1st column

Facts:

Rufino Nunez is accused of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents committed
in connivance with his co-accused, all public officials, in several cases. He filed a motion to quash on
constitutional and jurisdictional grounds and later be denied by Sandiganbayan.

He filed for petition for certiorari and prohibition that Presidential Decree No. 1486 (creation of
Sandiganbayan), as amended is violative of the equal protection, due process and ex post facto clauses
of constitution.

His contention is that Sandiganbayan proceedings violates his right to equal protection, because- appeal
as a matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion, there is only one chance to
appeal conviction, by certiorari to Supreme Court, instead of the two traditional chances while others
who are also estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both law and facts and
to two appellate courts, first to the Court of Appeals and thereafter to the Supreme Court.

2nd column

Issues and rulings:

WON, Presidential Decree No 1486, as amended violates the equal protection caluse?

No, Presidential Decree No 1486, as amended does not violates the equal protection clause. Equal
protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Equal protection is not violated when classification is
reasonable and must conform to the requirements; (1) based upon substantial distinctions, (2) must be
germane to the purpose of the law, (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, (4) must apply to
all members of the class.

In the case, substantial distinctions exist and it did not discriminate against persons convicted by the
Sandiganbayan in giving them only the remedy of certiorari with the Supreme Court different from the
ones convicted in other trial courts that can appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court and even the
Supreme Court, thus it have more chances of reversals of decisions. Trial in the Sandiganbayan is
conducted by three justices, in order for them to conclude, it does need their unanimous vote which
conceivably will be more careful than of the other trials courts. Since the current Constitution went into
effect on January 17, 1973, those who may be tried by this court in the future should have known that a
different procedure for the accused therein, whether a private citizen or a public official, is not
necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Additionally, the petitioner
cannot be ignorant of the decision in Co Chiong v. Cuaderno by this Court, which said that the general
rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the reach of such a principle is not to be limited and must "give
way to a specific provision," in that decision, one reserving to "Filipino people of the operation of public
services or utilities," among which are the due process of law and equal protection clauses. That is
undoubtedly comprehensive enough to address the current situation.

Therefore, Presidential Decree No 1486 does not violates the equal protection clause
3rd column

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. No costs.