Rob LeBron Jordan T.

Jaboneta
DCET 2-2

Case 1
1. What is the case all about.
The case study is all about the case of five private respondents who were charged with
a violation of Republic Act. no 1700 provided by the Philippine Law which was issued on
April 5, 1990 by Judge Jose Burgos. Which somehow the allegations of issuance are
premature that lead for the order to be deprived of its rights to present evidence in
opposition to the application for bail. Furthermore, the court was given an opportunity to
resolve the petition for Certiorari, considering that the judge itself committed grave
abuse. Hence, they are given a chance to present and introduce all the evidence in
order to resolve the motion for bail.
2. What are the facts of the case.
Based on the case study in supreme court's third division issued on August 2 1991, the
fact of the case is that there are people in the Philippines involved with a G.R No. of
92739. Wherein, these respondents were charged due to its violation of RA 1700, and
further had filed petitions for temporary liberty on bail as it was still pending trial.
However, the Judge opposed the petitions and wanted to immediately fix the issue
through charging at least 30,000 each of them. Throughout the further prosecutions, the
supreme court found that the judge itself committed a grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the order, without the presence of the supreme court. Moreover, the Supreme
Court also noted that the April 5, 1990 Order failed to comply with the requirement of
containing a summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by a conclusion on
whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
3. What are the issues on the case.
The issue of the case is all about the resolution of a petition to the case of people of the
Philippines vs Siegfried Deduro who are the alleged leaders of the communist party of
the Philippines. However, throughout the entire trial the judge who issued and granted a
bail was opposed by the supreme court due to not cooperating and waiting for them.
Wherein, the judge was granted a grave abuse of discretion. In conclusion to this case,
is that the court order failed to comply granting them a bail for capital offenses and
declared that the order was void on the ground of procedural due process violation.
4. What is the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Based on the given information, the Supreme Court's Third Division issued a resolution
on August 2, 1991 in a case with G.R. No. 92739, involving the People of the
Philippines as the petitioner and various private respondents. The private respondents
were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 1700, as amended, and had filed
petitions for temporary liberty on bail pending trial. The prosecution opposed the
petitions, and while the prosecution was still presenting its evidence, the respondent
Judge issued an Order on April 5, 1990 fixing bail for five of the private respondents at
P30,000.00 each. The prosecution opposed this order, and the Supreme Court found
that the respondent Judge had committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order,
as it was premature and deprived the prosecution of its right to present evidence
relating to the applications for bail. The Supreme Court cited previous cases to support
the principle that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present all the
evidence it may desire before the court resolves a motion for bail, and that the court's
discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must be exercised in light of a summary of the
evidence for the prosecution. The Supreme Court also noted that the April 5, 1990
Order failed to comply with the requirement of containing a summary of the evidence for
the prosecution followed by a conclusion on whether the evidence of guilt is strong

5. How will this case relate to our course discussion on e-commerce law.
This case is related to our course in terms of providing necessary law information
particularly when someone does things against the law. Where in e-commerce law,
certain republic acts are thrown to the person who commits the illegal. Nevertheless,
every law are bound to provide actions and prosecutions to any cases in need to give
solutions.