A.

Jozoil Robert D. Rosario CRIM 22

21-15-110 Human Rights Education
B.
Genuino v. De Lima
GR. No. 197930
April 17,2018
C.
Reyes, Jr., J.:
D.
The case is a consolidated case of Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition against former
DOJ Secretary Delima for her issuance of DOJ circular no. 41. Series of 2010, known
as the "Consolidated Rules and Regulations Governing Issuance and Implementation of
Hold Departure Orders (HDO), Watch list Orders (WLO) and Allow Departure Orders
(ADO). The petitioners question the constitutionality of the DOJ circular on the ground
that it infringes on the constitutional right to travel.
E.
1. The DOJ Secretary Silvestre H. Bello III issued DOJ Circular No. 17, prescribing rules
and regulations governing the issuance of HDOs. The said issuance was intended to
restrain the indiscriminate issuance of HDOs which impinge on the people's right to
travel.Then Acting DOJ Secretary Alberto C. Agra issued the assailed DOJ Circular No.
41, consolidating DOJ Circular Nos. 17 and 18, which will govern the issuance and
implementation of HDOs, WLOs, and ADOs. Section 10 of DOJ Circular No. 41
expressly repealed all rules and regulations contained in DOJ Circular Nos. 17 and 18,
as well as all instructions, issuances or orders or parts thereof which are inconsistent
with its provisions.
2. In three separate letters dated October 20, 2011, October 21, 2011, and October 24,
2011, GMA requested for the issuance of an ADO, pursuant to Section 7 of DOJ
Circular No. 41, so that she may be able to seek medical attention from medical
specialists abroad for her hypoparathyroidism and metabolic bone mineral disorder.She
mentioned six different countries where she intends to undergo consultations and
treatment.
GMA filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction,
docketed as G.R. No. 199034, to annul and set aside DOJ Circular No. 41 and WLOs
issued against her for allegedly being unconstitutional
3. While the petitioners anchor their right in esse on the right to travel under Section 6,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the said right is not absolute. One of the limitations
on the right to travel is DOJ Circular No. 41, which was issued pursuant to the rule-
making powers of the DOJ in order to keep individuals under preliminary investigation
within the jurisdiction of the Philippine criminal justice system.
It bears emphasizing that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is an implement of
due process which essentially benefits the accused as it accords an opportunity for the
presentation of his side with regard to the accusation.[108] The accused may, however,
opt to waive his presence in the preliminary investigation. In any case, whether the
accused responds to a subpoena, the investigating prosecutor shall resolve the
complaint within 10 days after the filing of the same.
The point is that in the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the presence of the
accused is not necessary for the prosecutor to discharge his investigatory duties. If the
accused chooses to waive his presence or fails to submit countervailing evidence, that
is his own lookout. Ultimately, he shall be bound by the determination of the prosecutor
on the presence of probable cause and he cannot claim denial of due process.

F.
1. WHETHER THE DOJ HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE DOJ CIRCULAR NO.
41; and
2. WHETHER THERE IS GROUND TO HOLD THE FORMER DOJ SECRETARY
GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT.
G.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, Department of Justice Circular No.
41 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All issuances which were released
pursuant thereto are hereby declared NULL and VOID.
The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to REDOCKET the Resolution of the Court
dated November 28, 2011, which required respondent Leila De Lima to show cause why
she should not be cited in contempt, as a separate petition.
H.
It is apparent, however, that the right to travel is not absolute. There are constitutional,
statutory and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. Section 6 itself provides
that the right to travel may be impaired only in the interest of national security, public
safety or public health, as may be provided by law.
A.
Jozoil Robert D. Rosario CRIM 22
21-15-110 Human Rights Education
B.
Zulueta v. CA
GR. No. 107383
February 20,1996
C.
Mendoza, J.:
D.
Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of Dr. Alfredo Martin and one day she went to the clinic of her
husband and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr.
Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr.
Martins passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in
evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of
medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband. The RTC ruled in his favor,
declaring him to be the exclusive owner of such documents. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Cecilia's side is that the case
of Alfredo Martin vs Alfonso Felix, Jr. entered into the court as evidence and that the use
of those documents by Atty. Alfonso did not constitute gross malpractice and gross
misconduct.
E.
1. Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of Dr. Alfredo Martin. One day, she went to the clinic of her
husband, together with her mom, her driver and Dr. Martin’s secretary and forcibly
opened the drawer of her husband’s clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private
correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards,
cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport, and photographs without Dr. Martin’s
knowledge and consent. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in
a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which
petitioner had filed against her husband.
2. Dr. Martin brought an action for the recovery of documents and papers, as well as
damages against her wife before the RTC. The RTC ruled in his favor, declaring him to
be the exclusive owner of such documents. The writ of preliminary injunction was made
final and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and representatives were enjoined
from using or submitting/admitting as evidence the documents and papers in question.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
Hence this petition.
3. Cecilia’s side: She contends that the case of Alfredo Martin vs Alfonso Felix, Jr.
(NOTE: the case is between her husband, Dr. Martin and a lawyer, atty. alfonso) where
the court ruled that the documents and papers were admissible in evidence and that the
use of those documents by Atty. Alfonso did not constitute gross malpractice and gross
misconduct.
F.
Whether or not the documents in question are inadmissible in evidence.
G.

The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the
drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of
marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or
his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to
him or to her.

The law ensures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it
privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists.6 Neither may be examined
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one
from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions.7 But one thing is
freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what
one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each
owes to the other.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.

H.

Indeed, the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The
constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence
[to be] inviolable"3 is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if
there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise,
as prescribed by law."4 Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."