CONSTI CASE DIGESTS
People v. Perfecto
277 SCRA 268
FACTS
 About August 20, 1920, Fernando
Guerrero, the Secretary of the
Philippine Senate discovered that
certain documents which constituted
the records of testimony by witnesses
in the investigation of oil companies
had disappeared from his office.
 On September 7, 1920, the
newspaper La Nacion, edited by Mr.
Gregorio Perfecto published an
article criticizing the Senate and its
members in general.
 As a result, he was charged guilty of
violating Article 256 of the Penal
Code by the CFI of Manila.
 The Court found him guilty under
Art. 256 – 2 months and one day of
arresto mayor and the accessory
penalties prescribed by law, and to
pay the costs of both instances.
 Helbig case: oral defamation,
Perfecto: written defamation and
urged upon the court.
 Petitioner filed an appeal to the SC
praying for the dismissal of the case
on the ground that said Article is no
longer in force.
ISSUE
Is Article 256 of the Penal Code still in force
despite the change of Spanish sovereignty to
American sovereignty over the Philippines?
HELD
No. The Court stated that during the Spanish
Government, Article 256 of the SPC was
enacted to protect Spanish officials as
representatives of the King. However, the
Court explains that in the present case, we
no longer have Kings nor its representatives
for the provision to protect.
With the change of sovereignty over the
Philippines from Spanish to American, it
means that invoked provision of the SPC
had been automatically abrogated. Such
intent is contradictory to the ideology of the
new government where: “in the eye of our
(American) Constitution and laws, every
man is sovereign, a ruler, and a freeman, and
has equal rights with every other man”.
The Libel law clearly covers the old subject-
matter of antecedent acts as it punishes
defamation, abuse, or insults by writing. It
appears that the purpose of the legislature to
give expression in it the whole law on the
subject, previous laws are held to be
repealed by necessary implication.
The Court determined Article 256 of the
SPC to be ‘political’ in nature for it is about
the relation of the State to its inhabitants,
thus, the Court emphasized that it is a
general principle of the public law that an
acquisition of territory, the previous
political relations of the ceded region are
totally abrogated.
All laws, ordinances, and regulations in
conflict with the political character,
institutions, and constitution of the new
government are at once displaced.
Article 256 of the SPC is considered no
longer in force and cannot be applied to
present case. Respondent acquitted.
Macariola v. Asuncion
A.M. No. 133-J
FACTS
 On June 8, 1963, respondent Judge
Elias Asuncion rendered a decision
in Civil Case 3010 final for lack of
an appeal.
 On October 16, 1963, a project of
partition was submitted to Judge
Asuncion. The project of partition of
lots was not signed by the parties
themselves but only by the respective
counsel of plaintiff’s and petitioner
Bernardita R. Macariola. The Judge
approved it in his order dated
October 23, 1963.
 One of the lots in the project of
partition was Lot 1184, which was
subdivided into 5 lots deominated as
Lot 1184 A – E. Dr. Arcadio
Galapon bought Lot 1184A – E on
July 31,1 964, who was issued
transfer of certificate of Title No.
2338 of the Register of Deeds of
Tacloban City.
 On March 6, 1965, Galapon sold a
portion of the lot to Judge Asuncion
and his wife.
 On August 31, 1966, spouses
Asuncion and Galapon conveyed
their respective shares and interest
in Lot 1184-E to the Traders
Manufacturing & Fishing Industries
Inc. Judge Asuncion was the
President and his wife Victoria was
the Secretary.
 The Asuncions and Galapon were
also the stockholder of the
corporation.
 Respondent Macariola charged Judge
Asuncion with "Acts unbecoming a
Judge" for violating the following
provisions: Article 1491, par. 5 of
the New Civil Code, Article 14, par.
1 & 5 of the Code of Commerce,
Sec. 3 par H of RA 3019 also known
as the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practice
Act., Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil
Service Rules and Canon 25 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics.
 On November 2, 1970, a certain
Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno
dismissed the complaints filed
against Asuncion.
ISSUE
1. Is Article 14 of the Code of
Commerce ‘political law’?
2. W/N respondent Judge violated the
mentioned provisions
RULING
1. Yes. Political law embraces
constitutional law, law of public
corporations, administrative law,
including the law on public officers
and election.
With respect to the second cause of action,
the complainant alleged that respondent
Judge violated paragraphs 1 and 5, Article
14 of the Code of Commerce when he
associated himself with the Traders
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc.
as a stockholder and a ranking officer, said
corporation having been organized to engage
in business. Said Article provides that:
Article 14 — The following cannot engage
in commerce, either in person or by proxy,
nor can they hold any office or have any
direct, administrative, or financial
intervention in commercial or industrial
companies within the limits of the districts,
provinces, or towns in which they
discharge their duties:
Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and
officials of the department of public
prosecution in active service. This provision
shall not be applicable to mayors, municipal
judges, and municipal prosecuting attorneys
nor to those who by chance are temporarily
discharging the functions of judge or
prosecuting attorney.
Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes
more of the nature of an administrative law
because it regulates the conduct of certain
public officials and employees (including
justices and judges) with respect to engaging
in business, hence it is political.
Said provision must be deemed to have been
abrogated because where there is a change
of sovereignty, the political laws of the
former sovereign are automatically
abrogated. As such, Article 14 is not in
force. The respondent is not found to have
violated the articles invoked by the
petitioner but he was advised by the Court to
be more discreet in his private and business
activities.
2. No. Judge Asuncion did not violate
the mentioned provisions
constituting of "Acts unbecoming a
Judge" but was reminded to be more
discreet in his private and business
activities.
Respondent Judge did not buy the lot 1184-
E directly on the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
3010 but from Dr. Galapon who earlier
purchased the lot from 3 of the plaintiffs.
When the Asuncion bought the lot on March
6, 1965 from Dr. Galapon after the finality
of the decision which he rendered on June 8,
1963 in Civil Case No 3010 and his two
orders dated October and November, 1963.
The said property was no longer the subject
of litigation.
In the case at bar, Article 14 of Code of
Commerce has no legal and binding effect
and cannot apply to the respondent. Upon
the sovereignty from the Spain to the US
and to the Republic of the Philippines, Art.
14 of this Code of Commerce, which
sourced from the Spanish Code of
Commerce, appears to have been abrogated
because whenever there is a change in the
sovereignty, political laws of the former
sovereign are automatically abrogated,
unless they are reenacted by Affirmative Act
of the New Sovereign.
Asuncion cannot also be held liable under
the par. H, Sec. 3 of RA 3019, citing that the
public officers cannot partake in any
business in connection with this office, or
intervened or take part in his official
capacity. The Judge and his wife had
withdrawn on January 31, 1967 from the
corporation and sold their respective shares
to 3rd parties, and it appears that the
corporation did not benefit in any case filed
by or against it in court as there was no case
filed in the different branches of the Court of
First Instance from the time of the drafting
of the Articles of Incorporation of the
corporation on March 12, 1966 up to its
incorporation on January 9, 1967. The Judge
realized early that their interest in the
corporation contravenes against Canon 25.

De Leon v. Esguerra
“The act of ratification is the act of voting
[in the plebiscite] by the people. So that is
the date of the ratification.”
held for the purpose and shall supersede all
previous Constitutions.” The 1987
Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on
February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the
Provisional Constitution must have been
superseded already. Having been rendered
inoperative, Esguerra could no longer
correctly rely on it when he designated the
respondents on February 8, 1987.

Impeachment proceedings are initiated by

filing of a verified impeachment complaint

FACTS

De Leon was the incumbent Brgy. Captain

of Brgy. Dolores, Tagaytay, Rizal whose
term was to end in 1988 under the Brgy.
Election Act of 1982. In memoranda signed
on February 8, 1987, OIC Gov. Esguerra
designated respondents as Brgy. Chairman
and members of the Brgy. Council in place
of De Leon et al. Esguerra relied on the
Provisional Constitution which provided that
“all elective officials xxx under the 1973
Constitution shall continue in office until
designation xxx of their successors if such
appointment is made within one year from
February 25, 1986.

ISSUE

Was the designation of respondents to

replace petitioners validly made within the
one year period contemplated in the
Provisional Constitution?

RULING

No. Article XVIII, Sec 27 of the 1987

Constitution reads: “This Constitution shall
take effect immediately upon its ratification
by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite