115 scra 688 (1982) People of the Philippines, Plaintiff vs.

Camano, Respondent

CONCEPCION JR., J.: FACTS: Feb. 17, 1970 bet. 4 & 5 p.m. in Nato, Sagnay, Camarines Sur: Camano, after drinking liquor, stabbed Godofredo Pascua w/a bolo while the latter was walking along the barrio street almost in front of the store of one Socorro Buates. Pascua sustained 2 mortal wounds w/c caused his death. Afterwards, Camano went to the seashore of the barrio where he found Mariano Buenaflor leaning at the gate of the fence of his house in a kneeling position w/both arms on top of the fence & his head stooping down. Camano then hacked Buenaflor with the same bolo sustaining 8 wounds w/c caused latter¶s death. No proof of any altercation between the accused & victims prior to the incidents. He was thereby charged w/murder attended by evident premeditation & treachery and was sentenced to death. ISSUE: WON death is a cruel & unusual penalty & not proper in the case at bar. RULING: NO. Camano¶s counsel claims that the penalty violates Art. IV, Sec. 21 of the Constitution w/c provides that excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. Harden vs. Dir of Prisons: Death Penalty is not cruel, unjust or excessive. Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death but the punishment of death is not cruel w/in the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution. It implies something inhuman & barbarous, something more that the mere extinguishments of life.

respondents. the Supreme Court ruled that the making of the Lethal Injection Manual inaccessible to the convict was unconstitutional and saw no reason why he could not obtain a copy should he so desire.: FACTS: This is a case where the herein petitioner. Leo Echegaray. 132601 January 19. HELD: Yes. No. 1999 LEO ECHEGARAY. . It declared also that the contents of the manual were matters of public concern which the public may want to know either because these directly affect their lives. vs. petitioner.. ISSUE: Whether or not the deprivation of the Lethal Injection Manual is unconstitutional. PUNO.R. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. ET AL. or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.G. who was convicted and punished with lethal injection was denied or made inaccessible to him the Lethal Injection Manual for him to obtain a copy on it. J.

after he ceased to be a stenographer. IV. ordered the Chief of Police of Makati. He desired to be released from the obligation of transcribing his notes. 1974 ordered the release of Aclaracion. respectively. 14. 1974 and incarcerated in the municipal jail. Another hearing was held on September 3. and to confine him in jail until he submits a complete transcript of his notes in the said cases. GATMAITAN. 1974 Aclaracion filed a petition for habeas corpus. 1974 in connection with the detention of Aclaracion at the instance of Justice Leuterio. et al. He was averse to being subjected "to involuntary servitude sans compensation".R. On August 9. J. 1975 SEGIFREDO L.: FACTS: On May 29 and July 29. HELD: NO. L-39115 May 26. a resident of that municipality. Art. In a petition dated July 12. Bill of Rights. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a involuntary servitude. MAGNO S. Later. .. this Court resolved to order Aclaracion's provisional release on condition that within twenty days thereafter he would complete the transcription of his notes in the Paderes case in his office at the Insurance Commission. as already noted. He advanced the novel contention that to compel him to transcribe his stenographic notes. to arrest Aclaracion. Chairmen of the Third and Seventh Divisions of the Court of Appeals. HON. However. would be a transgression of the rule that "no involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" (Sec. No. 1972 Constitution). ACLARACION. Leuterio. Petitioner vs. 1974 he asked the Court of Appeals that he be not required to transcribe his notes in all the cases tried in the Gapan court. The Third Division of the Court of Appeals in its resolution of August 7. Rizal. the warden did not release him because of the order of arrest issued by the Seventh Division. Gatmaitan and Justice Jose N. Aclaracion was arrested on June 21. 1974 Justice Magno S.G. Respondents AQUINO. he transcribed his notes in the Muncal case. At that hearing. there was no involuntary servitude in the case because It was already moot because. He suggested that the testimonies in the said cases be retaken. the Third Division of the Court of Appeals had ordered his release on August 7th. Manila.

under pain of penal sanctions. J: BP 22 punishes a person "who makes or draws and issues any check on account or for value. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property. but an offense against public order. petitioner vs. An essential element of the offense is "knowledge" on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank to cover the check upon its presentment. MARTINEZ. ordered the bank to stop payment. HELD: No. No. THE HONORABLE ANTONIO M. . LOZANO. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. Since this involves a state of mind difficult to establish. To mitigate the harshness of the law in its application.G. the practice is proscribed by the law. which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer.00. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest. ISSUE: Whether or not (W/N) BP 22 violates the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt. without any valid reason. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. the maker or drawer makes arrangements for payment of the check by the bank or pays the holder the amount of the check. 1986 FLORENTINA A. but in no case to exceed P200.R. the statute provides that such presumption shall not arise if within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor. The thrust of the law is to prohibit. respondent YAP. December 18. or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of said check in full upon presentment." The penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than one year or a fine or not less than the amount of the check nor more than double said amount. The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. L-63419. the statute itself creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge where payment of the check "is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check.000.

ABAD SANTOS. of Article III of the Constitution. From this judgment he appealed. in his discretion.R. Section 1439 specifies the persons required to pay the cedula tax. cause the delinquent to be prosecuted before the justice of the peace of the municipality in which the delinquent shall be found. in that. It seems too clear to require demonstration that section 2718 of the Revised Administrative Code is inconsistent with section 1. and no judgment of conviction can be based thereon. After due trial. while the former authorizes imprisonment for nonpayment of the poll or cedula tax. It follows that upon the inauguration of the Government of the Commonwealth. and the pertinent part of section 2718 reads as follows: A person liable to the cedula tax who remains delinquent in the payment of the same for fifteen days after June first of each year and who upon demand of the provincial treasurer foils thereafter to pay such tax as required by law shall be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor. the latter forbids it. ISSUE: Whether or not the imprisonment for non-payment of cedula tax is unconstitutional. and the provincial treasurer may. HELD: YES. . vs. and to pay the costs. J. of the Revised Administrative Code. alleging that the trial court erred in not declaring said sections 1439 and 2718 of the Revised Administrative Code unconstitutional and void. AMBROSIO LINSAÑGAN.: FACTS: Appellant was prosecuted for non-payment of the cedula or poll tax under section 1439.G. and upon conviction the person so delinquent shalI be sentenced to imprisonment for five days for each unpaid cedula. plaintiff-appellee. defendant-appellant. in connection with section 2718. said section 2718 of the Revised Administrative Code became inoperative. No. 1935 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. L-43290 December 21. clause 12. he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five days.

L-25091 November 29.: FACTS: In the present case the herein defendant-appellant. The orders for the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant. 1968 NILDA SURA.. plaintiff-appellee. CAPISTRANO. SR.G. vs. ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest of the defendant-appellant is unconstitutional.R. in her behalf and in behalf of her minor child VICENTE MARTIN. . Sr. No. J. VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN. defendant-appellant. owing to his insolvency. in a civil action was ordered arrested for contempt of court because of his failure. VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN. HELD: Yes. SR. for contempt of court for failure to satisfy the judgment were illegal since such arrest was contradicting the constitution for the non-imprisonment for non-payment of debt.. to pay the plaintiff-appellee for past and future support. JR. Vicente Martin...

BELLOSILLO. The mere act of issuing a worthless check. hence. 1 private respondent now argues that the check he issued. 22. is malum prohibitum. a memorandum check. A memorandum check. for what the law punishes is the issuance itself of a bouncing check 15 and not the purpose for which it was issuance. 6 Such a check is an evidence of debt against the drawer. vs. ISSUE: Whether or not memorandum check does not fall under B. outside the purview of the statute. upon presentment. 1992 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. a memorandum check is in the form of an ordinary check. NITAFAN. or even as an evidence of a pre-existing debt. Regional Trial Court. 8 and if passed to the third person. signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay the bona fide holder absolutely. whether as a deposit. 75954 October 22.G. is unconstitutional. RULING: No. is generally accepted by the bank. Branch 52. is in the nature of a promissory note. thus the private respondent is exonerated from imprisonment. No. 7 has the same effect as an ordinary check. his argument must also fail. petitioner.: FACTS: Failing in his argument that B. and although may not be intended to be presented. otherwise known as the "Bouncing Check Law".P. without any condition concerning its presentment. Hence it does not matter whether the check issued is in the nature of a memorandum as evidence of indebtedness or whether it was issued is partial fulfillment of a pre-existing obligation. Manila. Presiding Judge. "memo" or "mem" written across its face. J. as a guarantee. and K.R. LIM alias MARIANO LIM. with the word "memorandum".T. DAVID G.P. will be valid in his hands like any other check. respondents. 22. HON. Here. .

2001 issued by Judge Fortunito L. Debt. Distribution and Partition pending before the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City (Branch 12).. A. LLENOS and the CITY JAIL WARDEN OF ORMOC. as used in the Constitution. Clearly. On December 24. RULING: YES. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. 2001. Section 20.. Santos Ave. GEDORIO. Parañaque City. refers to civil debt or one not arising from a criminal offense. petitioners. Petitioners did not comply with the order for the principal reason that they were not certain as to the rightful person to whom to pay the rentals because it was a certain Berlito P. et al. 3695-0 for Issuance of Letters of Administration. Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly provides that no person shall be imprisoned for debt. Branch 12. SPO3 ANGELO S. as recognized lessees of the estate of the deceased. Bolaño. were ordered by the probate court to pay the rentals to the administratrix. No. ISSUE: Whether or not the warrant of arrest issued for indirect contempt is unconstitutional. JR. 154037 April 30. praying that petitioners be held guilty of indirect contempt for not complying with the probate court's order dated October 9. as Special Administratrix of the estate of the late Anselma P. express or implied. respondents. Regional Trial Court of Ormoc. Allers. 1999 directing them to pay their monthly rentals to respondent Bolaño. the payment of rentals is covered by the constitutional guarantee against imprisonment.35 In the present case. Taripe who had originally leased the subject property to them. .G. they were arrested by Ormoc City policemen by authority of a Warrant of Arrest dated November 19. FRANCISCO C. Taripe on a property located in Dr. HON. Madrona in Sp. BOLAÑO. Presiding Judge. respondents vs. 2003 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENJAMIN VERGARA. No.R. J.34 It means any liability to pay arising out of a contract. Proc. The warrant of arrest stemmed from a motion filed by respondent Eleuteria P.: FACTS: Petitioners are the tenants of Berlito P. and ELEUTERIA P..

On May 29. RULING: Yes RATIO: The following are certain guidelines in bail fixing: (1) ability of the accused to give bail.00bail. SANCHEZ. petitioner posted a property bond. (9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested. what with a compound of reduced peso value and the aggravated crime climate. 1964." ISSUE: Whether or not he bail bond is constitutional. J. respondent judge resolved to fix "the bond anew in real property in the amount of P60. was. directed prosecuting attorney's to recommend bail at the rate of P2. however.000.00 per year of imprisonment. The reasonableness of this circular has already received this Court's imprimatur in one case. 1963. A complex crime. 1967 REYNALDO C. (8) forfeiture of other bonds.: FACTS: Petitioner. direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority with murder. VILLASEÑOR. Then. on motion. Circular 47 dated July 5. on verbal representation of petitioner's wife." On September 15. petitioner. (4) character and reputation of the accused. 1964.000. HON. Before arraignment on the murder charge. L-23599 September 29. The amount of the bond was. (5) health of the accused. vs.00. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Marinduque and THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF MARINDUQUE. was set at provisional liberty. admitted to a P60.00.16 We are unprepared to downgrade this method of computation. MAXIMO ABANO. Here petitioner is charged with a capital offense. unless circumstances warrant a higher penalty.R. 1946 of the Department of Justice. (2) nature of the offense. it may call for the imposition of the capital punishment. on petitioner's motion that the original bond previously given be reinstated.000. (6) character and strength of the evidence. defendant below. reduced to P40.G. No. respondents. (7) probability of the accused appearing in trial. . but to be posted only by residents of the province of Marinduque actually staying therein" with properties which "must be in the possession and ownership of said residents for five years. and (10) if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases.000. This time he accused petitioner with "Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Murder. corresponding to the medium period of the penalty prescribed for the offense charged. (3) Penalty for the offense charged. reiterated in Circular 48 of July 18. respondent Provincial Fiscal amended the information.

It is. 2. every person is bailable except if charged with capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong. as the likelihood is. However the case was dismissed for being moot and academic because the accused escape and remained at large. the right to bail becomes meaningless.00 for the 12 counts of multiple frustrated murder. Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City (Branch II). in the language of Cooley. L-32951-2 September 17. FERNANDO. would just simply make himself scarce and thus frustrate the hearing of his case. insure the attendance of the accused" for the subsequent trial. 1970. a "mode short of confinement which would.200. 6 Nor is there. and declared that "bail set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill thus purpose is "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment.: FACTS: August 10. especially so where his defense is weak. with reasonable certainty. It is understandable why. It is not beyond the realm of probability. petitioner. 1971 RICARDO DE LA CAMARA. anything unreasonable in denying this right to one charged with a capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong. It would have been more forthright if no mention of such a guarantee were found in the fundamental law. A bail is intended as a guarantee that such an intent would be thwarted.G. Where. vs. admitting that there was a failure on the part of the prosecution to prove that petitioner would flee even if he had the opportunity. HELD: Yes. RATIONALE: 1. respondents. "the sole permissible function of money bail is to assure the accused's presence at trial. So the Constitution commands. Thereby a regime of liberty is honored in the observance and not in the breach. rather than await the outcome of the proceeding against him with a death sentence.R. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE.Judge Enage issued an order granting petitioner¶s application for bail.200. 7 As construed in the latest American decision. it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive.000.195. the right to bail exists. but fixed the amount of the bail bond at the excessive amount of P1. unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an excessive bail." .00 (P840. Nos.00 for the 14 counts of multiple murder plus P355. J. If there were no such prohibition. Before conviction.) There was a motion for reconsideration to reduce the amount. temptation to flee the jurisdiction would be too great to be resisted. an ever-present threat. however. It is not to be lost sight of that the United States Constitution limits itself to a prohibition against excessive bail. however. 5 Such a right flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal. HON. that a person charged with a crime.

Upon the other hand. while reasonable if considered in terms of surety or property bonds.000. ONOFRE A. At the hearing of February 18. petitioner. and its procurement could work untold hardship on the part of the accused as to have the effect of altogether denying him his constitutional right to bail. and in the case of the bondsman the bond may be obtained by the accused upon the payment of a relatively small premium. and so was an oral motion for reconsideration. . and this was approved by the respondent judge with a direction that it be posted entirely in cash. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge has the authority to require a strictly cash bond and disallow the petitioner's attempt to post a surety bond for his provisional liberty. presided by the respondent Judge Onofre Villauz. The amount of the bond recommended for the provisional release of Almeda was P15. 1975 LEONARDO ALMEDA. Only the reputation or credit standing of the bondsman or the expectancy of the price at which the property can be sold. CASTRO. A surety or property bond does not require an actual financial outlay on the part of the bondsman or the property owner. vs. Almeda asked the trial court to allow him to post a surety bond in lieu of the cash bond required of him. RULING: No. 1970. respondents. with the crime of qualified theft of a motor vehicle (criminal case 285Pasay) in the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig. together with five others. the posting of a cash bond would entail a transfer of assets into the possession of the court.R. the amount fixed for bail.G. HON. is placed in the hands of the court to guarantee the production of the body of the accused at the various proceedings leading to his conviction or acquittal. Rizal. No. VILLALUZ. This request was denied. J. on the ground that the amended information imputed habitual delinquency and recidivism on the part of Almeda.: FATCS: The petitioner Leonardo Almeda (alias Nardong Paa) was charged. may be excessive if demanded in the form of cash. L-31665 August 6.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful