Bill of Rights

DUE PROCESS ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION V. CITY OF MANILA 20 SCRA 849 Facts: The principal question in this appeal from a judgment of the lower court in an action for prohibition is whether Ordinance No. Of the City of Manila is violating of due process clause. It was alleged that Sec. 1 of the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable and violate of due process insofar as it would impose P6T fee per annum for first class motels and P4,500 for second class motels, that Sec. 2, prohibiting a person less than 18 years from being accepted in such hotels, motels, lodging houses, tavern or common inn unless accompanied by parents or a lawful guardian and making it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of such establishments to lease any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours runs counter to due process guaranty for lack of certainty and for its unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive character. Issue: Whether or not the ordinance is violative of the due process clause? Held: A Manila ordinance regulating the operation of hotels, motels and lodging houses is a police measure specifically aimed to safeguards public morals. As such it is immune from any imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police power which has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent and the less limitable of powers extending as it does to all great public needs. Mush discretion is given to municipal corporations in determining the amount of license fees to be imposed for revenue. The mere fact that some individuals in the community may be deprived of their present business or a particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the exercise of police power. There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes though a standard to which governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. The standard of due process which must exist both as a procedural and as substantive requisite to free the challenged ordinance, or any governmental action for that matter, from imputation of legal infirmity is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. It would be an affront to reason to stigmatize an ordinance enacted precisely to meet what a municipal lawmaking body considers an evil of rather serious proportions as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. What should be deemed unreasonable and what would amount to an abduction of the power to govern is inaction in the face of an admitted deterioration of the state of public morals. The provision in Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila, making it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of any hotel, motel, lodging house, tavern or common inn or the like, to lease or rent any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full payment shall be charged, cannot be viewed as a transgression against the command of due process. The prohibition is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary, because there appears a correspondence between the undeniable existence of an undesirable situation and the legislative attempt at correction. Moreover, every regulation of conduct amounts to curtailment of liberty, which cannot be absolute.


Facts: Philphos Movement for Progress, Inc (PMPI) filed with the DOLE a petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of PHILPHOS. The said petition was not opposed by PHILPHOS. In fact it submitted a position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter. Later, PMPI filed an amended petition with the Mediator-Arbiter wherein it sought to represent not only the supervisory employees of PHILPHOS but also its professional/technical and confidential employees. The parties therein agreed to submit their respective position papers and to consider the amended petition submitted for decision on the basis thereof and related documents. The Mediator-Arbiter issued an order granting the petition and directing the holding of a certification election. PHILPHOS appealed said order to the Sec. Of Labor, which appeal was denied. PHILPHOS alleged that it was denied due process in the proceedings before the Mediator-Arbiter. Issue: Whether or not PHILPHOS was denied due process? Held: The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Where, as in the instant case, PHILPHOS agreed to file its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter and to consider the case submitted for decision on the basis of the position papers filed by the parties, there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process, as PHILPHOS was afforded reasonable opportunity to present its side. Moreover, PHILPHOS could have, if it so desired, insisted on a hearing to confront and examine the witnesses of the other party. But it did not, instead, it opted to submit its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter. Besides, PHILPHOS had all opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its appeal to the Sec. Of Labor.

JAVIER VS COMELEC 144 SCRA 194 Facts: The petitioner and private were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambamnsa in the May 1984 elections. On the eve of the elections several followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed allegedly by the private respondent’s men. This heightened the tension in the province. It was in this atmosphere that the voting was held. Petitioner went to the Comelec to question the canvass of the election returns. His complaint was dismissed and private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Second Division of the body. Said decision was signed by among others. Commissioner Opinion who was previously asked to inhibit himself on the ground that he was a former law partner of private respondent Pacificador. Opinion had refused. The decision of said division is being contested by petitioner. Issue: Was there a due process observed by the COMELEC in proclaiming private respondent? Held: No. Given the general attitude of the COMELEC toward the party in power at the time and particular relationship between Opinion and private respondent, one could not be at least apprehensive, if not certain, that the decision of the body would be adverse to petitioner. Opinion’s refusal to inhibit himself cannot be justified by any criterion of propriety. This court has repeatedly demanded “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge” as the indispensable imperative of due process. To bolster that requirement, 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. They must trust the judge, otherwise they will not go to him at all. The relationship of the judge at one of the parties may color the facts and distort the law to the prejudice of a just decision. Where this is probable or even possible, due process demands that the judge inhibit himself, if only out of a sense of delicadeza. For refusing to do so, he divested the second division of the necessary vote for the questioned decision, assuming it could act and rendered proceeding null and void.

The first paragraph of Sec. it is as if he is placed in the same category as a person who has already been convicted of a crime whose penalty carries with it the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold public office. 4 provides: “Any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State. while in proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman anonymous letters suffice to start an investigation. ALMONTE VS VASQUEZ G. of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected. municipal official. or to participate in any partisan political activity therein… and the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court of military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such facts. 4 reads “… any retired elective provincial city. that the subpoena duces tecum is violative of the petitioners right against self-incrimination. whether petitioner’s right to the equal protection of laws have been violated.” Issue: Whether or not the aforecited provisions of Sec. Held: Par. who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 yrs. 4 of BP 52 are violative of the constitutional principles of equal protection and presumption of innocence. 1. including acts amounting to subversion. such as vouchers for the whole plantilla of EIIN for 1988” and to enjoin him from enforcing his orders. The 2nd par. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective office from which he retired. 1995 Facts: This is a petition for certiorari. As adverted to in many decisions. 2. rebellion or other similar crimes. 4 of the said law on the ground that it violates the equal protection clause and the constitutional presumption of innocence. since a candidate is disqualified from running for a public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed against him. shall not be qualified to be a candidate for any of the offices covered by this Act. Of Sec 4 is VALID. .” On the other hand. The distinction here is substantial. par. Petitioners complain that in all forum and tribunal the aggrieved parties can only hale respondents via their verified complaints and sworn statements with their identities fully disclosed. violates the constitutional guaranty of presumption of innocence. of Sec 4 however. No. whether petitioners can be ordered to produce documents relating to personal services and salary vouchers of EIIB employees on the plea that such documents are “classified”. In this wise. provided it complies with the requisites what is prohibited is a classification which is arbitrary and unreasonable.EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DUMLAO VS COMELEC 96 SCRA 392 Facts: BP 52 was enacted in connection with January 30. The subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Ombudsman in connection with his investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing savings from unfilled positions in the EIIB has been illegally disbursed. May 23. This is so. 2 of Sec.R. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective office to which he seeks to be elected. the equal protection clauses does not prohibit classification. 3. insureccion. The petitioners question Sec. requiring the chief accountant and record custodian of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce “all documents relating to Personal Services Funds for the year 1988 and all evidence. 1980 Local Elections. prohibition and mandamus to annul the subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by respondent Ombudsman. petitioners move to quash the subpoena duces tecum on the following issues: 1. 95367. Sec 4 of BP 52 does not transgress the constitutional guarantee mentioned the first par.

b) 1 hand set c) handset with antenna …Petitioners prays that the search warrant and the seizure of his personal effects be declared illegal. It is enough to state that the documents required to be produced in this case are public records and those to whom the subpoena duces tecum is directed are government officials in whose possession or custody the documents are. Issue: Whether or not the search warrant was legal. no similar excuse can be made for privilege resting on other consideration. The phrase “subject to such limitations as may be provided by law” refers to such limitations as may be provided by Congress or in the absence thereof to such limitations as may be imposed by the courts. 12. hand grenades.000. dynamite sticks and subversive documents”. while in cases which involve state secrets. 1988 P Sgt. In the case at bar. Consequently. unjust. XI). At around 6:30pm of September 9. delay or dismiss investigations held against them. the application was granted by the MTCC which allowed the seizure of the items specified in the application. Likewise. The Office of the Ombudsman is different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who through official pressure and influence can quash. 1988. . diplomatic or other national security secrets but on a general public interest in the confidentiality of his conversation. EIIB’s function is the gathering and evaluation of intelligence reports and information regarding illegal activities affecting the national economy. Art. The issuance of the subpoena duces tecum would not violate petitioners right against self-incrimination.Issue: Were petitioners correct in forwarding the aforementioned issues? Held: Where the claim of confidentiality does not vest on the need to protect military. improper or inefficient”. there is no claim that the military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the personnel of the EIIB. Rather than referring to the form of complaints. Second. . There is a violation of petitioners right to equal protection of laws since in the first place the procedure for the proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman is provided for in the Constitution itself. it is apparent that in permitting the filing of complaints “in any form and in any manner” the framers of the Constitution took into account the well known reticence of the people which keep them from complaining against official wrongdoing.45 pistol. no law or regulation was shown which considers personnel records of EIIB as classified information. alleging that he received information that petitioner had in his possession at his course “M-16 armalite rifle. ART. 2 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES TAMBASEN VS PEOPLE Facts: On August 31. SEC.III. Natal applied for the issuance of a search warrant from the MTCC. which articles were used or intended to be used for illegal purposes. a police team searched the house of petitioner and seized the following articles: a) 2 envelopes containing cash in the total amount of P14. courts have declined to find it in the constitution an absolute privilege of the President against a subpoena considered essential to the enforcement of criminal laws. Indeed. it may be sufficient to determine from the circumstances of the case that there is reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters without compelling production. the phrase “ in an appropriate case in Art XI Sec 12 means any case concerning official act or omission which is alleged to be illegal. The Constitution expressly enjoins the Ombudsman to act on any complaint file in any form or manner concerning official acts or omissions (Sec. On the same day.

they opened the padlock of the door leading to the children’s room. The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those and only those. The items taken. Art. III requires that a search warrant should particularly describe the thing to be seized. has been illegally seized from petitioners. The permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. the alleged poseur-buyer had to return to the police station and inform the raiding team that he had already bought the shabu from the accused to implement the search warrant. Mrs. 1990 Capt. However. one in Quezon City. VEROY VS LAYAGUE 210 SCRA 97 Facts: Spouses Leopoldo and Ma. On April 12. the search warrant specifically authorized only the search and seizure of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as shabu and its paraphernalia but the raiding team also seized certain firearms. which prohibits the issuance of a search warrant for more than one specific offense. the raiding team proceeded to the house of the accused to implement the search warrant. Section 2. Held: No. Capt. the keys to the Master’s and children’s bedroom were retained by the Veroy so the caretaker could not enter those rooms. Thereafter. be present during the search.Held: The search warrant violates Section 3. printed materials of RAM-SFP and a book entitled “Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nation”. When they were already inside the house. Thereupon. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. Inside the children’s room.45 caliber handgun with a magazine fully loaded. The permission given by Mrs. Moreover. As to the implementation of the search warrant. they recovered a . violative of their constitutional rights. by their seizure of articles not described in the search warrant. Veroy to break open the door of their residence was merely for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged rebel soldiers. the police acted beyond the parameters of their authority under the search warrant. . The fact that the members of the police team were doing their task of pursuing subversives is not a valid excuse for the illegal seizure. As a consequence of which. The search is not valid. As to the buy-bust operations. a long time friend of the Veroys. they are inadmissible in evidence. where they are presently residing and another in Davao City. Veroy gave her permission on the condition that Major Macasaet. Mrs. the money which was not indicated in the search warrant. Veroy to ask permission from the latter if he could enter and search the house in Davao City as there was information that the said house was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. the Veeroy spouses were charged under PD 1866. Obrero and Major Macasaet conducted the search. Obrero called the telephone from Davao City. There appears to be certain irregularities in the procedure of the buy-bust operations and in the implementation of the search warrant. Issue: Is the search valid? Whether or not the materials taken are admissible in evidence. therefore products of an illegal search. were. The house in Davao City was entrusted to caretakers. PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO 234 SCRA 246 Facts: Private respondent was charged and convicted of the Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions and illegal sale of regulated Drugs in 2 separate criminal cases filed against him with the RTC of Cavite. As such. The usual procedure in a buy-bust operation is for the police officers to arrest the pusher of drugs at the very moment he hands over the dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer. and giving remedy against such usurpation when attempted. Clearly then. The same constitutional provision is also aimed at preventing violations of security in person and property and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home. particularly described in the search warrant to leave the officers of the law no discretion regarding what articles they should seize to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made and abuses may not be committed. Luisa Veroy owned 2 houses.

2. PEOPLE VS GALVEZ GR. 2001 Facts: The incident happened one evening at a local fair which was illuminated by fluorescent lights. Larry saw Romy fall to the ground seriously wounded. The accused was then taken the police headquarters for further investigation. Initial police investigation showed that there were six suspects but they could not be found in their respective residences. In fact the victims brother Rey told the police that Manny was not the one who stabbed his brother and should be released. Accused was caught in flagrante. Al was around three arms length away and saw the entire incident. Issue: Was the marijuana inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it was the product of an unlawful search without a warrant. 136790 MARCH 26. Found inside the bag were marijuana leaves. Playing games at that time in one of the stalls throwing 25 centavo coins were Larry. Then they informed Romy’s relatives of his death. The transcript of stenographic notes reveals that there was an informer who pointed to the accused aas carrying marijuana. At 9:30 pm. Rule 126) specifically mandate that the search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. .Issue: Whether or not the firearm seized though not specifically included in the search warrant is admissible as evidence against the accused. since he was carrying a marijuana at the time of his arrest. (Sec. So the police released Manny. PEOPLE VS TANGLIBEN 184 SCRA 220 Facts: Patrolmen Quenedo and Punzalan were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal aimed not only against persons who may commit misdemeanor at said place but also on persons who may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on informations supplied by informers. Held: No. much less described with particularity. the police officer had to act quickly. Held: No. the police investigator. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence articles relating to the crime. 12 Rule 126). Then the fifth man went directly to Romy and stabbed him at the back with a knife. There was no enough time to secure a search warrant. This case also presented urgency. Said firearm.III) and the Rules of Court (Sec. The Constitution itself (sec. Thus. accused’s arrest was far from regular and legal. Faced with such on-the-spot information. in the search warrant. art. for as earlier observed. The warantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid. Inside the bus terminal bystanders informed SPO1 Lazaro. So the policeman fetched Manny and told him to go to the house of the victim. they noticed a person carrying a red travelling bag who was acting suspiciously and they confronted him. One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is a search incident to a lawful arrest. After a while five men arrived. NO. may it be maintained that the gun was seized in the course of the arrest. The person was requested to open the bag but he refused only to accede later on when the petitioner identified themselves. Larry and Danny brought Romy to the hospital where he was declared dead on arrival. having been illegally seized is not admissible in evidence. But when they arrived people just looked at manny and did not point to him as the assailant. Two of them approached Romy while the two others served as the lookout. that Manny stabbed the victim. Neither. 3. This case therefore falls squarely within the exception. Romy and Al while their companion Danny was about three meters away playing bingo. Afterwards the assailant threw the knife away and then fled with his companions. the search warrant was no authority for the police officers to seize the firearm which was not mentioned.

he was arrested without warrant. And in the case all the facts point to the culpability of Manny. Leonardo Laconico to secretly listen to the telephone conversation with Atty. On appeal. The fact that the arrest was illegal does not render the subsequent proceedings void and derive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts point to culpability of the accused. By entering a plea of not guilty and participating at the trial however. SEC. It shall be unlawful for any person. otherwise the objection is deemed waived. The tanod had no warrant of arrest when he took Manny into custody. Issue: Was Manny’s arrest legal? Held: NO. 4200). Indeed there was no warrant issued against Manny when the latter was taken into custody by the tanod. Manny was charged with murder and was denied bail. after pleading not guilty. At the trial. Manny’s arrest was illegal. Larry and Al told Rey that it was Manny who stabbed his brother as they were him and saw the entire incident. At the police station. The Intermediate Appellate Court now the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court holding that the communication between the complainant and the . the eyewitnesses pointed to Manny as the culprit. So Manny was found guilty as charged and sentence to reclusion perpetua despite his alibi and despite the fact that the knife was not found. The Barangay Tanod arrested Manny on the basis solely of what Rey told him and not because he saw Manny commit the crime charged against him. the lower court found both Gaanan and Laconico guilty of Violating Sec. the people inside the house particularly Danny. After trial on the merits. ART. which provides: “Sec. III. 1. He alleged that he was arrested not because of the positive identification of the eyewitnesses but on the basis of the hearsay testimony of Rey. The failure to present as evidence of the murder weapon is not fatal because the positive identification of the eyewitnesses is sufficient to prove the culpability of Manny. Tito Pintor through a telephone extension so as to hear personally the proposed condition without complainant’s consent. 1 of RA No. among the points raised by Manny was the legality of his arrest. not being authorized by all the parrties to any private communication or spoken word. Manny waived his right to raise the issue of the illegality of arrest. So at the instance of Rey. or otherwise decribed”. his arrest without a warrant cannot be justified. complainant charged Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA No. Considering that Manny was not committing a crime at the time he was arrested nor did the arresting officer have any personal knowledge of facts indicating that Manny committed a crime. 3 PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE GAANAN VS IAC 145 SCRA 112 Facts: Petitioner Edgardo Gaanan was requested by his client Atty. intercept or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictagraph or detecphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder.But as soon as they had left. He was positively identified as the assailant by the eyewitnesses who were found by the court to be credible. The petitioner appealed to the appellate court. 4200. to tap any wire or cable or by using any other device or arraignment to secretly overhear. Objection to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters a plea. the statements of the witnesses were prepared pointing to Manny as the assailant. Besides. the Barangay Tanod apprehended Manny and took the latter to the police headquarters.

Hence. Besides. to witness Rodrigo Esma. 1 of RA No. Held: Yes. instrument the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of telephone. Held: The unlawful refers to a “tap” of a wire or cable or the use of a “device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing. PEOPLE VS ALBOFERA 152 SCRA 123 Facts: Albofera and Lawi-an were convicted in the RTC of Davao del Sur for the murder of a forester and were sentenced to capital punishment.) ART. intercepting or recording the communication. they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping intercepting or recording a telephone conversation. that is. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use. but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts. there was nothing really self-incriminatory in the letter. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear. 4 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION .accused Laconico was private in nature and therefore covered by RA No. Albofera admitted having sent the letter to Esma. It refers to instrument whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because by their very nature. 4200. 4200. Albofera mainly pleaded that Esma change his declaration in his affidavit and testify in Albofera’s favor. a letter written in the Visayan dialect by accused Albofera. 4. intercept or recorded the spoken words. the phrase “device or arrangement” in Sec 1 of RA No. 1 of the Act such that its use to overhear a private conversation would constitute lawful interception of communications between the 2 parties using the telephone line. It is a rule in statutory construction that in order to determine the true intent of the legislative. Issue: Whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Sec. their alleged participation therein having been found by the trial court to have proved by circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. the accused assails the trial court’s decision on the ground of among others. Issue: Whether or not the admission of such letter as evidence was valid. Art. On appeal. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. III. Albofera contends that the admissibility thereof was specifically excluded under Sec. the statute should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions. that the petitioner overheard such communication and that the extension telephone which was used by the petitioner to overhear the telephone conversation is covered in the term “device” as provided in the RA No. An extension telephone cannot be place in the same category as a Dictaphone. even if Albofera’s extra-judicial confession was disregarded as invalid. although not exclusive to that enumerated therein. should not b e construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature. IV of the 1973 Constitution on the Privacy of Communication and Correspondence. and Esma produced such letter in the course of his testimony before the trial court. while under detention. (NOTE: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of conviction of the trial court based on circumstantial evidence of which Esma’s testimony was much noted for its worthiness. a friend of Albofera. 4200. Albofera’s contention is untenable. There was no direct evidence linking both accused to the crime charged. SEC. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. The production of the letter by the prosecution was not the result of an unlawful search and seizure nor was it through unwarranted intrusion or invasion into Albofera’s privacy. Nothing Albofera stated in this letter was taken against him in assiving at a determination of his culpability. dictagraph or other devices enumerated in Sec. asking Esma to testify in favor of Albofera.

Issue: Whether the “balancing of interest test” or the “clear and present danger test” be applied. The lower court then issued a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioner company. The technical effect of Art IX-C. The assailed provision is limited in the duration of its applicability and enforceability in time to election period. (Art IX-C.that a statute is presumed to be constitutional and that the party asserting its unconstitutionality must discharge the burden of clearly and convincingly proving that assertion. It is limited in scope of application. For it is precisely in the unlimited purchase of print space and radio and television time that the resources of the financially affluent candidates are likely to make a crucial difference. For Philippines and International release. Petitioners argue that the provision violates and invades the constitutional guarantees comprising Freedom of Expression. who played a major role in the events proposed to be filmed. and donation of print space or airtime for campaign and other report or commentary or other coverage that. The constitution itself. VS CAPULONG 160 SCRA 861 Facts: Petitioner Ayer Production Pty. For supervision or regulation of the operations of media enterprises is scarcely inconceivable without accompanying limitation. in responsible media. The Court then granted a limited temporary restraint order partially enjoining the implementation of respondent’s judge order and the writ of preliminary injunction issued therein. time and space and the right to reply. that the prohibition is in derogation of media’s role and function to provide adequate channels of public information and public opinion relevant to election issues. although such supervision or regulation may result in some limitation of the rights of free speech and free press. Thus. Ltd. It does not limit the right of free speech and of access to mass media of the candidates themselves. The latter then filed a petition for certiorari with an urgent prayer or preliminary injunction. It applied only to sale and purchase. is not paid for by candidates advertisements of particular candidates. the applicable rule is the general time honored one. LTD. 4.NATIONAL PRESS CLUB VS COMELEC 207 SCRA 1 Facts: Petitioner in these cases are questioning the validity of Sec. bears a clear and reasonable connection with the constitutional objective. 2. 11 (6) of RA 6646 which prohibits the selling or donating space and time for political advertisements except to the COMELEC as provided under Sec. on the other hand maintained that the film would not involve the private life of the Enrile nor that of his family and that a Preliminary Injunction would amount to a prior restraint on their right of free expression. 4). and allowing the petitioners to resume producing and filming those portions of the movie which do not make any reference to private respondent Enrile or of his family or to any fictitious character based on bearing substantial resemblance or similarity to or identifiable with Enrile. During the filming of said motion picture. The limitation however. Petitioner. has expressly authorized the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of franchises or permits for the operation of media of communication and information. 3. as well as uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the used of such media facilities. 1. 5. 90 and 92 of the Omnibus Election Code. . AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. The fundamental purpose of that is to ensure equal opportunity. that it amounts to censorship. Held: No infringement of the Freedom of Expression. filed a complaint with application for Temporary Restraining Order and a writ of Preliminary Injunction with RTC of Makati seeking to stop movie production alleging that petitioners production of said movie is without his consent and over his objections constitutes a violation of his right of privacy. private respondent Juan Ponce Enrile. the historic struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA entitled “The Four Day Revolution”. in connection with “public information campaigns and forums among candidates”.4 of the Constitution may be seen to be that no presumption of invalidity arise in respect of exercises of supervisory or regulatory authority on the part of the COMELEC for the purpose of securing equal opportunity among candidates for political office.

should have followed before a broadcast station may be closed or its operations curtailed. extremely narrow class of cases in which the First Amendment’s ban on prior restraint may be. Mere conclusions are insufficient. All forms of media. When the nation is at war. Unlike readers of the printed work. DANS. Unlike in the Lagunzad case which concerned the lifestory of Moises Padilla necessarily including at least his immediate family. The clear and present danger test must take the particular circumstances of broadcast media into account. 2. All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause.that words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right to prevent. The petitioner contends that it was denied due process when the radio station was closed based on the mere allegation that it was used to incite people to sedition. In the area of national defense and foreign affairs. The respondent judge should have his hand. There was in other words. aware and so as to inform and enlighten the people. are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the clear and present danger rule. Neither Enrile nor the respondent judge knew what the completed film would precisely look like. The film is not principally about nor is it focused upon. Held: Considering that the case has become moot and academic. the executive is endowed with enormous power unchecked by the other branches of government. the man Enrile. of private respondent Enrile. no “clear and present danger” or any violation of any right to privacy that private respondent could lawfully assert. the petitioner withdraw his petition since the radio station had already been sold. the radio audience has lesser opportunity to cogitate. Broadcast stations deserve the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution. the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media. The clear and present danger test however. EASTERN BROADCASTING CORP. For this reason. The production and filming by petitioner of the projected motion picture does not in the circumstances of this case constitute as unlawful intrusion upon private respondents “right of privacy”. to wit: 1. There is a simple. The following guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court for the guidance of inferior courts and administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions. What we have here is not a film biography. 4. the petitioners motion to withdraw or dismiss the petition is GRANTED. to refer to the role played by Enrile in the precipitating and constituent events of the change of government in February 1986. 5. The subject matter of the movie is one of public interest and concern and does not relate to the individual life.A. The petition also raises the issue of freedom of speech. but is compelled. No hearing and action were taken on the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. more or less fictionalized. The cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings laid down in Ang Tibay V C. Their message may be simultaneously received by a national or regional audience of listeners including the indifferent or unwilling who happen to be within reach of a blaring radio or television set. analyze and reject the utterance. Necessarily.Held: The court believes that a different conclusion must be reached. the television set is also becoming universal. the press must be kept alert. however. does not lend itself to a simplistic and all embracing interpretation applicable to all utterances in all forums. for the projected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and hence not exhibited to any audience. if it is to be historical. But the government has failed to even allege an emergency that could be tantamount to an undeniable and extreme danger so as to justify the restraint. 7. Before the court could promulgate a decision. The impact of the vibrant speech is forceful and immediate. instead of issuing an ex parte TRO. 3. . whether print or broadcast. (DYRE) VS HON. The transistor radio is found everywhere. 6. JR 137 SCRA 628 Facts: The petition was filed to compel the respondents to re-open the radio station DYRE which had been summarily closed on the ground of national security. The only restraint to this power would be an enlightened citizenry.

however. Should the government fail to proceed with its grievance.” Issue: Whether or not the mayor has the discretion to allow holding of a meeting in a public place. students in private respondent Mabini Colleges. . 4 ASSEMBLY AND PETITION Primicias VS Fugoso 80 Phil 71 Facts: The resondent Mayor sought to defend his refusal to allow the nacionalista party to hold meeting at the PLAZA MIRANDA by what he called “a reasonable ground to believe basing upon previous and upon the fact that passions. is considered enrolled only for one semester and hence. among others. An effective internal security is premised on disclosure. parks. The Supreme Court rejected the Mayor’s argument noting that the condition of Manila at that time did not justify the mayor’s fears. SEC. and in the duly peace constituted authorities which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order. Camarines Norte.Secrecy is the best maintained through credibility. The said provision odes not confer the Mayor the power to refuse to grant the permit. it may do so in other ways but not through restraint by constitutional entitlement. ART. There is no proof that the publication of the study would lead to immediate and irreparable damage to our nation and people. which according to Sec. Held: The Philippine Legislature has delegated the exercise of police power to the Municipal Board of the City of Manila. They cannot bar the use of public places for lawful assemblies. in Daet. made clear in the pleadings. 2444 of the Administrative Code has the following powers. to the effect that a college student. but only the discretion in issuing the permit to determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade or procession may pass or the meeting may be held. as the contract between the student and the school is deemed terminated. once admitted by the school. avenues. Upholding the primacy of freedom of expression because the students do not shed their constitutionally protected right at the schoolgate. The subject of the protest is not. NON VS DAMES II 185 SCRA 523 Facts: Petitioner urge the Court en Banc to review and reverse the doctrine laid down in Alcuaz V PSBA 161 SCRA 7. The power of local officials is only one of regulation and not prohibition. Inc. that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government. III. Petitioners. is to regulate the use of streets. especially on the part of the losing groups. remain bitter and high. cemeteries and other public places and to enact ordinances it may deem necessary. were not allowed to re-enrol by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or participating in student mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. may be refused readmission after the semester is over.

which provides that “when a student registers in a school. excluding students because of failing grades when the cause for the action taken against them undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline not only is a denial of due process but also constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of fair play. considering the high priority given by the Constitution to educate and the grant to the State of supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational institutions (See Art. With those funds. 137 of the manual of regulations for private schools. it would appear from the pleadings that the decision to refuse them re –enrollment because of failing grades was a mere after thought. 4(1) Respondent school cannot justify its actions by relying on Par. A controversy arose after the mass when the parish priest refused to return the image to the barangay council. The “termination of contract” theory does not even find support in the Manual par. Thus. 1-2. Certainly. . before they were refused re –enrollment. Petitioners are students of respondent school who. In his answer to the complaint.Held: The Court in Alcuaz. anchored its decision on the “termination of contract” theory. Sec. In fact. 137 merely clarifies that a college student enrolls for the entire semester. it does not appear that the petitioners were afforded due process. NOTE: The Supreme Court pointed out that this is not a simple case of a school refusing readmission or re –enrollment or returning students. the Barangay Council of Valencia. Undisputed is the fact that the refusal to readmit or re-enroll petitioners was decided upon and implemented by school authorities as a reaction to student mass actions directed against the school. he may required to pay his tuition fees for the whole semester before he is given his credentials for transfer. It is imbued with public interest. The image was temporarily places in the altar of the Catholic Church of Barangay Valencia. But it must be repeatedly emphasized that the contract between the school and the student is not ordinary contract. On the other hand. ART. SEC. after leading and participating in student protests were denied readmission and re-enrollment for the next semester. Funds for the two projects would be obtained through the “selling of tickets and cash donations”. Ormoc City adopted several resolutions regarding the acquisition of the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be used in the celebrations of his annual feats day and the construction of waiting shed. he assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. A replivin case was filed against the priest. the waiting shed was constructed and the wooden image was acquired. This is a case that focuses on the right to speech and assembly as exercised by students vis-à-vis the right of school officials to discipline pronouncements in the cases of Malabanan V Ramento and Villar V TIP. It is not denied that what incurred the fire of the school authorities was the student mass actions conducted in February 1988 and which were led and/or participated in by petitioners. XIV. it is understood that he is enrolling… for the entire semester for collegiate courses. in the manner expressed in Guzman.” which the Court in Alcuaz construed as authority for schools to refuse enrollment to a student on the ground that his contract. but has stayed on for more than two weeks. which has a term of one semester.III. has already expired. It serves to protect schools wherein tuition fees are collected and paid on a installment basis. even if a student does not complete the semester for which he was enrolled. 5 FREEDOM OF RELIGION GARCES VS ESTENZO 104 SCRA 510 Facts: On March 23. 1976.

The image was purchased with private funds. The construction of awaiting shed is entirely a secular matter. consequently. sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are acts of worship or religious devotion. These students were members of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” which teaches their children not to salute the flag. He was duly proclaimed. The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio first honoring the patron saint. only 7 Justices are of the view that the lower court’s judgment should be affirmed because the challenged provision is no longer operative either because it was superseded by the . 2175 of Administrative Code of 1917 which reads: “In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiatics…” The court a quo sustained the right of the private respondent to the office holding that the above quoted provision was already impiledly repeated by the Election Code of 1971. The questioned resolutions do not directly or indirectly establish any religion. One of the highlights of the fiesta was the mass. nor abridge religious liberty nor appropriate public money or property for the benefit of any religious sect. 1. as owner of the image has the right to determine who should have custody thereof. Gonzaga was elected as municipal mayor of Alburquerque. on account of their religious beliefs to take part in the flag ceremony. In this case however. Art. the image of the patron saint had to be placed in the church when the mass celebrated. for it is the duty to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education and to make such education accessible to all. (Sec. PAMIL VS TELERON 86 SCRA 413 Facts: Private Respondent Father Margarito R. XIV) Compulsion to observe the flag salute law on pain of dismissal from one’s job or expulsion from school is alien to the conscience of present generation of Filipinos. Citizens under the 1987 Constitution. not with tax money. Bohol in 1971. being violative of their constitutional right to free speech and free exercise of religious profession and worship. To render the challenged provision ineffective. 8 votes are required to be attained. sing the National Anthem and recite the Patriotic Pledge as required by RA 1265 and by the Department Order No. to receive education. Issue: Whether or not the children may be expelled from school (public and private) for refusing. EBRALINAG VS DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU 219 SCRA 526 Facts: About 68 students (grade school and highschool) were expelled by the public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag. Their expulsion will violate their right as Phil. The barangay council.Issue: Whether or not the resolutions violated the constitutional provision prohibiting the use of public funds for religious purpose. Held: Jehovah’s Witnesses are accorded exemption to the observance of flag ceremony in deference to their religious beliefs but said right not to participate does not give them the right to disrupt such patriotic exercises. Petitioner filed a suit for quo warranto for responsdent’s disqualification based on sec. and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio residents. Held: There is no clear cut answer. San Vicente Ferrer. Held: No. priest or clergyman. 8 of the DECS making the flag ceremony in all educational institutions.

ART.1935 Constitution or it was repealed. Justice Fernando. alleging that his right to return to the Philippine is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. The constitutional guarantees they invoked are neither absolute nor inflexible. Justice Teehankee notes that the provision declaring ecclesiastics ineligible for election or appointment to a municipal office is inconsistent with and violative of the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution because to do so bar them is to impose a religious test in violation of the Constitution. the provisions of the prohibition being unequivocal in terms. and questions Pres. Aquino rendered a decision to bar their return to the Philippines considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at the time when the stability of the government is threatened. the required number of votes not having been attained.III. Foreign Affairs to issue travel documents to him and his family. Aquino’s power to impair their right to travel in the absence of legislation to that effect. The president did not act arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return. The “no religious test” means that no public office may denuded to any person any reason of his religious belief. For the exercise of such freedoms admits of limits and must be adjusted to the requirements of equally important public interest. Justice Barredo opines that there is no repugnancy as between the challenged provision and the freedom of religion protected by the Constitution. Mr. NOTE: As to the constitutional dimension of the case. Marcos exiled in Hawaii wishes to return to the Philippine. . it is distinct and separate from the right to travel. Pres. prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines? Held: YES. Marcos filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition to compel the Sec. SEC. 6 LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS 177 SCRA 568 Facts: Deposed Pres. however. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the president which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel. subject to certain exemptions. Procedurally. Issue: May the Pres. the validity of Sec. or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations similar to the present one. he becomes the official minister of his church with distinct duties and responsibilities which may not always be compatible with the posture of absolute indifference and impartiality to all religious beliefs which the government must maintain at all times Justice Makasiar notes that to allow an ecclesiastic to head the executive department of a municipality is to permit the erosion of the principle of church and state because there can be no assurance that the decision of such ecclesiastic in the exercise of his powers vested in him by reason of his local position will be clothed with impartiality. The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. but it is well considered view that the right to return may be considered as a generally accepted principle of international law and. On the other hand. which treats only of the Liberty of Abode and the right to travel. Five members however believe that no repeal was made. 2175 is upheld and Father Gonzaga is ordered to vacate his position. But when he becomes an ecclesiastic. with six other Justices are of the view that the Constitution (both 1973 and 1935) prohibits religious test as a requirement for the exercise of Civil or Political rights. However. is part of the law of the land. under the Constitution.

III. a limited phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text. right to travel and freedom of speech. in a resolution of Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure order against petitioner by reason of the announcement made by petitioner. Kennedy school of government at Harvard University. Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the Philippine must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may dealt with in accordance with law. that she would be leaving for the United States to accept a fellowship supposedly offered by the John F. Petitioner filed an “Urgent ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond for and in behalf of Dr.SILVERIO VS C. courts can impair the right to travel only on grounds of “national security. He posted a bail for his provisional liberty. Meanwhile. which was publicized in both print and broadcast media. An accused on bail may be rearrested without the necessity of the warrants if he attempts to depart from the Philippine without prior permission of the Court where the case is pending. An order of arrest was issued in said case against herein petitioner with bail for the release of the accused fixed at P15000.A 195 SCRA 760 Facts: Petitioner Silverio was charged with the violation of the Revised Securities Act in a criminal case filed with the RTC. WON under the 1987 Constitution. Issues: 1. public safety or public health”. this “Motion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan from enforcing its Hold Departure Order with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/of Preliminary Injunction”. respondent People of the Philippines filed a Motion to Cancel the passport of and to issue a hold departure order against accused-petitioner on the ground that he had gone abroad several times without the necessary Court approval resulting in the postponements of the arraignment and schedules hearings. Petitioner questioned the RTC’s Order contending that the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful order of the Court only on grounds in the “interest of national security. Miriam Defensor Santiago”. 2. Issue: May the right to travel be impaired? Held: YES. sec. WON the hold departure order violates her right to due process. SANTIAGO VS VASQUEZ 217 SCRA 633 Facts: An information docketed as criminal case No. hence. Sec 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court order the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. The conditions of bail imposed upon an accused to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction of his right to travel. The RTC granted the Motion. They can impose limits only on the basis of “national security. Article III. public safety or public health” as was previously stated in the 1973 Constitution. public safety or public health” and “as may be provided by law”. Art. . 16698 was filed against petitioner with the Sandiganbayan for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices. 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them. Two years after the filing of the information.

Hence. No. the people’s right to information is limited to matters of public concern. Far from it. Petitioner does not deny and even made a public statement that she in taking judicial notice of such fact of petitioner’s polan to go abroad and in issuing sua sponte the hold departure order is but an exercise of respondent court’s inherent power to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. in addition to those expressly conferred on them. it was held that Art. As stated in the case of Legaspi. It is averred that the hold departure order was issued without notice and hearing because of the fact that there was no showing that a motion to issue a hold departure order was filed by the Sandiganbayan.A. to furnish petitioners with certified true copy of the documents evidencing their respective loans. and is not exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee. ART.HELD: 1. . it may clear that the information sought is of public interest or public concern. Such being the case. 1. before mandamus may issue. Public safety and public health” and “as may be provided by law”. the right to information goes hand-inhand with the constitutional policies of full public disclosures and honesty in the public service. Yet like all constitutional guarantee. Courts possess certain inherent powers which may be said to be implied from a general grant of jurisdiction. and 2. No. the right to information is not absolute. They can impose limits only on the basis of “national security. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision making as well in checking abuse in government. to allow petitioners access to the public records for the subject’s information Held: The right to information is an essential premise meaningful to the right to speech and expression. Art III. When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a Court or Judicial Officer. Sec. Sec. SEC 7 RIGHT TO INFORMATION VALMONTE VS BELMONTE 170 SCRA 256 Facts: Petitioner in this case of special action for mandamus with preliminary injunction invoked their right to information and pray that respondent be directed: 1. with more reason may a party litigant be subjected to proper coercive measure where he disobeys a proper order. all auxiliary writs. III. In the more recent case of Silverio V C. to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasan Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-LABAN who were able to secure clean loans immediately before the February 7 election thru the intercession on/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos. and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. Petitioner is in error. But this is not to say that the right to information is merely an adjunct of and therefore restricted in application by the exercise of the freedom of speech and of the press. and/or 3. processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer. III.6 should by no means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the courts to use all means necessary to carry their power of the effect in criminal cases pending before them. A court has the inherent power to make interlocutory orders necessary to protect its jurisdiction. The public nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the public office held by the alleged borrower make the information sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern.

III. that undue interference with the duties of the custodians of the records may be prevented and that the right of other persons entitled to inspect the record may be insured. SEC 8 RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATION CENECO VS SECRETARRY OF DOLE 201 SCRA 584 Facts: Petitioner Central Negros Electric Cooperative seeks to annul the order issued by then Acting Secretary Laques declaring the project certification election unnecessary and declaring petitioner to continue recognizing private respondent CENECO UNION of RATIONAL EMPLOYEES (CURE) as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of petitioner’s electric cooperative for purposes of collective bargaining. 35 whereby it was agreed that all union members shall withdraw. petitioners are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS subjects to reasonable regulations that the latter may promulgate relating to the manner and hours of examination. Med-arbiter issued an order granting petition for certification election. the withdrawal from membership was denied by CENECO by reason of CENECO’s refusal to negotiate a new CBA. Issue: WON employees of CENECO who withdrew their membership from the cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE for purposes of CBA. His position is apparently based merely on consideration of policy. ART. Hence. which cannot. 1990. The right is purely personal in nature. and not what the law should be. respondent failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the privilege of confidentiality as regards the documents subject of this petition. VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS’ UNION 59 SCRA 54 . A corporation has no right of privacy in its name since the entire basis of the right to privacy is an inquiry to the feelings and sensibilities of the party and the corporation would not have such ground on relief. retract or recall the union members’ membership from CENECO to avail of the full benefit under the existing CBA entered into by and between CENECO and CURE. however be invoked in the instant case considering the public offices they were holding at the time the loans were alleged to have been granted. to the end that damage to or loss of the records may be avoided. CENECO filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join union for purposes of CBA for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. Neither can the GSIS. Prior to the proposed CBS negotiation. CURE filed a petition for direct recognition or for certification election. Moreover. CURE wrote CENECO proposing that negotiation be conducted for a new CBA but CENECO denied on the ground that employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join a union. CURE members in a general assembly approved Resolution No. The judiciary does not settle policy issue. CENECO appealed to the DOLE which issued the questioned order.On the alleged relationship of confidential nature between the GSIS and its borrowers. On the issue of privacy there can be no doubt that the right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity. CENECO entered into a CBA with CURE providing for a term of three years up to March 31. and hence may be invoked only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be violated. Under our system of government policy issues are within the domain of the political branches of the government and of the people themselves as the repository of all State power. Held: The articles of Incorporation of CENECO do not provide any ground for withdrawal from membership which gives rise to the presumption that the same may be done anytime and for whatever reason. through its General Manager. The right to join an organization necessarily the equivalent right not to join the same. membership is on a voluntary basis. In fine. and not to public and governmental agencies like the GSIS. The court can only declare what the law is. However. this petition. the respondent invoke the right to privacy of its borrowers.

sold two parcels of land on installments to Padilla who later on transferred their rights and interest to Chavez. Inc. among others that the parcel of land “shall be used by the buyer exclusively for residential purposes…” Such stipulation was annotated in the TCTs. It is clear. therefore. since 1958.. What the exception provides. . The agreements of sale contained stipulation. Held: The SC upheld the validity of RA 3350. III. which had with the company. 27. he himself make up his mind as to which association he would join. VS FEATI BANK AND TRUST CO. RA 3350 introduced an exception… “but such agreement shall not covers members of any religious sect which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization”. Such power is superior to contractual stipulations between parties on the use of lands sold by subdivisions even if said conditions are annotated in the Torrens Title. since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power. therefore. and second. while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed. RA 3350 merely excludes ipso jure from the application and coverage of the closed shop agreement the employees belonging to any labor organization. among others. RA 3350 was enacted amending RA 875.. among others. allowing workers to disassociate from or not to join a labor union despite a closed shop agreement. among others. if they were members of any religious sect which prohibits affiliation of their members in any such labor organization. is that members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the employers. he still retains the liberty and the power to leave and cancel his membership with said organizations at any time. it provided that the agreement on closed shop “shall not cover members of any religious sect which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization”. by virtue of which the employer may employ only the members of the union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their jobs. that inspite of any closed shop agreement members of said religious sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union. However. liberty or freedom (whereby an employee may act for himself without being prevented by law). It is. Trial court dismissed the complaint. namely: first. where a labor union and an employer have agreed on a closed shop. Issue: WON the resolution of the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong declaring the parcels of land. A right comprehends at least two broad nations. SEC 10 NON –IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE ORTIGAS & CO. pursuant to RA 875 (Industrial Peace Act). Thereupon.referring to the restriction incorporated in the deed of sale and later in the corresponding TCT issued to defendant it should be stressed that.Facts: Benjamin Victoriano. 91 SCRA 533 Facts: Ortigas & Co. plaintiff. therefore. he was a member of the respondent union. power (whereby an employee may as he pleases join or refrain from joining an association). Victoriano resigned from the union. a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory. and even after he has joined. Exception: To the all embracing coverage of the closed shop agreement. The parcels of land were eventually sold to FEATI Bank. The constitutional guarantees the “right” to form or join associations. LTD. a closed-shop provision. the rule is not absolute. Plaintiff filed complaint seeking for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction praying. the Union recommended to the company his termination. the employee who should decide for himself whether he should join or not to join. as part of the commercial and industrial zone of the municipality prevailed over the building restrictions imposed by the plaintiff on the lots in question? Held: With regard to the contention that the said resolution cannot nullify the contractual obligation assumed by the defendant. zoning regulations which declared the area a commercial and industrial zone. ART. that the right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any union. that the defendant observe and comply with the building restrictions annotated in the TCT. The latter refused to comply with the demand. Later. contending that the building was being constructed in accordance with the Municipal Resolution No. the legal protection granted to such right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of law. Issue: The constitutionality of RA 3350 which allows members of religious sect to disassociate from the labor union despite the presence of closed shop agreement between employer and bargaining union. who began constructing of the commercial building. As such employee.

the private prosecutors made an offer of evidence to 1) the handwritten note or admission and 2) to the written question and answer before the Branch Manager. thus he no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to be prejudiced whatsoever resulting from such refusal. At the investigation before the Branch Manager and in the presence of the station agent. Judge Ayson ruled in favor of the defense declared that the written admission or confession and record of the investigation was inadmissible because the accused was not informed of his right to remain silent and to have counsel.. was invited for investigation on February 9. and on being interrogated by the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to have counsel. It seems quite evident that a defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not under custodial investigation. NO. and to have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected. PEOPLE VS MAQUEDA GR.. In fine a person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged with its commission in court. but 3) if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness. threat. Hence this petition. The extra-judicial confession referred to is the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” of Maqueda taken by the police immediately after he was arrested. But unquestionably. not to be suspected to force. a freight ticket clerk of PAL. And as this court has already stated. ticket freight clerk and PALEA’s shop steward was informed of the charge before him. however 4) his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudiced or be used against him. in accordance with PAL’s Code of Conduct and Discipline on allegations of irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. b) to testify in his own behalf. in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled 1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself and 2) to testify as witness in his own behalf. After two months. On Feb.ART. 1986 by the Management. the accused in court possesses rights against self-incrimination. The trial court based its conviction on the confession and the proof of corpus delicti. The trial court admitted the Sinumpaang Salaysay of the acccused although it was taken filed in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the court. but after having taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way.III of the Constitution is not applicable. 1986. the police investigation was no longer within the ambit of a custodial investigation. 12 (1) Art. has the following Rights in the matter of his testifying or producing evidence. Under the Rules of Court. The trial court even stated at the time of the confession that the accused was already facing charges in court. Thereafter. Ramos gave to his superiors a handwritten note or admission. a custodial investigation is “questioning 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. 112983: MARCH 22.1995 Facts: Hector Maqueda was convicted by the RTC of Benguet with the crime of robbery with homicide and various physical injuries. 8. his answers to the questions by the Branch Manager were taken down in writing. the SS was not therefore taken during custodial investigation and hence Sec. intimidation or any other means which vitiates free will. d) WHILE TESTIFYING. i. III. subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. Issue: Does an accused lose his right to remain silent and to counsel after a criminal complaint or information has been filed against him? . to wit: 1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the public prosecutor. c) not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. which is not in the case at bar. Issue: Is the constitutional right of a person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charge with its commission violated in this case? Held: No. and 2) AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT a) to refuse to be a witness. to refuse to answer a specific question which tends to incriminate him for some crime other than that for which he is then prosecuted. and to be informed thereof. Ramos was charged for estafa. At the close of the people’s case. violence. SEC 12 CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION PEOPLE V JUDGE AYSON 175 SCRA 216 Facts: Felipe Ramos.e. for preliminary investigation). One of the rights specified exist only in custodial investigation. The defense objected to the offered evidence on the ground that the admission or confession was taken without the accused represented by counsel. Trial on the merits ensued.

12(1) Art. 5. in fact waived his right to remain silent by agreeing to be investigated. yet no written waiver of such rights appears in the transcript and no other independent evidence was offered to prove its existence. then the police authorities and other law enforcement agencies would have a heyday in extracting confessions or admissions from the accused persons after they had been arrested but before they are arraigned because at such stage the accused persons are supposedly not entitled to the enjoyment of the rights to remain silent and to counsel.Held: No. but are available at that stage when a person is under the investigation for the commission of an offense. A warrantless arrest should comply with the conditions prescribed in Sec. and he could not be one who is an associate of the private prosecutor in the same case. appellant was picked up in Pangasinan by military personnel and brought to Baguio City. which cause the death of two people and the wounding of three others. PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN GR. 1986. 1987. He had. NO. No. Appellant also contends that the lawyer who assisted him was not of his own choice but was foisted upon him by the City Fiscal and the former is a law partner of the private prosecutor. 1995 . Moreover. Moreover. Yes.III of the Constitution is strictly limited to custodial investigation and that it does not apply to a person against whom a criminal complaint or information has already been filed because after its filing he loses the right to remain counsel and to counsel. 110290 JANUARY 25. The statement was also taken in the absence of counsel. where the fiscal immediately suggested the availability of a particular counsel without first asking the suspect if he had a counsel of own choice and if he had one. sec. On Feb. the presence during the custodial investigation before the fiscal of the military officer who had earlier threatened the suspect with death vitiated the latter’s free will. Issues: 1. it was observed by the court that the appellant was not explicitly told of his right to have a competent and independent counsel of his own choice. The accused in this case was not even told of any of his constitutional rights. Held: Was his extra-judicial admissions taken in violation of his rights under Art III. whether he could hires such counsel or whether he would agree to have one provided for him then such counsel provided was foisted upon the suspect ant not one who was voluntarily and intelligently “accepted” by the suspect. Such uncounselled SS is wholly inadmissible pursuant to Sec. 10. he alleged that while he was giving his statements at the Fiscal’s office the armed men stayed with him and their presence deferred him from telling the investigating fiscal that he was being threatened. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. 12 Art III of the Constitution applies both to confessions and admissions. 12(1) Art III of the Constitution are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information. In the afternoon of the same day he was brought to the City Fiscal’s Office where he was investigated in connection with the crime. 12 (3) Art III of the Constitution. Furthermore. No arrest without a warrant could have been legally and validly effected 5 months after the commission of the crime. 2. He was not categorically informed that he could waive his right to remain silent and to counsel and that hi waiver must be in writing and in the presence of his counsel. 2. Also. The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Sec. Appellant alleged that although he was given a lawyer and that the lawyer who assisted him interviewed him only for two minutes in Englsh and Tagalog nut not in Ilocano. PEOPLE VS ALICANDO DECEMBER 12. a shooting incident occurred in Baguio City. A counsel appointed to assist a suspect must be an independent counsel. 12 of the Constitution? Was the arrest of the appellant valid? 1. Sec. If we follow the theory of the trial court. It is doubtful for a suspect to have understood his constitutional rights if he was informed of the same in English and Tagalog when he could only understand Ilocano. 1996 Facts: On September 6. the dialect he understands. It was wrong for the trial court to say that Sec.

or anyone acting under his order or his place. The appellant was arraigned with the assistance of counsel.Facts: In the morning of June 13. Any person arrested. The autopsy report revealed that she was raped and that the proximate cause of her death was asphyxia by strangulation. PO3 Tan did not even have the simple sense to reduce the all important confession of the appellant in writing. the police recovered from his house the victim’s slippers. In the case at bar. The burden to prove that an accused waived his right to remain silent and the right to counsel before making a confession under custodial investigation rests with the prosecution. It matters not that in the course of the hearing. On the basis of this follow up interrogation. Neither did he present any writing shown that appellant waived his right to silent and to have competent and independent counsel. Statement of Policy – It is the policy of the state to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights. The lack of objection did not satisfy the heavy burden of proof that rested on the prosecution. 12 Art III of the Constitution provides that the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. Forthwith. DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING. Section 1. Issue: Is the confession of the accused admissible against him? Held: No. of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. in a language known to and understood by him. it is now familiar learning that the Constitution has stigmatized as inadmissible evidence any uncounselled confession or admission. Indeed. The burden has to be discharged by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court found him guilty of the crime of rape with homicide. A neighbor pointed appellant as the offender. the records show that the prosecution utterly failed to discharge this burden. In the case at bar. preferably of his own choice. He verbally confessed his guilt without the assistance of counsel. 2. but also evidence derived therefrom. who shall at all times be allowed to confer private with the person . he was arrested and interrogated by the police. DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND PROVIDING OPENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF Be it enacted by the Senate and house of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled. 1994. all of which were later presented as evidence for the prosecution. the trial court allowed his uncounselled confession to flow into the records and illicitly used it in sentencing him to death. Despite the blatant violation of appellant’s constitutional right. Section 2. a stained pillow and a stained T-shirt. Rights of persons arrested. the lifeless body of Khaye Mae 4 years old. The pillow and the T-shirt with the alleged bloodstains were evidence derived from the uncounselled confession illegally extracted by the police from the appellant. 1 of Sec. Duties of public Officers 1. He pleaded guilty. par. detained or under custodial investigation shall be at all times be assisted by counsel. a pair of gold earrings. detained or under custodial investigation. was discovered. It is not only the uncounselled confession that is condemned as inadmissible. detains investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter. 7438 AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED. a buri mat. who arrests. REPUBLIC ACT NO. the appellant failed to make a timely objection to the introduction of these constitutionally prescribed evidence. Any public officer or employee.

. it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect know to such arrested or detained person or otherwise. detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence. Assisting Counsel –Assisting counsel is any lawyer. the municipal judge. such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 5. parent or child. provided that before such report is signed. The person’s “immediate family” shall include his or her spouse. The amount of Two Hundred fifty pesos (P250. the province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided. that the Municipal or City Treasure must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before the province pay said fees. Any person arrested or detained under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave felonies. he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer. those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes. and in the presence of any of the parents. without prejudice to the liability of the “inviting” officer for any violation of law. brother or sister. provided if the municipality or city cannot pay such fee. “custodial investigation” shall include the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. 125 of the Revised Penal Code or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel.arrested.00) if the suspect is chargeable with a capital offense. upon a valid waiver. Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Art. Any extra-judicial confession made by a person arrested. 2. the municipal mayor. no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provision of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. 3. 6. grandparent or grandchild. except those directly affected by the case. The amount of One Hundred fifty pesos (P150. such extra-judicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. As used in this ACT.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with light felonies. 4. otherwise such waiver shall be null and void and of no effect. detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel. Section 3. elder brothers and sisters. his spouse. nephew or niece and guardian or ward. The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees: 1. or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know to read and write. The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer. uncle or aunt. or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him. The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial investigation is conducted. 3. The amount of Three Hundred fifty pesos (P350. or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel. otherwise. In the absence of any lawyer. district school supervisor. or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights or by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President.

detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel. Bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. . Approved. b) Any person who obstructs. Section 6. from visiting and conferring privately chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family with him. the accused is no longer entitled to bail as evidence of guilt is strong. 943 and 1834 which amended Article 135 of the RPC. at any hour of the day or. who fails to inform any person arrested. presidential decrees. any security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape. The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee. Other laws. and that his release would allow his return to this organization to direct its armed struggle to topple the government before whose courts he invokes the constitutional right to bail.Section 4. shall suffer a fine of Six Thousand pesos (P6. of the right shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years and a fine of Four Thousand pesos (P4. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar offense. Accordingly Salas was granted bail. is hereby repealed. Held: YES. whose ultimate overriding goals is to wipe out all vestiges of democracy and to replace it with their ideology. or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister or by his counsel. executive orders or rules and regulations. III. SEC 13 RIGHT TO BAIL PEOPLE VS JUDGE DONATO 198 SCRA 130 Facts: Rodolfo Salas (Commander Bilog) and his co-accused were charged for the crime of rebellion. or both. or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place.00) The provisions of the above section notwithstanding. April 27. Effectivity –This Act shall take effect (15) fifteen days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any daily newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.1992. Section 5. the President issue EO 187 restoring to fulll force and effect Article 135 RPC. or parts thereof inconsistent with the provision of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly. Repealing Clause –Republic Act No. in urgent cases. Petitioner contends that it would be dangerous to grant bail to Salas considering the nature in the CPP-NPA hierarchy. Petitioner argues that while he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. or from ministering to his spiritual needs. ART. Sales filed a petition for bail which was opposed by herein petitioner on the ground that since rebellion became a capital offense under PD 1996. detained or under custodial investigation. yet when the interest of the State conflicts with that of an individual.000. Penalty Clause –a) Any arresting public officer or employee. that of the former shall prevail for the “the right of the State to self-preservation is paramount to any of the rights of an individual enshrined in the Bill of Rights. detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. any member of the immediate family of a person arrested. Subsequently however. Issue: Whether or not rebellion is a bailable offense. as amended. 857. who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested. by imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death on those who promote. maintain or head a rebellion.000. or any investigating officer.00) or a penalty or imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years. or from examining and treating him. prevents or prohibits any lawyer.

the prosecution does have the right to present evidence for the denial of bail in the instances where bail is a matter of right. it was shown that after such issuance of the warrants of arrest with the bail fixed in the amount of P600. Sandiganbayan acquitted all the accused of the crime charged and absolved them of civil liability. assuming that the contention of petitioner is correct. On Dec. III. however. The court required the respondents to comment on the the MR but issued no restraining order. The court resolved to dismiss the petition and lift the TRO issued earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. in the cases where the grant of bail is discretionary. thus obtaining her provisional liberty. In the case of Zacarias Vs Cruz. it cannot be denied that the City fiscal of Dagupan City had been quite active in the investigation and thereafter in the prosecution of petitioner. The SC thus created a fact finding commission to determine the allegations of the petitioners. petitioner posted such required bail bonds. prejudiced and partial in favor of the accused. stops him from discussing the validity of his arrest”. It was he who appeared at the hearing and manifested his readiness to proceed with the trial. It would be then to pay an undue premium to technicalities to assert that under such circumstances the procedural requisite. The matter was referred to his office. As the commission noted: “The . With the express admission by petitioner that she had posted the required bail to obtain her provisional liberty. 2. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. it was held that “posting of a bail of a person. it was held that “where petitioner has filed an application for bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper. At any rate. if any. in the issuance of the warrants of arrest. CALLANTA VS VILLANUEVA 77 SCRA 377 Facts: The validity of the issuance of the warrants of arrest by respondent City Judge Felipe Villanueva based on the two complaints for grave oral defamation against petitioner is being contested on the ground that it should have been the City Fiscal who should have conducted the preliminary examination. However.00. ART. This illegality vitiated from the very beginning all proceedings in the Sandiganbayan court healed by the very Presiding Justice who attended. he waived his objection to whatever defect. of such official conducting the preliminary examination was not in fact complied with. it becomes futile to assail the validity of the issuance of the warrants of arrest. Issue: WON the interference and pressure of the President violative of due process and prevented a fair and impartial trial. Held: No. There was then. 10. SEC 14 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS GALMAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN 144 SCRA 43 Facts: Petitioners filed an action alleging that the Tanodbayan did not represent the interest of the people when he failed to exert genuine and earnest efforts to present vital and important testimonial and documentary evidence for the prosecution and that the Sandiganbayan Justices were biased. In the case of Luna Vs Plaza. due process requires that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present within reasonable time all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. in the opinion of petitioner’s counsel a jurisdictional infirmity. Held: The fact of the secrete Malacanang conference of Jan. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner can still questioned the defect. if any. in the preliminary investigation conducted prior to thr issuance of the warrant of arrest”. From the very petition itself.Accordingly. The petitioners filed their second motion for reconsideration on the ground that the President ordered the respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan and the prosecution panel to whitewash the criminal cases against the 26 respondents. 1985 at which the authoritarian President discussed with the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and the entire prosecution panel the matter of the imminent filing of the criminal charges against all 26 accuses (as admitted by respondent Justice Fernandez to have been confirmed by him to the then President’s “Coordinator” Manuel Lazaro on the proceeding day) is not denied. 1985.

10. and not by preselection of the executive.” Verily. which is the very essence of due process of law. it can be said that any avowal of independent action or resistance to presidential pressure became illusory from the very moment they stepped inside Malacanang Palace on Jan. This criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases by public respoindents at the secret Malacanang conference (and revealed only after 15 months by Justice Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. which could be much too easily transformed into a means of predetermining the outcome of individual cases. Jurisdiction over cases should be determined by law. 1985.very acts of being summoned to Malacanang and their ready acquiescence thereto under the circumstances then obtaining. are in themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified. No court whose presiding justice has received “orders or suggestions” from the President who by an amendatory decree made it possible to refer the cases to the Sandiganbayan can be an impartial court. .

among others. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should be sentence be one of conviction.000. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION SORIANO VS SANDIGANBAYAN 131 SCRA 187 Facts: In the course of an investigation for qualified theft alleged to have been committed by Thomas Tan. who fails to genuinely protect the interest of the accused. They were convicted but Del Rosario appealed the said decision on the ground. accused appellants claim that there is an absence of evidence sufficient to convict and that there is a reasonable doubt to be implied from the fact that while conspiracy was alleged. Held: Accusation is not. resulting of hearing by the court for alleged reception of evidence when such fact was not conducted. It is established the de officio counsel Atty. because of special relationship with the deceased. reluctantly discharged his duties as attorney de officio. both oral and documentary independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL PEOPLE VS ELOY MAGSI 124 SCRA 64 Facts: Magsi. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged. Where defendants are charged with capital offenses. are not sufficient with the Supreme Court’s injunction. It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate the culpability lies. the presumption of innocence could not come to their rescue as it was more than sufficiently overcome by the proof that was by the prosecution. according to the fundamental law. that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it mounted to a crime. Issue: Whether or not the conviction was valid. Held: No. therefore. There is need. a lawyer who is the compadre of the person killed by the accused. In the case at bar. Rivera and del Rosario were hardly afforded by the trial court any opportunity to discuss the case together. only two of the seven accused were held culpable. whether he understands the charges and the gravity of the penalty. Their guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. and who. synonymous with guilt. A complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against petitioner with the public respondent. Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on their behalf. perfunctory queries to the accused. del Rosario and other co-accused were charged with the murder of Jesus Gallardo with several aggravating circumstances attendant to the crime. In their appeal. Issue: WON proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed to overcome presumption of innocence. mere pro forma appointment of de officio counsel. that the trial court erred in appointing as attorney de officio. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. To such a standard this court has always been committed. for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state. Petitioner contends that an “investigation cannot be regarded as a contract of transaction” within the purview of the said Act hence . after the court had denied his repeated petition to be relieved of his appointment as such.00 as consideration for dismissing the case. and the qualified plea of guilty resulted from the court’s prodding rather than from the accused’s spontaneous violation. The same was reported to the NBI thus an entrapment was made. What is required then is moral certainly.PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PEOPLE VS DRAMAYO 42 SCRA 59 Facts: The accused-appellants. Dramayo and Carbin were charged and convicted by the crime of murder. herein petitioner demanded from the latter an amount of P4.

Reyes was tried separately and in the absence of petitioners. Petitioner now raises the defense of violation of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him considering that he was charged of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. and that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. They filed motions to dismiss the criminal cases which were not immediately resolved by the respondent Judge. Trial commenced but while it was in progress. While the discretion in the first instance belongs to the respondent Judge. Public respondent then convicted him for Direct Bribery. like a credit transaction. the respondent Judge could not be totally immune to what apparently was asserted before him in such extra-judicial statement. In the meantime. he petitioners filed a motion to disqualify the respondent Judge on the ground that Reyes had repudiated the extra-judicial statement which the latter sworn to before the former and that the latter would have to pass upon the repudiation. Neither was if a transaction because this term is analogous to the former term. the prisoner. On this basis. In this case. like a contract. its exercise is subject to this court’s corrective authority. is one which involves some consideration. thus he cannot be liable for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. an amended information was filed. A transaction. another suspect. Reyes was called as an additional witness where he repudiated his extra-judicial statement contending that the same was procured through threats by a government agent. He executed an extra-judicial statement and signed and swore to its truth before the respondent Judge wherein he implicated the petitioners. learning later of the trickery. It is unlikely that he was not in the slightest bit offended by the affiant’s turn about which his later declaration that there was intimidation by considering that the respondent Judge would have to pass judgement on a question that by implication had already been answered by him (having already given his opinion on the matter). He however could be liable for Direct Bribery. Petitioners can assert then that this court has the power to set aside the order denying the motion for disqualification. the respondent Judge deferred action on the petitioner’s motion to dismiss until after the prosecution had presented and rested its case against Reyes. and this element is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner. The respondent Judge. Thereby there is the legitimate expectation that the decision arrived at would be the application of the law to the facts as found by a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. A reading of the information filed against him clearly shows that the same is a case of Direct Bribery. The restraining order issued is made permanent. Issue: Was there a violation of petitioner’s above mentioned right? Held: It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. It is not the title of the information that counts but the contents thereof. It is beyond that due process cannot be satisfied in the absence of that degree of objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to reassure litigants of his being fair and being just. During the petitioner’s trial. There can be no question as to its being considered abused if it can be shown that to refuse disqualification is to cast valid doubts as to court’s impartiality.cannot be convicted of violation thereof. VILLALUZ 50 SCRA 18 Facts: Petitioners were charged with robbery in band with homicide. As a consequence. RIGHT TO SPEEDY. one Rolando Reyes was arrested. VS HON. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA PEOPLE VS SALAS 143 SCRA 163 Facts: Marie Abong was originally charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Cebu but before he could be arraigned the case was reinvestigated on motion of the prosecution. succeeded in deceiving the city court of Cebu into granting him bail and ordering his release and so he escaped. thus he cannot claim that he was deprived of his right to be informed. cancelled the illegal bail bond and . taking advantage of the first information for homicide. Issue: Whether the respondent Judge should disqualify was denied by the respondent Judge. Held: Petition is granted. As a result of the reinvestigation. The motion to disqualify was denied by the respondent Judge. to which he pleaded not guilty. with no bail recommended. IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL MANUEL MATEO JR.

and suspended all proceedings until the return of the accused. Now. Issue: Was the order of the Judge proper? Held: No. IV of the 1973 Constitution which now allows trial in absentia. the prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution and possibly eventual provided only that: a) he has been arraigned b) he has been duly modified of the trial. The purpose of this rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases. 19 of Art. the prosecution moved that the hearing continue in accordance with the constitutional provision authorizing trial in absentia under certain circumstances. . The old case of People V Avancena has been modified by Sec. and c) his failure to appear is unjustified. The respondent Judge denied the motion. because of defendant’s escape. The right to present at one’s trial may now be waived except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will identify the accused. The defendant’s escape will be considered as a waiver of his right about the inability of the court to notify him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial he will be deemed to have received due notice. and many times completely abandoned. however. trial of which in the past be indefinitely deferred.ordered Abong’s re-arrest. The same fact of his escape will make his failure to appear unjustified. nonetheless. The old case of People V Avancena has been modified. But he was gone.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful