REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL

JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO
G.R. NO. 104768, JULY 21 2003
CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:
Executive Order No. 1 (EO No.1) was issued by President Corazon C. Aquino
after the EDSA Revolution, creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG). This EO tasked the PCGG with recovering the ill-gotten wealth of former
President Marcos, his family, and associate. The PCGG was granted investigative powers
and the authority to promulgate necessary rules and regulations. This led to the creation
of an AFP Anti-Graft Board to investigate alleged unexplained wealth and corruption
involving AFP personnel.
The AFB Board investigated Major General Josephus Q. Ramas for alleged
unexplained wealth, and the findings recommended his prosecution for ill-gotten wealth.
The PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under RA No. 1379 against Ramas. Subsequently,
the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution dismissing the amended complaint and returning
confiscated items to Dimaano.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the 1973 Bill of Rights is applied during the interim period, impacting
Dimaano to assert her rights against unreasonable search and seizure and the exclusion
of evidence.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court held that during the interregnum period following the EDSA
Revolution in 1986, the 1973 Constitution was not in effect, and the revolutionary
government operated without constitutional limitations. As a result, individuals could not
rely on the Bill of Rights during this time. However, international treatise like the ICCPR
and UDHR still protected individual’s rights during the interregnum. The revolutionary
government, once recognized as de jure government, was responsible for complying with
its treaty obligations under international law such as the protection of individual’s rights.
The search and seizure warrant was void because it did not particularly describe the items
to be confiscated such as monies, communication equipment, jewelry, and land titles.
PRINCIPLE
Philippines as signatory of international law agreements such as the ICCPR AND UDHR,
make Filipinos beneficiaries of the rules provided in the Covenant.
 SALVACION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 94723 AUGUST 21, 1997
TORRES., JR.:

FACTS:
An American tourist named Greg Bartelli lured a 12 year old girl Karen
Salvacion, to his apartment where he illegally detained her for four days and raped her
once on the first day and thrice on the following days. After Karen was rescued, Bartelli
was arrested and a criminal case was filed against him. On that same day Karen and her
parents filed a civil case for damages with preliminary attachment. While waiting for trial
Bartelli escaped from jail. The judge granted the application of petitioners and served a
Notice of Garnishment on China Banking Corporation. However, China Banking
Corporation refused to comply with the order, invoking RA No.1405 which protects the
secrecy of bank deposits, and Central Bank Circular No.960 which exempted certain
dollar deposits from attachment or garnishment. The petitioner’s counsel inquired about
any exceptions or amendments to this circular. The Central Bank clarified that Section
113 of CB Circular No.960 is absolute and has no exceptions or amendments,
emphasizing its purpose to encourage dollar accounts in the country’s banking system
for economic development.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 113 of CB Circular No. 960 ND Section 8 of RA 6426 as amended
by P.D. 1246 be made applicable to foreign transient.
RULING:
No. The Court held that the provisions of Section 113 of CB Circular No. 960 are not
applicable to the case at bar due to its peculiar circumstances. The court’s ruling
emphasize that the application of the law should align with principles of justice. If Section
113, which exempts foreign currency deposits from legal processes, were to be applied
to a foreign transient, it would result in injustice, especially when a citizen is harmed by a
foreign guest. This decision is guided by Article 10 of the New Civil Code, which presumes
that the legislative intent is to uphold right and justice when laws are silent or ambiguous.
PRINCIPLE
Ninguno non deue enriquecerse tortizeramente con dano de otro, simply stated when the
statute is silent or amibiguous, this is one of those fundamental solutions that would
respond to the vehement urge of conscience.