. The burden still remains The doctrines of strict scrutiny,
with the prosecution to prove overbreadth, and vagueness are
beyond any iota of doubt every analytical tools developed for
fact or element necessary to testing ³on their faces´ statutes
constitute the crime²a number in free speech cases or, as they
of acts sufficient to form a are called in American law, First
combination or series which Amendment cases. They cannot
would constitute a pattern and be made to do service when what
involving an amount of at least is involved is a criminal statute.
3. Plunder is a     Procedural measures do not
which requires proof of criminal define or establish any
intent. With regard to the charge substantive right in favor of the
of conspiracy to commit plunder, accused but only operates in
the prosecution need not prove furtherance of a remedy. It is
each and every criminal act done only a means to an end, an aid to
to further the scheme or substantive law.
conspiracy, it being enough if it


proves beyond reasonable doubt

a pattern of overt or criminal acts
indicative of the overall unlawful
scheme or conspiracy. As far as
the acts constituting the pattern
are concerned, however, the
elements of the crime must be
proved and the requisite  
 must be shown.

Thus, RA 7080¶s
constitutionality is upheld.
Adiong v. COaELEC Blo Umpar Adiong assails W/N COaELEC may prohibit NO. The COaELEC¶s When faced with borderline
GR No. 103956 COaELEC Resolution No. 2347 the posting of decals and stickers prohibition on posting of decals situations where freedom to
31 aarch 1992 regarding the prohibition of on ³mobile´ places, public or and stickers on ³mobile´ places speak by a candidate or party and
J   posting of decals and stickers in private, and limit their location whether public or private except freedom to know on the part of
³mobile´ places like cars and or publication to the authorized in designated areas provided for the electorate are invoked against
other moving vehicles. He avers posting areas that it fixes. by the COaELEC itself is null actions intended for maintaining
that such prohibition is violative and void on constitutional clean and free elections, the
of Section 82 of the Omnibus grounds. police, local officials, and
Election Code and Section 11(a) 1. The prohibition unduly COaELEC should lean in favor
of RA 6466. In addition, he infringes on the citizen¶s of freedom.
believes that with the ban on fundamental right of free speech
radio, television and print enshrined in the Constitution. Property consists of the free use,
political advertisements, he, 2. The questioned prohibition enjoyment, and disposal of a
being a neophyte in the field of premised on the statute and as person¶s acquisitions without
politics stands to suffer grave couched in the resolution is void control or diminution save by the
and irreparable injury with this for overbreadth²it offends the law of the land.
prohibition. The posting of constitutional principle that a
decals and stickers on cars and governmental purpose to control è 
other moving vehicles would be or prevent activities {       ù
his last medium to inform the constitutionally subject to state 
electorate that he is a senatorial regulations may not be achieved 
candidate. Finally, he states that by means which sweep 
as of the date of the petition, he unnecessarily broadly and 
has not received any notice from thereby invade the area of 
any of the Election Registrars in protected freedoms. 
the entire country as to the 3. The constitutional objective to 
location of the supposed give a rich candidate and a poor 
³Comelec Poster Areas.´ candidate equal opportunity to 
inform the electorate as regards 
their candidacies is not impaired 
by posting decals and stickers on 


cars and other private vehicles. 

Compared to the paramount 
interest of the State in granting 
freedom of expression, any 
financial considerations behind 
the regulation are of marginal 

W/N this prohibition infringes on YES. The restriction as to where 
the people¶s right to due process. the decals and stickers should be 
posted is so broad that it 
encompasses even the citizen¶s 
private property, which in this 
case is a privately-owned 
vehicle. In consequence of this 
prohibition, another cardinal rule 
prescribed by the Constitution 
would be violated. Section 1, 
Article III of the Constitution 
provides that no person shall be 
deprived of his property without 
due process of law. In the 
posting of decals and stickers on 
cars and other moving vehicles, 
the candidate needs the consent 
of the owner of the vehicle. In 
such a case, the prohibition 
would not only deprive the 
owner who consents to such 
posting of the decals and stickers 
the use of his property but more 
important, in the process, it 
would deprive the citizen of his 
right to free speech and 

Concurring:   è 
Instead of limiting the {
dissemination of information on    
the election issues and the 
qualifications of those vying for     èa
public office, what the    

COaELEC should concentrate         


on is the education of the voters            

on the proper exercise of their     
suffrages. This function is part of   
its constitutional duty to   
supervise and regulate elections 
and to prevent them from     
deteriorating into popularity     èa 
contests where the victors are    

chosen on the basis not of their  
platforms and competence but on   
their ability to sing or dance
(Bokal?), or play a musical
instrument, or shoot a basketball,
or crack a toilet joke (Kap?), or
exhibit some such dubious talent
irrelevant to their ability to
discharge a public office.
Sales v. Sandiganbayan Reynolan Sales, the incumbent W/N the Ombudsman followed NO. Due process requires hearing
GR No. 143802 mayor of Pagudpud, shot down the proper procedure in 1. The supposed preliminary before an impartial and
16 November 2001 the former mayor and his conducting a preliminary investigation was conducted in disinterested tribunal so that no
 !  political rival, Atty. Rafael investigation. installments by at least 3 judge shall preside in a case in
Benemerito, in an alleged different investigating officers, which he is not wholly free,
shootout after a heated W/N Sales was given an none of whom completed the disinterested, impartial and
altercation between them in opportunity to be heard and to preliminary investigation. There independent.
1999. Sales thereafter submit controverting evidence. was not one continuous
surrendered and placed himself proceeding but rather a case of The purpose of a preliminary
under the custody of the passing the buck, so to speak, the investigation or a previous
municipal office then asked to be last one being the Ombudsman inquiry of some kind, before an
brought to the Provincial PNP hurriedly throwing the buck to accused person is placed on trial,
Headquarters. The following Sandiganbayan. is to secure the innocent against
day, a criminal Information for 2. The charge against Sales is hasty, malicious, and oppressive
murder was filed against him. murder, a non-bailable offense. prosecution and to protect him
The gravity of the offense alone, from an open and public
not to mention the fact that the accusation of a crime, from the
principal accused is an trouble, expenses and anxiety of
incumbent mayor whose a public trial. It is also intended
imprisonment during the to protect the state from having
pendency of the case would to conduct useless and expensive
deprive his constituents of their trials. While the right is statutory
duly-elected municipal rather than constitutional in its
executive, should have merited a fundament, it is a component part
deeper, and more thorough of due process in criminal
preliminary investigation. The justice. The right to have a


Ombudsman instead swallowed preliminary investigation

hook, line and sinker the conducted before being bound
resolution and recommendation over to trial for a criminal
of Graft Investigation Officer offense and hence formally at
Vivar. risk of incarceration or some
other penalty, is not a mere
formal or technical right, it is a
substantive right. To deny the
accused¶s claim to a preliminary
investigation would be to deprive
him of the full measure of his
right to due process.

Preliminary investigation is in
effect a realistic judicial
appraisal of the merits of the
case. Sufficient proof of guilt of
the accused must be adduced so
that when the case is tried, the
trial court may not be bound as a
matter of law to order an
acquittal. A preliminary
investigation has been called a
judicial inquiry. It is a judicial
proceeding. An act becomes a
judicial proceeding when there is
an opportunity to be heard and
for the production of and
weighing of evidence, and a
decision is rendered thereon.

The authority of a prosecutor or

investigating officer duly
empowered to preside or to
conduct a preliminary
investigation is no less than a
municipal judge or even a
regional trial court judge. While
the investigating officer, strictly
speaking, is not a judge by the
nature of his functions, he is and
must be considered to be a quasi-
judicial officer because a


preliminary investigation is
considered a judicial proceeding.
A preliminary investigation
should therefore be scrupulously
(thoroughly) conducted so that
the constitutional right to liberty
of a potential accused can be
protected from any material

A preliminary investigation
serves not only the purposes of
the State. aore important, it is a
part of the guarantee of freedom
and fair play which are the
birthrights of all who live in our

The filing of a motion for

reconsideration is an integral part
of the preliminary investigation
proper. The denial thereof is
tantamount to denial of the right
itself to a preliminary