Consti Cases3

Silliman materials (2002) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASES ART I Sovereignty over Place Ligitan and Palau Sipadan FACTS: In case of Indonesia/Malaysia over Palau Ligitan and Palau Sipadan, the Philippines specified that it seeks to intervene in the case as non part. Philippines believe that its claim of sovereignty over North Borneo might be affected by the courts reasoning or interpretation of the issue in the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia. HELD: The Philippines has emphasized the importance of a document dated January 22, 1878 by which the Sultan of Sulu with whom title, a lease to part of Sabah (North Borneo) lay, had made a grant in that part to Messrs. Overbeck and Dent (which grant does not include Palau Ligitan and Palau Sipadan). This instrument, according to the court, is said by the Philippines to be its “primal source” of title in North Borneo and is observed that neither Indonesia nor Malaysia relies on the 1878 grant as source of title to Ligitan and Sipadan. Court cannot grant application to intervene. ART III SEC 1 Santiago vs Vasquez 217 SCRA 633 FACTS: Petitioner-Meriam Santiago was planning to go abroad for study purposes. But the Sandiganbayan ordered the CID not to allow her to leave on the ground that she has a pending case under the Anti – Graft and Corrupt practices Act pending on the said court. Since that order was issued without notice and hearing, petition argued that it has violated here right of due process. HELD: The issuance of the order by the Sandiganbayan is an exercise of its inherent power to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the petitioner. Courts have the power to do all necessary things, as long as it is reasonable for the administration of justice within their jurisdiction. Central Bank vs CA 220 SCRA 536 FACTS: Based on examination report submitted by the Supervision and Examination Section of Central Bank, it stated that the financial condition of TSB is on insolvency and continuing its business would probably mean great loss to its deposition and creditors. The Monetary Board issued a resolution ordering the closure of TSB, and not allowing it to do business in the Philippines, and placing it under receivership. TSB contended that such closure denied TSB due process of law. HELD: Under the Central Bank Act, there is no requirement that a hearing be conducted before a bank may be placed under receivership. It is sufficient that a report be made after examination of a bank that shows that the bank is insolvent. The appointment of receivership may be made 1 without notice and hearings but it is subject to judicial review. Due process does not require a prior hearing. The hearing may be subsequent to the closure. A prior hearing will only result in a bank run. Court Administrator vs. Pascual 259 SCRA 604 FACTS: A municipal judge was charged with bribery as well as administrative cases before the Sandiganbayan. In submitting his report, the RTC judge who investigated the case relied solely on the complaint, the answer, the memorandum of respondent, and the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing before the Sandiganbayan. HELD: Pascual was not given procedural due process. He was not given the right to an open trial where he could confront the witness against him and present evidence in his defense. The procedure fell short of the requirement of due process. Bernardo vs CA 275 SCRA 417 FACTS: Respondent sued petitioner in the RTC. All pleadings on his behalf were filed by the law firm Puerto, Nuñez and Associates. During the initial trials, the court interpreter informed the Judge that Atty. Jose Puerto died. Pending verification of Atty. Puerto’s death, the court proceeded with the trial. A new lawyer appeared and mentioned that Atty. Puerto had died. Without acting on the matter, the court decided the case in favor the respondent. Petitioner argued that he was denied due process since he was not allowed to present evidence. HELD: A verified proof of death must accompany the appearance of a new counsel, whenever the death of previous attorney is the cause of substitution of a counsel. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirement. The death of Atty. Puerto is not significant, because it is the law firm that represents him. Petitioner alleged that the other associate died ahead of Atty. Puerto such that he was the only lawyer in that office. But, Atty. Puerto misled the court into believing that the law firm consisted of more than one lawyer. People vs Teehankee 249 SCRA 54 FACTS: Teehankee was convicted of 2 counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murder. That said crime was highly publicized. He claimed that he was denied due process, because of the pervasive prejudicial publicity which attended the trial. HELD: Freedom of the Press is not incompatible with fair trial. Publicity is not prejudicial to the rights of an accused to a fair trial. Judges are competent and are trained to disregard off court evidence. Publicity does not infect their impartiality. To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be proof that judges were unduly influenced by the barrage of publicity. Webb vs People 276 SCRA 54 FACTS: Hubert Webb was charged with rape with homicide. The Judge denied most of his pleadings. Such as a motion to be hospitalized because of asthma of the skin. The judge refused to allow the defense to confront the witness with the school records to show that her testimony regarding her educational attainment is false. The trial judge denied the motion to take the deposition of witness in the U.S. The judge admitted only 10 out of the 142 exhibits of the 2 petitioner. The trial judge denied the petition for bail. Petitioner argued that the trial judged should be disqualified for bias. HELD: Extrinsic evidence is required to established bias, malice, bad faith or corrupt purpose in addition to palpable error. Repeated rulings against the accused, no matter how erroneous and vigorously expressed are not bases for disqualification of a judge on grounds of bias. Grapilon Petition 302 SCRA 138 FACTS: The complainants seek the removal of Atty. Grapilon from being the IBP president. Complainants, who were employees of the IBP, charged Atty. Grapilon with immorality, questionable disbursement of funds, dishonesty, etc. Thereinafter, complainants were dismissed by the IBP Board of Governors for according to the latter, the employees were guilty of committing acts inimical to the interest of IBP. Complainants contended that said termination was a violation of the IBP employees’ right to due process of law. HELD: The IBP Board of Governors had complied with the requirement of the law. The petitioners were notified of the clarificatory hearings and also the charges that were raised against them. The hearing was intended to give the petitioners the opportunity to answer the charges against them. By their refusal to participate at the hearing they may be deemed to have forfeited their right to be heard in their defense. Marcos vs Sandiganbayan 297 SCRA 99 FACTS: Five counts of violation of the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was charge against the petitioner before the Sandiganbayan. Unanimity was not reached so the presiding justice constituted a special division of 5 justices. One of the justices requested that he be given 15 days to submit his manifestation. On the same day 3 justices had lunched together and discussed the case in the absence of the 2 justices. A justice who was not member of the division was present. The 3 justices agreed to acquit petitioner in three of the cases and to convict her on the other. When they returned to their office, the presiding justice dissolved the special division. HELD: Based on the rules of the Sandiganbayan, sessions should be held at its principal office. Their rules likewise state that unscheduled discussion is not allowed nor shall informal discussion be allowed. It also does not allow the presence of a non-member in the deliberation of cases and does not allow the exclusion of a member of a division in the deliberation of cases. Petitioner had the right to be heard by all 5 justices of the special division. The decision of the Sandiganbayan is void for violating the right of petitioner to substantive and procedural due process of law. Lacson vs. Secretary 301 SCRA 298 FACTS: Principal accused Lacson was among the accused of the Kuratong Baleleng rub out. The Sandiganbayan initially took charge of the case as the policemen involved were public officers. But the Sandiganbayan transferred the case to the RTC because some of the principal accused have been classified falling below salary grade 27 (RA 7975). However, RA 8249 was enacted which includes the rank of chief superintendent as covered under the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. Is the RTC divested of jurisdiction? 3 HELD: The case shall remain with the RTC. The salary grade as it cannot be shown that the crime as alleged was perpetrated by the police officers in the performance of their duties as public officers. DECS vs Sandiego 180 SCRA 533 FACTS: The Secretary of DECS issued a regulation not allowing a student who has failed the National Medical Admission Test for three times from taking it again. Respondent, who had failed three times and wanted to take the test again, claimed the regulation violated due process. HELD: There is a substantial distinction between medical students and other students. The regulation is intended to insulate the medical school from the intrusion of those not qualified to become a doctor. The regulation is within the police power of the state. It is the responsibility of the state that the medical profession is not infiltrated by those not qualified. Agcaoili vs Felipe 149 SCRA 339 FACT: This is a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Omnibus Election Code particularly the part which requires the indelible marking of the forefingers as requisite or condition to the exercise of suffrage and insofar as it penalize failure to comply or refusal to submit to said requisites. HELD: In safeguarding the integrity of the ballot, the state may adopt appropriate and reasonable measures in order to regulate the electoral process such as marking of the forefingers of the voters to prevent multiple voting. JMM Promo vs CA 260 SCRA 319 FACTS: The DECS issued an order which required training testing and certification of performing artist before their deployment abroad. An artist who complies with the requirements would be issued Artist Record Book, which is a requirement for processing their papers by the POEA. Petitioner argued that the requirement violates due process, since the right of the artist to return to work abroad having qualified under the old procedure could not be abridged and their accreditation was a property right. HELD: The order in question is issued in pursuant to the police power of the state; this is because a lot of artists ended up as prostitutes. These measures were adopted to ensure that those individuals who will meet the set of standards which would qualify them as legitimate artists would be deployed. The constitution likewise mandates the government to extend protection to OFWs. While one’s calling is a property right, it is subject to the valid exercise of police power. Salvacion vs Central Bank 278 SCRA 27 FACTS: Accused Greg Bartelly an American tourist was charged of raping a 12 yr old girl . A writ of preliminary attachment was issued by the trial Court against the dollar deposit of the accused. However, garnishment cannot be instituted against the dollar deposit of the accused on the ground that Sec. 113 of Central Bank Circular prohibited it. Said provision is assailed as unconstitutional as it takes away the right of the petitioner to have the bank deposit of accused garnished to satisfy the judgment rendered in petitioner’s favor. It is contended that the provision is a violation of the substantive due process guaranteed by the constitution. 4 A. No. Sec. legislative body. No. A. 5 .O. government agency or any administrative body. the national computerized identification reference system. This makes A. To make it applicable to foreign transient/tourist. 960 which exempts from attachment. 4 A. 308. a college student. Since respondent never conducted any proceeding.O. A. The son of the respondent was also informed of the meeting and told to secure the help of his parents. 308 unconstitutional. 308 violates the right of privacy. 308 does not state that specific biological characteristics and what particularly biometrics technology shall be used to identify people who will seek its coverage. 113 of central Bank Circular No. Due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceeding similar to those prescribed for proceedings in court. Petitioner filed an action to compel NU to allow them to re-enroll on the ground that in effect they were expelled without due process. The son admitted the truth to the chairman of the Board of Discipline. Ateneo de Manila University vs CA 145 SCRA 100 FACTS: A cafeteria waitress complained to the Board of Discipline that the son of respondent. HELD: The imposition of disciplinary sanctions upon students requires the observance of due process. Claiming denial of due process. HELD: A.O. NU also filed a separate criminal case for malicious mischief. or any other order or process of the court. respondent filed an action for damage. petitioners should be allowed to re-enroll without prejudice o any disciplinary proceedings to which they may be subjected. The board posted a notice of its meeting. No. The court ruled that the questioned Sec. The broadness and the vagueness of the act will put the right to privacy of the people in clear and present danger. The students in student discipline cases may be summary. Petitioner contended the A. 308 does not state who will control and access the data under what circumstances and for what purpose.O. 308 provides that the population reference number shall serve as the common reference number to establish a linkage among concerned agencies and that the Secretariat should coordinate with the different social security and services agencies to establish the standard in the use of biometrics technology and in computer application designs of their respective systems.O.HELD: The application of the law depends on the extent of justice. Such circular is applicable only to foreign investors and not transients. and a civil case for damages. Guzman vs NU 142 SCRA 699 FACTS: NU refused to allow petitioner to re-enroll on the grounds that they had participated in activities without prior permit which disrupt classes. would result to injustice especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like Greg Bartelli. garnishment. he was dropped from the roll of students. cursed and slapped her. As a result.O.O. There are minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process. 308 violates the Bill of rights. 308 is indefinite and can give the government moving authority to store and retrieve information for a purpose other than the identification of the individual through his population reference number. No. Ople vs Torres 293 SCRA 141 FACTS: The president issued Administrative Order. The son of respondent admitted the truth of the charge before the board. He actually appeared and admitted to the charge. Violation of disciplinary regulation is a valid ground for dropping a student. Upon appeal to the Board of Regents. The claim of the respondent that they should have been informed is untenable. a municipal planning and development officer.HELD: All the requirements of due process were met. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Due process also does not require sending of notice of the board meeting to respondent. The Philippine Coast Guard suspended petitioner for 2 years. Petitioner appealed to the National Defense. The son was given a notice of the proceedings. after investigation. The 18 yr old son was matured enough to know his responsibilities. he cannot claim that he was deprived of his right to due process. Hence. thus he is now claiming that he was not accorded due process. a police officer resulted in the arrest of 15 persons. Petitioner complained that he was terminated without due process of law. The son is assumed to have reported the matter to his parents. A second raid in a report that petitioner and his brother were involved in jai alai. including his wife. But his employment was terminated by the OIC Mayor. Go vs NAPOLCOM 271 SCRA 447 FACTS: A raid of the house of the petitioner. Doruelo vs MND 169 SCRA 448 FACTS: Petitioner was assigned to be a captain of a vessel. HELD: In administrative proceedings the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the records and disclosed to the parties affected. but still found him guilty. that is his fault. He was accorded every opportunity to present evidence in his behalf. petitioner was heard on his motion for reconsideration filed with the Review Committee. which collided with a tanker because of the recklessness of the petitioner. He was not notified of the meeting when the Board of Regent acted on his case. Sto. HELD: University rules do not require the attendance in board meeting of individuals whose cases are included in the agenda of the board. the penalty was reduced to suspension of 1 year. He was ordered expelled by the Executive Committee. but it increased his suspension to three years because of information that he was involved in another collision. which was dismissed because of lack of merit. HELD: The fundamental rule in the due process clause is the opportunity to be heard. There is absolutely no evidence of arbitrariness or caprice in the questioned act of the respondent. is holding a permanent position. In the case at bar. respondent cannot recover damages. Hence. No formal complaint was filed nor any 6 . The charges against him are easily related with documentary evidence regarding the completion of the project. a confiscation of materials used in jai alai. If he did not. Domingo vs Ordoñez 166 SCRA 123 FACTS: Petitioner. UP vs Telen 227 SCRA 342 FACTS: Respondent wrongfully state in his application for reduction of tuition his family income. Therefore this makes the increase of duration of suspension of petitioner erroneous. for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. The classification rests on real and substantial distinction. 1639. Petitioner filed an urgent motion for additional hearing alleging that he suffered a stroke. Lumigued vs Secretary 282 SCRA 125 FACTS: Petitioner was charged with malversation through falsification. Petitioner appeared before the summary dismissal board thrice. but no hearing was held because either the complainant or his witnesses were absent. violation of COA rules and regulation and oppression and harassment. The assistance of a counsel while desirable cannot validly act at all except only with a lawyer at his side. receive. other than the so called native wine or liquor which members of such tribe have been accustomed themselves to make prior to the passage of this act. he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law. Petitioner argued that he was denied due process. But neither he nor his counsel arrived on the day he has chosen. 1639 satisfies the conditions given. which state that decisions must be rendered on the evidence contained in the records and disclosed to the party affected. This is in violation of the rule on administrative proceedings. spirit. beer…. The summary dismissal board took cognizance of the case against petitioner. HELD: The claim of the petitioner has merit. “Counsel for defendant says that the phrase “member of non-Christian tribe” violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. not only imaginary or whimsical distinctions. Usually living in the tribal relationship apart from settled community. People vs Cayat 68 Phil 12 FACTS: Cayat. The board ordered the dismissal of the petitioner for alleged involvement on Jai alai. Sec 2 state that “It shall be unlawful for any native of the Philippines who is a member of the non-Christian tribes…to buy. The term “non Christian tribes“ refers not to religious belief. An actual hearing is not always indispensable aspect of due process. to the nature of the Philippines of a lowgrade civilization. have in his possession or drinks any ardent. a member of the non-Christian tribes. 7 . as long as a party was given the opportunity to explain once side. Act No. Nor was petitioner heard in his defense.supporting affidavit of witnesses. The director general of PNP and the NPC denied his appeal. ale. On the 2nd hearing he moved to reschedule it to enable him to hire a counsel. An investigation was conducted and was directed to submit counter affidavit. as long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interest in due course. Committee hearing was conducted but Lumigued was not assisted by a counsel. but in a way geographical area and more directly. but the report is not in the record of this case. HELD: It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guarantee of the equal protection of the law is not violated by legislation based on reasonable classification. HELD: The right to counsel is not indispensable in due process unless required by the constitution or law. Act No. So the committee deemed the case submitted for resolution. the essence of due process. 1639 therefore does not violate equal protection clause. In administrative proceedings. was convicted for violation of Act No. The summary dismissal board received the report on the two raids. but on the day of the trial he was discharge this fact was shown through his discharge record. The repealing clause denies the Judiciary equal protection. 8 . widows of former president. there is no violation of the constitutional clause. Senator. It does not violate the equal protection clause.O. It is intended to prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory within which it is to operate. They argued that it violated equal protection since the franking privilege of the President. As long as there is actual and material difference between territories. COMELEC. It was similarly treated as the Armed Forces of the Philippines Ladies Steering Committee. Tiu vs CA 301 SCRA 278 FACTS: Petitioner alleged the E. inter alia. RA 1180 prohibits non-citizen of the Philippines from engaging directly or indirectly with retail business. It does not require absolute equality among residents. National Census and Statistic Office. 97-A violates their right of equal protection.O. Petitioner are questioning the constitutionality of the said act particularly Sec. EO 97-A provides. member of the lower house. HELD: E. HELD: The grant of the franking privilege was the perceived need of the grantee for the accommodation which would justify a waiver of revenue by the Philippine Postal Corporation. 97-A is valid and constitutional. and the people filing complaints against public officer were retained. Sec 35 placed the court in a category to which it does not belong. Individuals residing within the “secured area” are free to import raw materials. the tax and duty free privilege granted to the “secured area” in the former Subic Naval Base Business and enterprise. Philippine Judges Association vs Prado 227 SCRA 703 FACTS: RA No 7394 repealed franking privilege of the Judiciary.39. capital goods.) Inchong vs Hernandez 101 Phil 1152 FACTS: Petitioner on behalf of other aliens adversely affected by the provision of RA 1180 brought this action to obtain judicial declaration that the said act is unconstitutional. HELD: The equal protection of the law is against undue favor on individual or class privilege as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequalities. Vice president. it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike under like circumstances both as to privilege conferred and liabilities enforced. It is settled that the equal protection guarantee does not required territorial uniformity of law.(note: requisites of a valid classification: a) must not be arbitrary b) based on substantial distinction c) classification is germane to the issue d) not only based on present condition but shall apply to future conditions as well e) must apply equally to all members of a class. former President. equipment’s and consumer items are tax and duty free. There is no reason why the Judiciary be likened with other offices from which the franking privilege has been withdrawn. Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the act contending that it denies to alien residents equal protection of the law and deprives them of their liberty and property without due process of law. had knowledge of the facts which were gathered by him personally in the course of his investigation indicating that the accused was one of the killers. The accused was one of the killers according to an eyewitness. who effected the arrest. The police officer saw the dead victim at the hospital. a piece of wood and a hollow block. It repealed the exemption from the value-added tax of the publisher of newspapers and magazine. Because of that fact. The police officer. The Cooperative Union of the Philippines also argued that the law violated equal protection because it retained the exemption of electric cooperatives but abolished the exemption of other cooperatives. The classification must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all belonging to the same class. and the police officer had personal knowledge of the fact indicating the accused. At the hospital. People vs Aminnudin 163 SCRA 402 9 .If the grouping were characterized by substantial distinction that made real difference. The Legislative dept is not required to adhere to all-or-nothing policy in choosing the subject of taxation. It rests on a congressional determination that there is a greater need to provide cheaper electricity to as many people as possible than there is to provide them with other necessities. a hallow block and two roaches of marijuana. but he claimed that his pair of pants was not admissible as evidence. They found a piece of wood with blood stains. one class may be treated and regulated differently from another. they found marijuana in a coin purse. The search conducted on the person of the accused was lawful because it was an incident of a valid arrest. Gerente 219 SCRA 756 FACTS: There was a mauling incident reported at the police station. SEC 2 People vs Tonog 205 SCRA 772 FACTS: A dead body was found. An eyewitness pointed to the accused as one of the killers. The classification is reasonable. During the investigation a person told the police officer that it was the accused who killed the victim. because it was illegally seized. HELD: The argument is without merit. Tolentino vs Secretary 249 SCRA 628 FACTS: RA 7716 expanded the scope of the Value Added Tax. The police officer went to the place where the mauling took place. The accused was charged of murder. When the police frisked the accused. Accused argued that the marijuana leaves were not admissible as evidence. the police found out that the victim was dead. HELD: A peace officer may make an arrest without a warrant when an offense has just been committed and he has personal knowledge of the fact indicating that the person to be arrested committed it. People vs. such that this makes the warrant less arrest of the accused valid. The police officers found the instrument of death. where the victim was brought. it is admissible as evidence. HELD: A crime has just been committed. The pair of pants was taken as an incident of the arrest. this justifies the warrantless arrest. The judge should exercise his sound discretion. In support of the application. People vs Estrada 296 SCRA 383 FACTS: The BFAD applied for a search warrant against respondent for selling drugs without a license from them in violation of Art. inspected his bag. confiscated the marijuana leaves inside in side it. distribution. Respondent filed another motion to lift search warrant on the ground that it was issued without probable cause. 4 of the Consumer Act. The court denied the motion and issued warrants for the arrest of petitioner. The lower court could not possibly have expected more evidence from petitioner in their application for a search warrant other than what the law and jurisprudence and the existing and judicially accepted requirements with respect to the finding of probable cause. They did not have any warrant of arrest and search warrant.FACTS: An officer of the Philippine Constabulary accosted defendant while he was descending from a boat. he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. The judge has not personally examined the witness. Defendant was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. HELD: Petitioner’s consistent position that the order of the lower court denying respondent motion to lift the order of search warrant was properly issued there having been satisfactory compliance with the then prevailing standards under the law for determining probable cause is indeed well taken. HELD: The judge has not personally determined the existence of probable cause. which was granted by the lower court. an intelligence officer of the VRB obtained a search warrant. The constitutional requirement has not been satisfied. Hence Petitioner questioned the said decision. advertising materials and other items used for sale. HELD: Defendant was not caught inflagrante delicto. this makes the search illegal. but was denied by the court. this was done in response of a tip from an informer given two days earlier. Respondent filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the ground that the search warrant did not state specific offense. she submitted the affidavit to the police stating that he bought drugs from respondent and upon 10 . There should be a report and necessary document supporting the certification of the prosecutor. Nor was he about to do so or had just done a crime. At the moment of his arrest. and arrested him. circulation or public exhibit of the pirated video tapes. when he relies solely on the certification of the prosecution when the records are not brought before him. To all appearances. he was not committing a crime. But the SC ordered a transfer of venue to Makati. Petitioner asked the court at Makati to order the transmittal of the records of the preliminary investigation to enable it to determine if there was probable cause for their arrest. poster. All these should be before the judge. lease. Lim vs Felix 194 SCRA 292 FACTS: Four informations for murder against the petitioner were filed by the fiscal in Masbate. Columbia vs CA 262 SCRA 219 FACTS: After verifying the information he received that respondent had in his possession pirated videotapes. The extent of the examination of the report and the documents depend on the circumstances of each case. which has teddy bear in it. The receipt of information that a foreigner had prohibited drugs in his possession and the failure of the accused to produce his passport. People vs Malmsteadt 198 SCRA 401 FACTS: There was a report that a foreigner was transporting prohibited drugs. It turned out that it contained hashish. He stopped to get 2 bags. a police officer. was riding. HELD: Documentary proof that respondent had no license to sell drugs should have been presented. They then searched the premises and seized a pocket of marijuana leaves and a bag containing shabu. They noticed a bulge on the waist of the accused and asked for the passport. it was merely coincidental since the accused chose to consummate the illicit transaction inside the dwelling. Accused argued that the search was illegal. The search of his condominium is valid as an incident of lawful arrest. Li Wai 214 SCRA 504 FACTS: At the condominium of the accused. The application also stated the residence as located at 516 San Jose de la Montana Street. which justified the warrant less search. which was a compound and attached a sketch indicating the resident of respondent with “X”. The accused was asked to alight the bus. he was arrested by police officer while selling heroin powder. Accused argued that the arrest and search was illegal.verification from the registry of BFAD. Cebu City. The plastic 11 . The teddy bear was found to contain hashish the accused was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. the police asked him to bring what was bulging on his waist. they went to nearby warehouse owned by somebody and seized the drugs they found. Likewise the search team exceeded its authority by conducting a search in another place belonging to another person. HELD: The accused was caught inflagrante delicato. He was brought to the police headquarter. he found out that respondent had no license to operate. where he might gain possession of a weapon or destroy evidence constituting proof of his crime. this is because the accused was arrested while in the act of transporting drugs. They stopped a bus in which the accused. People vs Salazar 266 SCRA 607 FACTS: In an entrapment. A search warrant was issued to look for drugs in possession and control of respondent. Fact and circumstances that show probable cause must be the best evidence procurable under the circumstances to prove that respondent had no license to sell drugs is the certification to the effect from the DOH. While entry into his dwelling was effected without a search warrant. posing as a buyer. A police officer likewise seized a plastic container on the table inside the store from which the accused took the marijuana. gave rise to the probable cause. People vs. It was conducted in a confined place within his immediate control. HELD: The search made upon his personal effect was lawful as an incident to a lawful arrest. Police did not found anything at the resident of respondent. the police officers set up a checkpoint. this makes the arrest valid. It was only then that he presents his passport. When he failed to comply. a foreigner. bought marijuana from the accused in her store and arrested her without warrant. Padilla vs CA 269 SCRA 402 FACTS: A citizen saw the accused driving his motor vehicle very fast. Accused argued the search at his house is illegal. The accused alighted from his vehicle. Court Administrator vs. The accused was charged with selling marijuana. People vs Cuenco 298 SCRA 621 FACTS: A police officer who posed as a user of marijuana arrested the accused for selling marijuana. The police officer search. The accused may not successfully invoke the right against a warrant less search. Since the store was part of the house of the accused it became advisable. Accused argued that seizure was illegal. This was a waiver of the right against the search and seizure. Accused start driving. the seizure of the firearm and magazines can be justified as an incident of a lawful arrest. He asked for money. The police confiscated it. a judge called the president of a corporation which had a pending case before him. He then heard that the motor hit somebody. the house of the accused and seized dried flowering tops of marijuana in his bedroom. The accused was then charged with selling marijuana and illegal possession of marijuana. HELD: The seizure of the revolver and the magazine was justified. The arresting officers were duty bound to apprehend her immediately. He seized the magazine. the warrant less search of a motor vehicle is constitutionally permissible. if not necessary. At that time the accused was standing by the door of the store. The accused voluntarily surrendered the pistol and three magazines. and told him that he would decide the case in favor of the corporation. Another police saw a magazine of an Armalite tucked in his back pocket. The same justification applies to the confiscation of the Armalite. In a valid arrest. it becomes both the duty and the right of the police officer to conduct a warrant less search not only on the person of the suspect but also in the area within his effective control. It drew up a plan to entrap 12 . police saw the butt of a revolver protruding from his waist.container contained six more marijuana sticks. Besides. the citizen reported the incident to the police by radio and chased the motor vehicle. which was part of his house. HELD: The accused had been caught inflagrante delicto. HELD: The accused was arrested inflagrante delicto. The radio comptroller flashed the message to all police units. The president of the corporation reported the case to the NBI. may extend to include the premises under the immediate control of the accused. which was readily apparent when the police took a casual glance at his vehicle. A mobile unit intercepted the motor vehicle and forced it to stop. Moreover. even as regard to the plastic container with dried marijuana leaves found on the table in her store. Accused was arrested and surrendered the pistol and magazine. Warrant less search and seizure. Barron 297 SCRA 376 FACTS: Respondent. The police opened the door of the vehicle and saw an armalite with magazine. The search being an incident of a valid arrest needed no warrant to be valid. as an incident to a lawful arrest. Salazar argued that the warrantless seizure of the marijuana was illegal. for the police officer to undertake a search of the house as being within the area of immediate control of the accused. for they were ceased within the plain view of the police officer who inadvertently discovered them. On that said date petitioner moved the he be accorded a regular preliminary investigation but was denied. Once they caught up with petitioner. he hurriedly fled. At about 10 pm appellant went to the room of the accused and got the heroin. HELD: Since respondent was caught inflagrante delicto. On her way out of the room. They caught him placing the money under the drivers seat. petitioner may not be considered as continually committing the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention at the time of the arrest. Respondent was arrested and charged with bribery. they found a grenade tucked inside his waistline. Two days later. the NARCOM agent arrested the Appellant who said that she was staying at Rm. while the other victim remains missing to date. The police officer saw petitioner trying to detonate a grenade. Petitioner resisted arrest and sought the aid of his lawyer. One of the victim was found dead on July 18. 413. Judge argued that the warrant less search of his car was illegal. Hence. When the police approached him. but made an undertaking that they will appear on Sept. Police chased petitioner and his companion so the attempt was aborted. There is no showing that at the time of arrest the other victim was being detained by petitioner. He informed the authorities that he was to deliver the heroin to 3 people at Las Palmas Hotel. and there was no need for a warrant for the seizure of the fruits of the crime. Petitioner alleged the he was denied the right to preliminary investigation and sought to annul the information as well as the warrant of arrest issued in consequence thereof. 15. 17. 1997. On Sept. This makes the warrant less arrest of the petitioner illegal. 13 . Later while at room 504 of said hotel. Larranaga vs CA 287 SCRA 581 FACTS: Petitioner is charged with 2 counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The president of the corporation handed to judge a bag containing marked money. Malacat vs CA 283 SCRA 159 FACTS: A team of police conducted a patrol because of a report that a group of Muslim extremists would explode a grenade. the warrant less search conducted on petitioner was not incidental to a lawful arrest. People vs Leangsiri 252 SCRA 213 FACTS: Accused was arrested at the arrival area of the NAIA with heroin. The search was incidental to the lawful arrest. police saw petitioner. 1997 some members of the PNP CIG went to CCA in QC to arrest petitioner without a warrant. HELD: The police officer had no personal knowledge of an overt physical act on the part of the petitioner indicating that he committed a crime. Petitioner was caught and was charged of illegal possession of hand grenade. 1997. stating that petitioner is only entitled of inquest proceedings HELD: The fact of this case shows that kidnapping was committed July 16. who acted suspiciously with his eyes moving very fast.the judge. Hence. after negotiation the PNP allowed petitioner to go home. accused (together with Narcotics Agents) received a phone call that the heroin will be picked up. 1997 for preliminary investigation. At a signal agents of NBI rushed to the car of the respondent. HELD: In the case at bar appellant were arrested in Rm.38 revolver without serial number. In the case at bar. He then formed a team to conduct an investigation with such matter. 2 empty shells of . paper or effect of any individual.Accompanied by Hotel owner. The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law enforcers. a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search the person. Amidus. Waiver by implication cannot be presumed. however exculpate appellant. is illegal and the piece of paper bearing Leangiri’s name cannot be admitted as evidence against appellant. The inadmissibility of this evidence will not. Appellant. 504 of the Hotel. HELD: Generally.38 caliber bullet and a . 136267. A policeman spotted a 70 square meter marijuana plantation. the seized plants are inadmissible in evidence against accused because evidence is inadmissible. The paper and other possession were confiscated. Clearly the warrant less search. They confiscated a white shirt stained with blood. A valid arrest allows only the seizure of evidence of dangerous weapon within the person or area of his immediate control. It is clear that the warrant less search in this case cannot be justified on this ground. May 10. 413. The accused assailed the illegality of the search and seizure conducted by the policeman in his house because there is no warrant. the team went to the house of the accused which is 5 meters away from the said marijuana plantation. The piece of paper bearing Leangiri name was obtained through warrant less arrest at Rm. HELD: The search of accused’s house was illegal. argued that search is illegal. The police found the victim dead on his tricycle which was parked on the road. 2001 FACTS: Accused was found guilty of murder by the RTC. For neither the T-shirt nor the gun was within the area of the accused’s immediate control. When the police went to that café. Time was not of the essence to uproot the plant. The remaining evidence still established their guilt beyond reasonable ground. peace officer cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official functions. A tricycle driver told the police that the accused and the victim were seen coming out from a café. They took pictures of the accused standing beside with the marijuana plant and took him to the police station. The police proceeded to the house of the accused. the waitress also told them that she had seen accused with the victim in the café. People vs Pasudagi GR 128822. May 4. house. 2001 14 . the NARCOM agent searched room 413. regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions. Its exclusion does not destroy the prosecution’s case against appellant. Therefore the things obtained as result are inadmissible in evidence against him. July 20. A warrant less search is in derogation of a constitutional right. Tuck in the telephone book was a piece of paper in the name of Leangiri written it. Even assuming the warrant less arrest to be valid. policeman had ample time to a secure search warrant: they failed to secure one. People vs Cubcubin GR. Thereafter. 132662. People vs Hindoy and Negrosa GR. With the illegal seizure of the marijuana plants subject of this case. 2001 FACTS: Accused was found guilty of illegal cultivation of marijuana by the RTC. the search cannot be considered an incident thereto. There must be a physical interruption thru a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear. arrest a person when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed. The appellant claims that these documents were illegally procured in grave violation of his constitutional right to privacy of communication and papers. or is attempting to commit an offense. HELD: The phrase “any other device or arrangement” in RA 4200 known as the anti-wire tapping law does not cover an extension line. The case of Pp v Marti is in point where the Court had the occasion to rule that the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches 15 . PEOPLE v MENDOZA 301 SCRA 66 FACTS: Appellant was accused of parricide and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. 1986 to Dec 15. such that when it is used to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful interception of communications between the two parties using a telephone line. being incident to a lawful arrest was valid notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. who sold a kilogram of marijuana to a member who posted as buyer. HELD: The search. The trial court held him guilty of both charges. 1986. The memorandum receipt and the mission order was found by the father of the wife-victim in the appellant’s house after the killing of the wife in 1988. Evidence obtained in violation of Art III. a peace officer may. The law refers to a “tap” of a wire or cable or the use of a “device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing. SEC 3 GAANAN v IAC 145 SCRA 112 FACTS: This petition asks for the interpretation of RA 4200. Accused contended in their appeal that the trial court erred in admitting the marijuana in evidence since it was confiscated without search warrant. intercept or record the spoken words. After that. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. They were not liable for the violation of the antiwiretapping act. dictagraph or other devices enumerated in sec 1 of RA 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. intercepting or recording the communication. otherwise known as the anti– wiretapping act. police identified themselves and searched the house. as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest may be extended beyond the person or surrounding under his immediate control. The possession of the fatal gun by the appellant was established by the memorandum receipt signed by the appellant himself and a mission order authorizing him to carry the said weapon from Nov.FACTS: Informant gave information to the policemen that there was a shipment of illegal drugs which was received by the accused Negrosa. 15. where 12 more kilograms of marijuana were found. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. is actually committing. It was Hindoy. In fact. HELD: The solicitor general is correct in explaining that such right applies as a restraint directed against the government and its agencies. The RTC found the accused guilty for violation of RA 6425 as amended by RA 7659. An extension telephone cannot be place in the category as a Dictaphone. the warrant less search and seizure. on the issue of whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices. Under Sec 5. and/or his right against unreasonable search and seizure. however it is not without exception. Sec 2 is inadmissible. Therefore. an organized team was sent to the house of the accused to conduct a buy bust operation. as in instances of searches incidental to lawful arrest. without a warrant. Thereafter. respondent sued petitioner for the recovery of the documents and had her enjoined from using them as evidence. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justify such intrusions. But this cannot be invoked to resist publication of matters of public interest. AYER v CAPULONG 160 SCRA 861 FACTS: Senator Enrile seeks to enjoin the movie company from producing “The Four Day Revolution. which provides for the adoption of a national computerized identification reference system. Enrile’s role in that revolution is a matter of public interest because he was a principal figure in that event. Said the Court. for public showing. in the absence of the said respondent’s knowledge and consent. a private citizen. 16 . OPLE v TORRES 293 SCRA 141 FACTS: The president issued Administrative Order No. Indeed there is such a thing as the right to privacy. HELD: Assuming arguendo. we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar all intrusions into individual privacy. ZULUETA v CA 253 SCRA 699 FACTS: Petitioner. as prescribed by law. The only exception is if there is a lawful order from a court or when public safety or order requires otherwise.and seizures refers to the immunity of one’s person from interference by the government and it cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion. went to the clinic of the respondent. In the instant case. Intrusion into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. This freedom is available to both local and foreign owned production companies even if they are commercial. as an administrative legislation because facially it violates the right to privacy. took documents consisting of private correspondence between respondent and his alleged mistresses. Sec 4 of AO No.” a dramatization of the February 1986 revolution. 308 provided that the population reference number shall serve as the common reference number to establish a linkage among concerned agencies and that the secretariat of the inter-agency coordination committee should constitute with the different social security and services agencies to establish the standards in the use of biometrics technology and in computer application designs of their respective systems. in no uncertain terms. that AO 308 need not be the subject of a law. HELD: The court ruled the mentioned documents are inadmissible in evidence. the wife of respondent. 308. What the right to privacy protects is the right against unwarranted intrusions and wrongful publications of the private affairs of individuals which are outside the sphere of legitimate public concern. HELD: Motion pictures are protected medium for the communication of ideas and expression of the artistic impulse. The constitutional provision declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable is applicable even between spouses. the memorandum receipt and mission order were discovered by accused-appellant’s father-in-law. still it cannot pass constitutional muster. The essence of privacy is the right “to be let alone”. on the ground that it would violate his right to privacy. Rather the CSC found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for having absented themselves without proper authority. and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the lawmakers has the right to prevent. in order to participate in the mass protest. their absence ineluctably resulting in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of education. teachers from various schools in Metro Manila. As a result. the very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibitions against strikes by government workers. Nov 14. petitioners were charged administratively with gross misconduct. except Merlinda Jacinto. whether print or broadcast. for joining unauthorized mass actions. On Sept 17. after an investigation has been made. 1990 in connection with the mass action they staged.PEOPLE vs. The clear and present danger test. the temporary stoppage of classes resulting from their activity necessarily disrupted public services. rules and regulations. 1990. 17 . for which they were responsible. 1997 FACTS: Petitioners. ALBOFERA 152 SCRA 123 FACTS: While the accused was charged with murder. HELD: Petitioners. The prosecution presented said letter as evidence. HELD: There was no violation of the right of the accused to PRIVACY of COMMUNICATION. DECS Secretary Isidro Carino issued a return to work order which was ignored by the petitioners. HELD: All forms of media. SEC 4 JACINTO v CA GR 124540. from their school and during regular school days. unjustified abandonment of teaching posts and non-observance of civil service law. ignoring return to work order. The production of the letter was not the result of an unlawful search and seizure nor was it through any unwarranted intrusion into his privacy. were not penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for redress of grievances. however. Sec Carino. he wrote the prosecution’s witness a letter asking him to change the declaration in his affidavit and to testify in his favor. EASTERN BROADCASTING v DANS 137 SCRA 628 FACTS: A petition was filed by petitioners to compel the respondents to allow the reopening of Radio Station DYRE which had been summarily closed on grounds of national security. It was the recipient who produced it in the course of his testimony in court. The accused argued that its admission in evidence violated his right to privacy of communication. The petitioner raised the issue of freedom of speech. It appears that the respondents charged petitioners of “inciting people to commit acts of sedition” because of the petitioner’s shift towards what it stated on its coverage of public events and the airing of programs geared towards public affairs. As it was. gross neglect of duty. incurred unauthorized absences between the period Sept 17-21. are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of speech and expression clause. found the petitioners guilty as charged and imposed the penalty of dismissal except to petitioner Merlinda Jacinto and Adelina Agustin who were suspended for 6 months. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the clear and present danger rule – that words are use in such circumstances. etc. does not lent itself to a simplistic and all embracing interpretation applicable to all utterances in all forums. etc. which is not concerned with the contents of political advertisements but only with their incidents. it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition – if the comment is an expression of opinion. The provision in question does not only prohibit the sale or donation of print space and air time in the mass media for allocation. Respondent reacted to the articles and sent letters to the Philippine Star insisting that he was the “organizer” alluded by the petitioner’s column. much less restriction on the content of the speech. as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. HELD: Publication which are privileged for reason of public policy are protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. HELD: The SC did not adopt a new doctrine of visible tendency. Respondent argued that the Supreme Court adopted the dangerous tendency rule rather than the clear and present danger rule. respondent filed a libel suit against petitioner. 301 SCRA 1 FACTS: Between May and July 1989. Thereafter. Under either the clear and present danger test or the balancing of interest test. free of charge. Neither did it refer to the FNCLT as conference therein mentioned. on the ground that it had not leveled the playing field but worked to the disadvantage of poor candidates by depriving them of a medium they can afford to pay while their more affluent opponents can resort to other means to reach voters like rallies. then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken. The clear-and-present danger is inappropriate as a test for determining the constitutionality of Sec 11(b) of RA 6646.ZALDIVAR v SANDIGANBAYAN 170 SCRA 1 FACTS: For claiming that the Supreme Court deliberately rendered a wrong decision in retaliation against him. the statements made by respondent were of such a nature and were made under such circumstances as to transcend the permissible limits of free speech. which prohibits the sale or donation of print space and air time to candidates. Borjal is acquitted of the charges. BORJAL v CA. respondent was cited for contempt and indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. OSMENA v COMELEC 288 SCRA 447 FACTS: Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Sec 11(b) of RA No. there is a legitimate government interest justifying exercise of the regulatory power of the Commission of Elections. parades and handbills. Since print space and airtime can be controlled or dominated by rich candidates. The article dealt with the alleged anomalous activities of an “organizer of a conference” without naming or identifying private respondent. based on established facts. a series of written articles by the petitioner was published on different dates in his column at the Philippine Star. HELD: There is no total ban on the political advertisements. 18 . In order that a discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable. 6646. The substantive evil which the SC is seeking to prevent is not physical disorder but the degradation of the judicial system and the destruction of the standards of professional conduct required from members of the bar. to candidates. While the state has the responsibility to inculcate patriotism in the youth. When he was asked to shed light on his charges. 8 which compels daily flag ceremony in all public or private schools. Two of the individuals he mentioned executed affidavits denying his accusations. The expulsion of petitioners from school also violates their right to receive education. 1995 FACTS: A newspaper columnist wrote in his column about corruption in the judiciary. the columnist did not do so. its interest in molding the young into patriotic citizens is not free from a balancing process when it intrudes into fundamental rights such as freedom of religion. solely on account of their refusal to salute the flag which in violation of Education Dept. Absence of threat to public safety. Order No. TOLENTINO v SEC OF FINANCE 235 SCRA 630 FACTS: RA 7716 expanded the scope of the value added tax.In Re: Jurado. It repealed the exemption from the value added tax of printed books and articles. Apr. 19 . OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU FACTS: Petitioners. HELD: False reports about a public official are not shielded by freedom of the press. When he was asked why he should not be cited for contempt. GERONA v SECRETARY 106 Phil 11 FACTS: This is an appeal to the decision of the CFI of Masbate banning Jehovah’s witnesses from admission to public schools. The zone of protection afforded by the constitution cannot be violated except upon a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the state has the right to prevent. Exempting petitioners from the flag ceremony has not produced a nation bereft of patriotism. the columnist invoked the freedom of the press. The state argues that to exempt petitioners will benefit a privileged few. They may be taught the virtues of patriotism in school. Refusal to take part in the flag ceremony is not so offensive as to prompt legitimate state intervention. The essence of the guarantee of free exercise of religion is freedom from conformity by the conformity to religious dogma. HELD: Freedom of Religion does not prohibit the imposition of a tax on the sale of religious materials by a religious organization which is generally applicable. They belong to the category of utterances which are not essential part of the exposition of ideas and are outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Petitioners quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the right of those who choose to participate in the flag ceremony. The Philippine Bible Society argued that the removal of the tax exemption of religious books and articles violated freedom of religion. They considered the flag ceremony as an act of religious devotion which they cannot give to anyone except God. were expelled from school for refusing to take part in the flag ceremony on account of their religious beliefs. 6. HELD: The expulsion of petitioners from school violates their religious freedom. AM no. the expulsion of petitioners from school is not justified. The Jehovah’s witnesses are teaching that the obligation imposed by law of God is superior to that of laws by the state. who are members of the JEHOVAH’s witnesses. They do not engage in disruptive behavior. SEC 5 EBRALINAG v DIV SUPT. 93-2-037. especially the Catholic Church. HELD: The evidence shows that the respondent Board x-rated petitioners TV series for “attacking” other religions. an emblem of National Sovereignty. of national unity and cohesion and of freedom and liberty which it and the constitution guarantee and protect. Saluting the flag consequently does not involve any religious ceremony. 177 SCRA 668 FACTS: Petitioners Marcos and his family. (note: this ruling has been abandoned by the Ebralinag case) IGLESIA ni CRISTO v CA 259 SCRA 529 FACTS: Petitioner presents over its television program its religious beliefs. The court has affirmed this preferred status well aware that ‘it is designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience. Under the complete separation of church and state in our system of government. and to live as he believes he ought to live. the flag is utterly devoid of any religious significance. Executive power is only one of the powers of 20 . Freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status by the framers of our fundamental laws. hence. to profess his beliefs. were barred by President Aquino from returning to the Philippines. contrary to law and good customs. The flag salute is no more a religious ceremony than the taking of an oath of office by a public official or by a candidate for admission to the bar. consistent with the liberty of others with the common good” The court thus rejected petitioners’ contention that its religious program is per se beyond the review by the board. Executive power is not limited to the power to enforce the laws. Whatever powers are inherent in such position pertain to the office unless the Constitution withholds it. for the president is head of state and head of government. The Board of Review of Moving Pictures and TV disapproved several video tapes of the program for public viewing on the ground that they constituted an attack against other religions.HELD: The flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines. The videotapes were not viewed by the respondent court as they were not presented as evidence. The exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the state when it will bring about the clear and present danger or some substantive evil which the state is duty bound to prevent. past and present. An examination of the evidence will show that the so-called “attacks” are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. Petitioners filed a petition to compel the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to issue to them travel documents to enable them to return to the Philippines. This ruling clearly suppresses petitioners’ freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs. after they flew from the country after the EDSA Revolution. Petitioner argued that requiring that its TV programs be reviewed by the Board of Review for Moving Pictures and TV violates freedom of Religion and of Speech. SEC 6 MARCOS v MANGLAPUS. Its public broadcast on TV of it religious program brings it out of the bossom of internal belief. doctrines and practices often in comparison with those of other religions. Yet they were considered by the respondent court as indecent. HELD: The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. can be prohibited from public viewing under sec 3(c) of PD 1986. Her counsel requested the court to submit additional questions to the PHC. Since the subject of her motion was beyond the competence of the court. To protect the peace. it was justified in seeking the opinion of specialists in the field. 308. which requires all radio and TV stations to provide radio or TV time free of charge to be allocated equally and impartially among candidates within the area of coverage of the radio and TV stations. and anterior myo-cardial infraction. She filed a motion for leave to travel abroad for treatment of hypertensive heart disease. The chairman of the panel testified and was crossexamined. the president has the power to bar the petitioners from returning.the liberty of abode and of the right to travel. In making any decision. She filed a motion for reconsideration. still it cannot pass constitutional muster as administrative legislation because facially it violates the right to privacy. HELD: The Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The Sandiganbayan sought the opinion of the Philippine Heart Center. the president has to consider such principles. Petitioner did not have an absolute right to travel because of the criminal cases against her.the president. the panel of specialists of the PHC made a finding that the petitioner was not suffering from coronary heart disease and uncontrolled high blood pressure. On the basis of the reports attached to the motion of the petitioner. that AO 308 need not be the subject of a law. The court could not be expected to just accept the opinion of the physician of the petitioner. The court further held that if they extend their judicial gaze. the will find that the right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several provisions or our constitution. The history of the efforts of petitioners to destabilize the country indicates that their return would intensify the violence against the state. and that the facilities and expertise in the Philippines are more than adequate to treat patients with hypertension and coronary heart disease. 293 SCRA 141 FACTS: The president issued Administrative Order No. OPLE v TORRES. Under the Constitution. The court denied the motion of the petitioner. 247 SCRA 147 FACTS: Petitioner was convicted of violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on two accounts. MARCOS v SANDIGANBAYAN. 21 . that the recommended tests are available in the Philippines. The powers of the president are not limited to the specific powers enumerated in the constitution. This includes Section 6. She failed to prove the necessity for her travel. 289 SCRA 337 FACTS: Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Section 92 of the Omnibus Election Code. it is the duty of the government to serve and protect the people and to maintain peace and order. The Sandiganbayan informed petitioners of the referral. which provided for the adoption of a national computerized Identification reference system. uncontrolled angina pections. that she was not in the high risk group for sudden cardiac death. which was pending resolution. The essence of privacy is the “right to be let alone”. SEC 7 BROADCAST ATTYS v COMELEC. HELD: Assuming arguendo. warned them that they would lose their job for going on illegal and unauthorized mass leave. 881. Aug 18. 1975. or by their use of power. and former solicitor general to compel the PCGG to disclose all negotiations and agreements with the Marcos family. 1. Clearly. On May 14. SEC 8 STATEHOOD v SEC (pls refer to Albano’s reviewer) JUCO v NLRC. 16 1970. and 14. who brushed aside their grievances. of DECS. Monday. For while broadcast media are not mere common carriers but entities with free speech rights. HELD: Public school teachers have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances but not during class hours. Such information must pertain to definite propositions of the government and not to recommendations or communications in the explanatory stage. relatives and associates through illegal use of government funds or properties by taking undue advantage of their public office. they are also public trustees charged with the duty of ensuing that the people have access to the diversity of views on political issues. Petitioner has a right to the disclosure of any agreement that may be arrived at concerning the purported ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family. his immediate family. The issue here is on the rights of the petitioners under the due process clause of the constitution. petitioner filed a petition in his capacity as taxpayer. It is the right of the viewers or the listeners or of the people not the right of the broadcasters which is paramount. some 800 teachers who joined the mass action did not conduct their classes.2. GR 98107. 299 SCRA 744 FACTS: Because of the reports that the PCGG had entered into a compromise with the Marcos family to settle all claims against the latter for their acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. the assets and properties referred to supposedly originated from the government. HELD: Under EO Nos. CHAVEZ v PCGG. Aug 6. For all intents and purposes. ill-gotten wealth refers to assets and properties acquired by former Pres. GR 95590. 1997 FACTS: Petitioner Juco was hired as a project engineer of respondent Nat’l Housing Corp (NHC) from Nov. To avoid the disruption of classes.May 14. influence or relationship. 1990. respondent Carino issued a “return to work order” and warned them that dismissal proceedings will be instituted against them if they do not return to work within 24 hours from their walkout. 1975. Marcos. The Sec. Sec 92 for public broadcasters has the obligation to see to it that the variety and vigor of public debate on issues in an election is maintained. Filipino citizen. he was separated from the service for having been implicated in a crime of theft and/or malversation of public funds. regular school day. Petitioner 22 . instead they convened at the Liwasang Bonifacio in the morning when they proceeded to the national office of the DECS for a whole day assembly.HELD: The court affirmed the validity of BP Blg. It is incumbent upon the PCGG to disclose sufficient public information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the Marcos family. 1991 FACTS: On Sept 17. The intent of the framers of the constitution is to include negotiations leading to a transaction within the scope of the constitutional guarantee of access to information. they belong to the people. ACT v CARINO. respondent NHC filed its appeal holding that petitioner is not governed by the Labor Code and thus is not under the jurisdiction of the NLRC. HELD: To compel print media companies to donate free space amounts to taking of private property for public use. There is a rational basis for prohibiting managerial employees from forming labor unions. SEC 9 PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE v COMELEC. the labor union might not be assured of their loyalty in view of the conflict of interests. who proposed the amendment of Sec 8. of Labor. Art III of the Constitution. Sec 8. HELD: As the law stood at the time the constitutional commission considered Sec 8. Art 248 of the Labor Code then prohibited supervisors and security guards from forming labor unions.filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the NHC with the Dept. The necessity of the taking has not been shown. 288 SCRA 15 FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the route of managers of respondent. which provided that it would procure free print space of not less than one-half page in at least one newspaper of general circulation in every province or city and would allocate the space free of charge among all candidates. Art 245 of the Labor Code is the result of the amendment of the Labor Code in 1989 by RA 6715. The right guaranteed is subject to the condition that its exercise should be for purposes not contrary to law. Commissioner Lerum. The objective of Sec 8. The taking of private property for public use must be with payment of just compensation. It has not been shown that the COMELEC has been granted the power of eminent domain by the constitution or by the legislature. Art III was to reinstate the right of supervisors and security guards to organize. and that there is no impediment to the holding of a certification of election among them as they are covered by the Labor Code. If they would belong to a labor union. 2772 on the ground that it constituted taking of property for public use without just compensation. UNITED PEPSI COLA Supervisor UNION V LAGUESMA. never referred to managerial employees. However. HELD: NHA is within the jurisdiction of the Dept of Labor and Employment. Art III of the constitution. Art III is not infringed by a ban against the formation of labor union by managerial employees. Petitioner argued that the provision violates Sec 8. managerial employees are not eligible to form any labor organization. Petitioner. art III. NHA workers or employees undoubtedly have the right to form unions or employees’ organization. an organization of newspapers and magazine publishers. 23 . The Secretary of Labor and Employment denied the petition on the ground that under Sec 245 of the Labor Code. 244 SCRA 272 FACTS: The COMELEC adopted Resolution No 2772. The COMELEC then sent letters to various publishers of newspapers directing them to provide onehalf page to be allocated among the candidates. questioned the constitutionality of Resolution No. It has not been shown that the print media companies are unwilling to sell print space to the COMELEC for election purposes. it being a government-owned or controlled corporation without an original charter. There will be an injustice to the expropriation if the incremental advantages arising from the use to which the government devoted the property expropriated will accrue in favor of the owner. HELD: Public use should not be restricted to the traditional uses. The Republic of the Philippines filed an action to appropriate the land. on July 1992. HELD: The Court rejected DAR’s contention with respect to Sec 16 of RA 6657 which maintains that “the deposit contemplated by Sec 16 (e) absent any specific indication may either be general or special. petitioner recognized that the property really belonged to the respondent. deemed complying. petitioner NPC took possession of a parcel of land belonging to the private respondents to build hydroelectric power plant.MANOSCA v CA. and any thereof should be. because it was the site of the birth of FELIX MANALO. petitioner filed an expropriation case. It was only in 1992 when petitioner filed its complaint for expropriation that it manifested its intention to exercise the power of eminent domain. HELD: The general rule is that the time of taking is the critical date in determining the just compensation. Petitioner argued that expropriation was not for a public purpose. for petitioner believed it was public land. In turn. it is difficult to conclude how there could have been an extraordinary increase in the value of the land arising from the expropriation. 254 SCRA 577 FACTS: Believing that it formed part of the public land reserved for them. The two cases were consolidated. 24 . that it is in “cash or in Landbank bonds”. The taking is for a public use because of the contribution of Felix Manalo to the culture and history of the Philippines. As the parties could not reach any agreement as to the market value of the property. The validity of constituting trust accounts for the benefit of the rejecting landowners and withholding immediate payment to them is further premised on the latter’s refusal to accept the afford compensation thereby making it necessary that the amount remains in the custody of the landbank for safekeeping and in trust for eventual payment to the landowners. After more than 10 years. 258 SCRA 404 FACTS: DAR and Landbank contended that the opening of trust accounts in favor of the landowners is sufficient compliance with mandate of RA 6657. There were negotiations for the purchase of the property. NATIONAL POWER CORP v CA. However. the time of the taking of the disputed property. The court said that Sec 16 of RA 6657 was very specific in limiting the type of deposit to be made as compensation for the rejecting landowners. Petitioner argued the compensation should be based on the market value of the property in 1978. but they constituted an attempt at a voluntary purchase. respondent filed a case to recover the possession of the said property and asked for the repayment of rent from 1978. voluntary or involuntary or other forms know in law. Taking is the entry into the property. the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo. The trial court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner but fixed the compensation on the basis of the value of the property when it filed the action for expropriation. should be under warrant or color of legal authority. as it is the general rule. 252 SCRA 412 FACTS: The National Historical Institute declared the parcel of land owned by petitioners as a national historical landmark. the time of the taking. LANDBANK v CA. regular or irregular. The compensation should be based on the fair market value of the property in 1992. In view of that agreement to sell. The fact that the petitioner remained in physical possession cannot give them another cause of action and resurrect an already settled case. The treasurer sold the property at public auction to the highest bidder – Barbieras and Sangalangs. HELD: It is clear that. Respondent judge issued an order granting the motion for issuance of a writ of possession but move to quash it. DE KNECHT v CA. HELD: When a parcel of land is taken by eminent domain. in quashing the writ of possession. Benitez did not sign the deed of absolute sale. she even demanded from PHRDC the payment of rentals and to vacate the premises within 30 days from notice. Meanwhile. The petitioners lost whatever rights or colorable title they had to the properties after the court affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing the reconveyance case. but the whole amount of the just compensation that private respondent is entitled to. art III of the constitution in mandating that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. signed a memorandum of agreement which provides that Benitez undertakes to lease within the 20 years and / or sell a portion of that property in favor of PHRDC. It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent power of the state that need not be granted by the fundamental law. 290 SCRA 223 FACTS: Petitioner owned a parcel of land along EDSA and Harrison in Pasay. including a mortgage. 7 were leased and occupied one of them as their residence. The petitioners only learned about the auction sale by the time they received the orders of the land registration courts. PHRDC prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale. a lessee and a vendee in possession under executory contract. 25 . However. 340 authorizing the national government to expropriate certain properties in Pasay for the EDSA extension. Petitioner has deposited not just 10% required under EO 1035. BP Blg. as is the rule in respect of those entitled to compensation. The city treasurer of Pasay discovered that the petitioners failed to pay real estate taxes in the property from 1980-1981. to which it is attached. instituted a complaint for eminent domain. compensation cannot be considered just for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss. Petitioners failed to redeem the property with one year. the term “owner” when employed in statutes relating to eminent domain to designate persons who are to be made parties to the proceedings. to all those who have lawful interest in the property to be condemned. They constructed 8 houses. REPUBLIC v TAGLE. the owner of the fee simple is not necessarily the only person who is entitled to compensation – in the American jurisdiction. Section 9. refers. The Register of Deeds issued a new title in the names of the aforementioned new owners. respondent judge violated EO 1035 on the quaint and whimsical ground that petitioner was already in actual possession of the property. 299 SCRA 549 FACTS: Respondent Benitez is the registered owner of two parcels of land.Without prompt payment. The Philippine government thru Philippine Human Resources Development Center (PHRDC). thus the Barbieres and Sangalangs both filed for registration of their name as co-owner of the subject land without notice to the petitioners. petitioner thru DTI. For failure to acquire the property involved thru negotiated sale. Furthermore. The CARL (RA 6657) was not intended to take away property without due process of law.SEC 10 OPOSA v FACTORAN. It was enacted 2 months after private respondents had legally fulfilled the condition in the contract of conditional sale by the payment of all installments on their due dates. These laws cannot have retroactive effect unless there is an express provision in them to that effect. Hence. private respondents demanded from petitioner the execution of a deed of conveyance in their favor. HELD: A timber license agreement is not a contract or a property right protected by the constitution. DBP v CA. The lower court dismissed the case on the ground that granting that the relief prayed for would impair the obligation of contracts. 224 SCRA 792 FACTS: Petitioners. private respondents mortgaged said land to petitioner. When private respondents defaulted on their obligation. HELD: The trial court and CA have correctly ruled that neither Sec 6 of RA 6657 nor sec 1 of EO 407 was intended to impair the obligation of contract. 262 SCRA 245 FACTS: Private respondents were the original owners of a parcel of land. 240 SCRA 649 FACTS: Invoking the provision in the charter of the City of Manila. Now is it intended to impair the obligation of contracts. 1984. A gambling franchise is always subject to the exercise of police power for the public welfare. Petitioner then informed private respondents that the prestation to execute and deliver a deed of conveyance in their favor have been become legally impossible in view of Sec 6 of RA 6657 and EO 407. Under the forestry reform code. who are minors. LIM v PACQUING. HELD: A franchise is not a contract. On May 30. The municipal board of manila passed Ordinance No. In the same manner. petitioner and private respondents entered into a deed of conditional sale wherein petitioner agreed to reconvey the foreclosed property to private respondents. petitioner foreclosed the mortgaged on the land and emerged as a sole bidder in the ensuing auction sale. Upon completing the payment of the full repurchase price. 1990 but private respondents completed payment on Apr 6. any license may be rescinded when national interest so requires. filed a case to compel the Sec of Environment and Natural Resources to cancel all timber license agreements on the ground that they have a right to a sound environment. It is privilege especially in matters which are within the power of the government to regulate or prohibit through the exercise of police power. 26 . On April 6. Jr. EO 407 be regarded. Respondent argued that PD 771 violated the constitutional prohibition against the impairment of contracts. EO 407 took effect on June 10. 1977. which authorized respondent to operate jai-alai. which authorized it to regulate betting by the public on jai-alai and to grant exclusive rights to establishments for this purpose. 1990. the land covered was detached from the mass of foreclosed properties held by DBP. 7065. PD 771 revoked all existing franchise issued by local governments to permit betting on jai-alai. One of the new justices requested for 15 days to submit manifestation. series of 1994 on the ground that the resolution is unconstitutional for they violate the equal protection clause and the non-impairment clause of the constitution.CMMA v POEA. It is restricted to contracts with respect to property on some object of value and which confer rights that may be asserted in a court of justice. Petitioner argued that it was his first time to meet with Pasicolan and denied having anything to do with the transferring of mails. SEC 14 Marcos VS Sandiganbayan 297 SCRA 95 FACTS: Petitioner was charge with 5 counts of graft and corruption before the Sandiganbayan. even though contracts may thereby be affected. 27 . it is not necessary that petitioner be shown to have been in conspiracy with a government employee in order to hold him liable of qualified theft. an incorporated association of licensed Filipino manning agencies. When they returned to their office. a public officer together with two other private individual Romero and Marcelo was arrested. As there was no unanimity of votes. but the prosecution of petitioner is far from over. In this case it is mail matter. To remand the case into the Sandiganbayan will violate her constitutional right to the speedy disposition of case. they convicted of qualified mail pilferage (all as principal). charged. series of 1994 of the governing board of the POEA and POEA memorandum circular no 05. On the same day 3 justices lunch together and discussed the cases in the absence of 2 other member. A justice who was not a member of the division was present.principals. morals. unless there is a conspiracy between government employee and private individual. More than six years have passed. safety. On appeal to the SC. all licensed manning agencies which hire and recruit Filipino seamen for and in behalf of the respective foreign shipowner. the presiding justice constituted a special division of 5 justices. Petitioner says that only government employee can be charged of qualified theft –mail pilferage. HELD: As long as the thing stolen is one of those enumerated in Art 310 of the RPC. comforts or general welfare of the community. urge to annul resolution 01. HELD: The constitutional prohibition against impairing contractual obligations is not absolute and is not to be read with literal exactness. and its co-petitioners. the crime is qualified theft. 243 SCRA 666 FACTS: Petitioner CMMA. 3 justices agreed to acquit petitioner in 3 of the cases and convict her in other cases. it has no application to statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the general legislative powers of the state and involving the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. it was suggested that case be remanded to the Sandiganbayan for the promulgation of a new decision. presiding judge dissolved special division. for such matters cannot be placed by contract beyond the power of the state to regulate and control them. Hence. Marcelo VS Sandiganbayan 301 SCRA 102 FACTS: Pasicolan. It does not prevent a proper exercise by the state of its police power by enacting regulations reasonably necessary to secure the wealth. HELD: Petitioner was first indicted in January 1992. This is because of a lot of delaying tactic employed by Amion. respondent ordered trial in absentia and rendered judgment convicting him. The fact of the case shows that the case was already pending for almost 4 years. Petitioners alleged that the presumption of guilt violated the presumption of innocence established by the constitution. The sending of the notice of hearing to his former address cannot bind complainant. Parada VS Veneracio 269 SCRA 371 FACTS: Complainant was charged with estafa. Because of this he alleged he was denied of his constitutional right of counsel of his choice. Sec 33 of PD 704 provided that the illegal fishing is presumed to have been committed when fish caught or killed with the use of explosives. For failure of the complainant to appear at the hearing. Hizon VS CA 265 SCRA 517 FACTS: Petitioners were charged with violation of PD 704 committed by using sodium for fishing. The fact presumed by Section 33 of the PD No 704 is a natural inference from the fact proved. Complainant had not been duly notified of the trial. An examination of related provisions in the constitution concerning the right to counsel.Be that as it was may his testimony was refuted when NBI agent testified that petitioner was instrumental in transferring the contents of the mail bag which Pasicolan handed to them to their traveling bag. change of counsel more than once & withdrawal of counsel. HELD: There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio was appointed during the absence of the accused’s counsel de parte pursuant to the court’s desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the continuous trial system. HELD: For a valid trial in absentia. motion for inhibition against the judge. the accused must have been notified of the trial and his failure to appear must be unjustifiable.” De Guzman VS Sandiganbayan 256 SCRA 171 28 . this testimony was also collaborated by Tumagan. Notice of the hearing was sent to his former address. will show that the preference in the choice of counsel “pertains more aptly and specifically to a person under investigation rather than one who is the accused in a criminal prosecution. because the notice the notice of hearing was sent to his former address despite the fact that he notified the court of his change of address. HELD: The legislative has the power to provide that proof of certain facts will constitute accused provided there is a rational connection between the acts proved and the ultimate fact presumed. He notified the court of his change of address. Amion VS Chiongson 301 SCRA 614 FACTS: Amion claims the respondent judge erred in appointing a counsel de officio for him on a hearing day despite the fact that he can hire a counsel de parte of his choice. counsel did not show up. Among them are that his lawyers was ill. obnoxious or poisonous substances or by electricity are found in a fishing boat. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme court. The trial court denied the motion for postponement and dismissed the case. Upon appeal the accused explained that the lower court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the information was defective to failure to state that the accused was the father of the victim and that the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of commission of the alleged rape. He was found guilty by the RTC and sentenced to death. The motion should be granted. The Constitution guarantees to be inviolable the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 29 . It is a requirement that renders it essential for every element of the offense with which he is charged to be properly alleged in the complaint. petitioner objected. The higher interests of justice and equity demand the petitioner be not penalized for the costly importuning of his previous counsel. The request was denied. because his lawyer have previous commitment. As a result the case was submitted for decision and petitioner was convicted by the Sandiganbayan. As a result petitioner was barred from presenting his evidence. He filed a motion to set aside his convictions to show that he had properly disbursed the P200. The first 3 hearings were postponed at the instances of petitioner.R. At the next hearing.FACTS: Petitioner was charged with graft and corruption for his alleged failure to account P200. HELD: The minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender are special qualifying circumstances that need to be alleged in the information for the penalty of death to de decreed. who claimed that he had no lawyer. Invoking his right to a speedy trial. A hearing was also postponed upon motion for prosecution without any objection from petitioner because of a previous out-of-town commitment of the complaining witness.000 he received. The dismissal of the case is capricious. It does not give rise to double jeopardy. 23. I other hearing was postponed at the instance of petitioner.No 137842 Aug. In the case at bar accused should only be sentenced to reclusion perpetua because for failure to include the qualifying circumstance in the complaint. The lawyer invested just the same in filing a demurrer to the evidence. who reposed his faith on his previous counsel. HELD: Petitioner is about to lose his liberty because his former counsel pursued a carelessly contrived procedural strategy of investing on filing a demurrer to the evidence although it had become an imprudent remedy. 2001 FACTS: Accused was charged the crime of rape with no qualifying circumstances stated in the complaint. the prosecution asked for postponed on the ground that the complaining witness needed time to refresh his recollection of the details of numerous transaction involved. A contrary rule will amount to condoning a serious injustice to petitioner. After the prosecution had rested the lawyer of petitioner asked for leave of court to file a demurrer to the evidence.000 he received for training program of Department of Agriculture. The reason of the prosecution for asking for postponement were not capricious. De la Rosa VS CA 253 SCRA 499 FACTS: 9 Informations for violation of BP 22 were filed against petitioner. However during the trial it was proven that his victim is his own daughter who is under 18 years old. People VS Catubig G. HELD: The several postponement the accused obtained amount to a waiver of his right to a speedy trial. The cross examination of the 1st prosecution was postponed at the instance of petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he was denied due process. Justice is a matter of public interest & the constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern. It took almost a decade from arraignment to promulgation of judgment. not too small and not too large. HELD: The right of the accused prevailed over the right of press and public information. the hearing were either reset or cancelled no less than thirty. In the constitutional sense a courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of public to observe the proceedings. Accused was found is possession of 115 grams of marijuana. The court convicted the petitioner of the crime charged. Petitioner further alleged that former clerk of court. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order to “assure the public of full transparency” in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history. An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him. now the Judge who convicted him testified against him while Diaz still clerk of court. It was petitioner who sought the postponement and cancellation of hearings. No. The court notes that from the time of petitioners arraignment up to the time the prosecution offered its evidence and rested. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemn and that his rights are not compromised in secrete conclaves of long ago. Regarding the issued raised against Diaz the solicitor general correctly averred that the testimony of Diaz was limited to certain facts directly connected with or arising from the performance of his official duties as clerk of court without any pronouncement as to innocence or guilt of the petitioner. where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded. it only implies that the court doors must be opened to those who wish to come sit in the available seats.M. Admittedly he was unable to adduce additional documentary evidence. a public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial.2001 FACTS: KBP requested the SC to allow live media coverage of the trial against former Pres. Diaz. The record shows that he testified on his own behalf and was cross-examined by the prosecution. She was convicted of drug pushing and was sentenced to life imprisonment.Maliwat VS CA 256 SCRA 718 FACTS: Two separate informations were filed before the CFI charging petitioner with crime of Falsification of Public and official document. Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until he contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor made an object of public attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence but only by evidence and arguments give in open court. 01-4-03-SC June 29.1988. When RA 7659 was enacted to life imprisonment. When RA 7659 was enacted she filed a motion and prays for the retroactive 30 . SEC 15 People VS Labriager 250 SCRA 163 FACTS: Accused was caught selling two bags of marijuana in a buy bust operation conducted on Jan 21. HELD: Petitioner cannot claim that he was denied due process. Perez VS Estrada A. The proper remedy is the reconstruction of judicial records which is as much a duty of the prosecution as of the defense. Gen. SEC 16 Guerrero vs CA 257 SCRA 703 FACTS: Petitioner was charged with triple homicide through reckless imprudence. C) an excessive penalty has been imposed as such sentence is void as to such excess. Petitioner claimed double jeopardy. real properties and other assets manifestly out of proportion. HELD: The mere loss or destruction of the records of a criminal case subsequent to conviction will not render the judgment of conviction void. the judge ordered the retaking of the testimonies of the witnesses. Feria VS CA 325 SCRA 525 FACTS: Petitioner has been under detention for 12 years. as there has been no termination of the first jeopardy. Associate Solicitor Tagapan asked for the resetting of the hearing 31 . not a motion for reconsideration with modification of sentence. Because of such request it was found out that the entire records of the case which includes the judgment were missing. The burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondent rests on the petitioner who attacks such restraint. Rules on habeas corpus should be liberally applied in cases which are sufficient in substance. Baldanero alleging that the latter acquired funds. HELD: Where the decision convicting the accused is already final. It was then discovered that t he records have been destroyed in a fire at the 2nd and 3rd floor of the city Hall. as a consequence of a judicial proceeding A) there has been a deprivation of a Constitutional right resulting in a restrain of a person. When the case was already submitted for decision.application of the Act. Associate Solicitors Tagapan and del Rosario manifested during the hearing. HELD: The retaking of the testimonies of the witness will not place petitioner in double jeopardy. to his total salaries and emoluments as an army officer and as incomes from business other legitimately acquired properties. He sought to be transferred to the Bureau of correction in Muntinlupa. But the latter 2 were not able to attend the case for they had an official business. and for her eventual release from confinement at the correctional Institute as a consequence of the application of the new law to her case. Republic vs Sandiganbayan 301 SCRA 207 FACTS: This is originally as action by Republic of the Philippines against retired Brig. Petitioner filed a petition for Issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus praying from his discharge from confinement on the ground that his continued detention w/o any valid judgment is illegal and violation of his Constitutional Right to due process. nor will it warrant the release of the convict by virtue of writ of Habeas Corpus. it was raffled to a new judge. The writ of Habeas Corpus may also be availed of where . As the transcripts of stenographic notes were incomplete. that they had been relieved from the case and that there were 2 solicitors who were designated for the case. B) the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence. the appropriate remedy of the convict who invoked the retroactive application of a statute is to file a petitioner for habeas corpus. But the letters are not themselves inadmissible in evidence. they can stand on their own being the fruits of the crime validly seized during a lawful arrest. They did so in the presence of NBI Administrative and Investigation staff. Counsel contends that the reason given for the requested resettings of hearings were meritorious ground which were not intended to delay the case nor violate private respondents rights to speedy trial. secured during custodial investigation and without assistance of counsel. It was denied. without any counsel. They were convicted of qualified theft by the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner and his co-accused were not convicted solely on the basis of the signature found on the letter. They were asked to affix their signature on the envelopes of the letters. HELD: The signature of the accused. threat or promise of reward or leniency. They were brought to the NBI headquarters along with the motorcycle owned by Romero and Marcelo and the bag of unsorted mail found in their possession. the same being evidence of admission obtained under Art III. HELD: Once the prosecution has shown that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories. Sec 12 &17 of the constitution. A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence. Accused claims that their extrajudicial declaration were obtained through force and intimidation and without the benefit of effective counsel. but on other evidence. SEC 17 Marcelo vs Sandiganbayan 301 SCRA 102 FACTS: Pasicolan. together with two private individuals Romero and Marcelo were arrested for mail pilferage. People vs Suarez 267 SCRA 119 FACTS: Accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with Homicide Accused questions the lower courts decision by challenging the admissibility of their extrajudicial declaration. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and that it be allowed to present evidence in formal trial. but that such re-assignment was done on short notice very close to the date of scheduled hearings. The excuse given by the OSG completely failed to justify why the re-assignment had to be done so near to the scheduled hearing and worse the solicitor who were not even present. HELD: Petitioner failed to show patent and grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent in denying its oral motion for postponement. SEC 19 32 . Petitioner contend that their signature on the envelope in inadmissible as evidence for it is done without the assistance of a counsel. notably the testimonies of NBI agents and other prosecution witness. A careful reading of the question order of the Sandiganbayan shows that public respondent objected not so much on the assignment of the case to young and inexperienced solicitors. which were affixed in the envelopes seized as a means of authenticating the same as those seized from them are inadmissible evidence. a public officer. intimidation.to which the Sandiganbayan reacted adversely. a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the accused bears the burden is on the accused to destroy this presumption. No. the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed namely.000 and cost.A. Petitioner argued that execution by lethal injection is a cruel degrading. He argued that the restoration of the death penalty is unconstitutional.000 or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. the law is uncertain as to the date of execution and this uncertain as to the date of execution and this uncertainty causes sufferings to the convict. 7959. These are crimes which by their very nature are despicable because life was callously taken or the victim was treated like an animal. that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal of social orders. the dosage for each drugs. 7659 sufficiently describes what are to be considered heinous. 8177 requires that all personnel involved in the execution should be trained.” Petitioner pray that in the alternative the penalty be modified by deleting the sentence of imprisonment and in lieu thereof.A No 8177 are matters which are properly left to the administrative officials.A. HELD: Art III. The implementing details of R. A. BP22 Sec 1 par 1 provides for a penalty of “imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or a fine of not less than. Echegaray vs Secretary 297 SCRA 754 FACTS: Petitioner was convicted for rape and sentenced to death by lethal injection. and the possibility of mistake in administering the drugs renders lethal injection cruel. and inhuman punishment because R. 7659 correctly identified the crimes warranting the penalty of death.People vs Echegaray 267 SCRA 682 FACTS: The accused was convicted of raping his daughter and sentenced to death pursuant to Republic Act No.A. degrading or inhuman punishment. No. SEC 20 Vaca vs CA 298 SCRA 656 FACTS: Petitioner was convicted by the RTC and affirmed by CA for violation of BP22. In the case at bar a fine in an amount equal to double the amount of the 33 . The cruelty which the Constitution protects is cruelty inherent in the method of punishment. Section 1 of R. In determining the penalty to be imposed for violation of BP 22. Bouncing Check Law. but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed P200. HELD: Any infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely incidental in carrying out the execution of the death penalty and does not fall within the constitutional prescription against cruel. The exercise of the Congress defined only crimes that qualify as heinous. There are crimes which are abominable because of the significance and implication of the criminal acts in the scheme of the socio-political and economic context in which the State find itself to be struggling to provide the underprivileged. 8177 did not provide for the drugs to be used. a fine in an increased amount be imposed on them. R. Sec 19 of the Constitution plainly vests in Congress the power to re-impose the death penalty. The preamble of R. While improper doses or improper administration of the drugs causes severe pain the few minutes of pain do not rise to a constitutional violation. HELD: Petitioners are first time offenders. Petitioner was sentenced to suffer 1 year imprisonment and pay a fine of P10. LIM vs People GR 130038 September 18. and inimical to public welfare. let alone that these crimes are defined and penalized under different laws. pernicious.00. the only inquiry is “ has the law been violated?” The court affirmed the CA decision with modification that the sentence of imprisonment be set aside and sentence her to pay P200.P. On Aug. 39 RPC) SEC 21 People vs Quijada 259 SCRA 191 FACTS: Accused was convicted by the RTC of two offenses which were separately charged in two separate information. so the case were consolidated and joint hearing was held. The damage is done to the banking system.check involve is an appropriate penalty. the former being malum prohibitum. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and the second was illegal possession of firearms in its aggravated form under PD 1866.000. same bank. The elements of illegal possession of firearms in its aggravated form are different from the element of murder or homicide. The first was under Art. 25. The first sentence prohibits double jeopardy of punishment of the same offense.22 and imposing on her two 1year imprisonment for each of the 2 violation ordered her to pay 2 fines each amounting P 200. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available only where an identity is shown to exist between the previous and subsequent offense charged.000 equivalent to double the amount of the check. HELD: Sec 21. 2000 FACTS: CA & RTC petitioner guilty of twice violating B. Art III of the Constitution deals with two different kinds of double jeopardy. She wrote a check dated Aug. 1990 petitioner bought various jewelry worth P 300. The next day petitioner again purchased jewelries valued at P 241. 1990 payable to “cash” drawn on Metrobank in the amount of P300. 16. Petitioner argued that she issued 2 checks and gave to Nadera and not Seguam. while the latter in mala in se. If an act is mala prohibita.000 in each case with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or non payment not to exceed 6 months (Art.000 and gave the check to Seguam. Laws are created to achieve a good intended and to guide and prevent against an evil or mischief. Martinez vs CA 237 SCRA 575 FACTS: Petitioner was charged of the crime of libel before the RTC of Manila but was subsequently dismissed because of the DOJ Secretary order or opinion that the language used in 34 . Why and to whom the check was issued in irrelevant in determining culpability in BP22 one need not prove that the check was issued in payment of obligation or if there was damage. 1990. HELD: The gravaman of BP22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or one that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. while the second contemplates double jeopardy of punishment of the same act.668 and issued another check payable to “cash” dated Aug. The act is malum prohibitum. The 2 checks were returned when presented with notice of dishonor for the account was closed. Sentence of imprisonment is deleted and petitioner are ordered to pay a fine of P200. Both have arisen in the same incident. 25. On appeal the CA affirmed the decision with the modification that the civil indemnity was increased to P 50.000. The appeal was granted and the appellate court ordered that the case be remanded to the lower court for arraignment. the same was not actionable for libel. the two criminal charges against private respondent are not of the same offense as required by Sec 21. HELD: Appeal against the order of dismissal was not foreclosed by the rule of double jeopardy said order having been issued before arraignment. Cuison vs CA 269 SCRA 159 FACTS: The trial court convicted the accused of double homicide and ordered him to pay P 30. 000 to the heirs of each of the victims. The right to appeal from a final judgment or order in a criminal case is granted to “any party” except when the accused is placed in double jeopardy. The promulgation was not merely incomplete. Besides. Legal jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment (2) before a competent court (3) after arraignment (4) a valid plea having been entered. People vs Pimentel 288 SCRA 542 FACTS: Respondent was previously charged of the crime of subversion. 35 . the trial court promulgated the decision only with respect to civil liability. He was then subsequently charged of Illegal Possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance of subversion under Presidential Decree No. but also other persons who may be affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal proceeding. The private respondent had not even been arraigned in the first criminal action for subversion. In the case at bar. Art III of the Constitution. In a previous case the SC ruled that the word “party” must be understood to mean not only the government and the accused. Upon arrest. Complainant Laurel filed an appeal to CA. HELD: The trial court promulgated the decision with respect to the civil aspect of the case only. Since the criminal cases had not yet been terminated double jeopardy cannot prosper as a defense. Petitioner contended that it violated his right against double jeopardy. Thus the party injured has been held to have the right to appeal. an unlicensed revolver and six rounds of ammunition were found in his possession.the article may be unsavory and unpleasant to complainant. The CA ordered the trial court to promulgate the decision anew and to include the affirmance of the conviction of the accused. respondents motion to quash filed in the trial court did not actually raise the issue of double jeopardy simply because it had not arisen yet. or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated with out his express consent. The accused invoked double jeopardy on the ground that the first promulgation of the decision of the CA terminated the criminal cases against him. The grave abuse of discretion of the trial court rendered the act void. 1866. It was also void. HELD: In order that the protection against double jeopardy may be used to benefit the accused the following requisites must have obtained in the first criminal action (A) valid complaint and information (B) competent court (C) defendant had pleased to the charged (D) defendant was acquitted or convicted. Private respondent contends that he was placed in double jeopardy with the filing of the second information against him. and (5) the case was dismissal or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. When the case was remanded to the trial court for promulgation of the decision of the CA. Australia asked that petitioner be extradited for swindling and perjury committed before the treaty took effect. Lacson vs Secretary GR 128096. the retroactive application of RA 8249 cannot be challenge as unconstitutional. HELD: The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to penal laws only. that the three cases form part of a series of transaction which are subject of the cases pending before Branch 26 of Manila. or is an attempt to commit the same as is a frustration thereof. An ex post facto law is a law that (1) makes an act criminal before the passing of the law. 199 FACTS: Accused Lacson was among those accused of rub out of the Kuratong Baleleng gang members. Petitioner argues that RA 8249 is an ex post facto law. It is substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. However. Not being a penal law. SEC 22 Wright vs CA 235 SCRA 341 FACTS: Australia and the Philippines entered into an extradition treaty. HELD: The ground of double jeopardy invoked by respondent judge is improper and has neither legal nor factual basis in this case.People vs Nitafan 302 SCRA 424 FACTS: Respondent Imelda Marcos was charged of three criminal information for violation of Sec 4 of Central Bank Circular No 980. Respondent judge dismissed the two cases on the ground. Jan 20. thus (1) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second (2) the first jeopardy must have been terminated (3) the 2nd jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first or the 2nd offense includes or in necessarily included in the offense charged in the 1 st information. Double jeopardy requires the concurrence of three requisites. RA 8249 was enacted. But petitioner were able to persuade the Sandiganbayan to transfer the case to the RTC because none of the principal accused are in the salary grade of 27 pursuant to RA 7975. that Marcos right against double jeopardy was violated. RA 8249 is not a penal law. HELD: Ex facto law generally prohibits retrospectively of penal laws. which defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan initially took cognizance over the case as the policemen involved in said murder were public officers. The treaty provided that extradition may be granted irrespective of the date when the offense was committed. It specifies the rank of superintendent as covered by the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. Respondent judge further stated that to separately prosecute private respondents for a series of transaction would endow it with the functional ability of multiplication or reproduction. and punishes the act (2) aggravates a crime (3) inflicts a 36 . In this case. all these cases constitute one continuous crime. It is respondent judge’s posture that based on Solicitor General’s allegation in its motion for consolidation filed in Branch 58 of Pasig. it is manifestly clear that no first jeopardy has yet attached nor any such jeopardy terminated. Therefore it is not covered against ex post facto laws. Petitioner argued that his extradition for offenses committed before the affectivity of the extradition treaty violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The extradition treaty is not a criminal statute. which was innocent when committed. HELD: Under Presidential Decree No. Presidential Decree No. 2018. The test is not applicable to the penal clause of RA 7653. involving Circular No. is any indication that the increased penalties provided therein were intended to operate retroactively. Penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect except when they are favorable to the accused. He applied for and was issued a Portuguese passport. Since only two of the complainants were illegally recruited after this date. The Commission on Immigration and Deportation ordered his deportation. 960 by Circular Nos. Presidential Decree No. Accused Imelda Marcos & Rivera were indicted for violation of CB Circular 960 prohibits person from maintaining foreign exchange account abroad without prior CB. Nowhere in RA 7653. Petitioner argued that he was a Filipino citizen. He became a naturalized Filipino. People vs Taguba 229 SCRA 188 FACTS: The accused were found guilty of eight counts of illegal recruitment and convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale in violation of Presidential Decree No. Express renunciation means a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or 37 . 2018 took effect of on February 10. ARTICLE IV . Benedicto vs CA GR 125359 Sept 4. 1986. 27. 1991. 2018. 1318 and 1353. approval for foreign exchange funded expenditure obtained from banking system. HELD: The test whether a penal law runs afoul of the ex post facto clause of Constitution is “does the law sought to be applied retroactivity take from an accused any right that was regarded at the time of the adoption of the Constitution as vital as the protection of life and liberty and which he enjoyed at the time of the commission of the offense charged against him?” The crucial words of the test are “ vital for the protection of life and liberty”. Penal laws and laws not penal in nature have provisions defining offenses prescribing the penalties for their violations operate prospectively. Petitioners contend that they are prosecuted for acts punishable under laws that have already been repealed. They point to the express repeal of Circular No. 960. There is therefore no ex post facto law in this case.V Yu vs Santiago 169 SCRA 384 FACTS: Petitioner was previously a Portuguese citizen. Circular 1318 and 1253 contained saving clause excepting from their coverage pending criminal action. 2018. 2001 FACTS: On Dec. HELD: The acts of petitioner considered together constitute an express renunciation of his Philippine Citizenship acquired through naturalization. (5) alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage (6) imposes a penalty of deprivation of a right which when done was lawful (7) deprives accused of lawful protection when he was entitled to. He declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed. illegal recruitment is committed on a large scale if it was committed against three or more persons.greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed (4) alters the legal rules of evidence. cannot apply to the accused retroactivity or otherwise it would be an ex post facto law. petitioner filed an election protest on the ground that respondent is not a natural born Filipino citizen. He also categorically declared that he was a citizen of Australia in a number of sworn statement voluntarily made by him.implication. The mother of respondent is 38 . 1988. Petitioner resumes his prior status as a Portuguese citizen. Even if the marriage was annulled the fact shows that he voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced Australian citizenship. He became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized through a formal and positive process. Petitioner claims that his naturalization in Australia made him only a dual national and did not divert him of Philippine citizenship. “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law”. The annulment did not automatically reinstate him as a citizen of the Philippines. Petitioner merely argued that since respondent was issued an alien certificate of registration and was given permission to re-enter the Philippines by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. On January 22. petitioner filed a petition to disqualify him on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen. since he registered with Commission on Immigration and Deportation as an alien. (3) by repatriation. Under CA 63 Philippine citizenship may be reacquired (1) by direct act of congress. 1987. all of these are applicable to petitioner. HELD: Respondent is the son of a Filipino father and is presumed to be a Filipino citizen. It does not appear that petitioner reacquire citizenship by any of these methods. Labo vs Comelec 176 SCRA 1 FACTS: Petitioner married an Australian citizen in 1976 (but was later annulled) but did not automatically became an Australian. Aznar vs COMELEC 185 SCRA 703 FACTS: On November 19. respondent filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of governor. The grandfather of respondent became a permanent resident. HELD: CA No. Respondent won. (2) by naturalization. With best knowledge and legal capacity after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippines citizen. he has been naturalized as an American citizen. it does not follow that he has renounced Philippine citizenship. He later asked for a change of his status and was granted certificate of residence. 63 enumerates the mode by which Filipino citizenship may be lost. He came home to the Philippines using Australian passport. Among these are (1) naturalization to foreign country (2) express renunciation of citizenship and (3) subscription to an oath of allegiance to support constitution or laws of a foreign country. Co vs Electoral Tribunal 199 SCRA 692 FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were candidates for Congressman. Under Art IV Sec 5 of the present constitution. From the mere fact that petitioner obtained an Alien certificate of registration. Petitioner failed to present any proof that respondent had lost his Filipino citizenship. Respondent denied that he took an oath of allegiance to the United States. Such resumption of Portuguese citizenship is inconsistent with his maintenance of Philippine citizenship. As a condition of his Australian naturalization he took the oath of allegiance and renounced all other allegiance. He contended that his oath in his certificate of candidacy that he was a natural born citizen is a sufficient repatriation. Respondent’s grandfather was qualified and formally elected Philippine citizenship when he became of age. respondent was a minor. He worked in the Central Bank as examiner. He is a registered voter. Filipino citizen. A decision in a petition for naturalization becomes final only after 30 days from its promulgation. Ran for governor and won 1992 election. the decision rendered and oath of allegiance taken. such requires Philippine citizenship. Respondent has considered himself a Filipino. counted from the date of receipt by the Solicitor General of his copy of the decision. The petition was granted and petitioner took his oath of allegiance the same day. he was already a Filipino citizen because of the naturalization of his father when he was a minor. HELD: Naturalization procedure should be complied by everyone as prescribed by law and not just select the requirements he think is applicable to him and disregard the rest. Courts cannot implement any decision granting the petitioner for naturalization before its finality. Sec 1 Art IV should be applied to those who elected Philippine citizenship before February 2. the last publication of which should at least 6 months before the scheduled date of hearing. He further claims that his active participation in election automatically forfeit his American citizenship. inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subject on April 11.S. When he took his oath of allegiance. 39 . Petitioner insisted that he was a Filipino because his naturalization as an American was no voluntary (force because of martial law). Frivaldo vs COMELEC 174 SCRA 245 FACTS: Petitioner was proclaimed elected governor on January 1988 election. and a newspaper of general circulation for 3 consecutive weeks. 20 1983. HELD: Under the Philippine Bill of 1902. Failure to comply with the publication and posting requirements under Revised Naturalization Law rendered null and void the proceedings conducted. the court heard the petition before the scheduled date of hearing. 1899 and were residing in the Philippines and their children born subsequently were conferred the status of Filipino citizen. His father applied for naturalization and was declared a Filipino citizen. A decision granting citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory until after two years from its promulgation. having been naturalize in U. thus. Petitioner used to be a Filipino Citizen but became naturalized U. The trial court directed the publication of the petition and order in the O. 1987. on Jan. Petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines therefore not qualified to hold public office. The acts of respondent are formal manifestation of his choice of Filipino citizenship. Republic vs De la Rosa 232 SCRA 785 FACTS: A petitioner for naturalization was filed by Frivaldo. Respondent passed the board examination for CPA. Respondent could have foreseen that the 1987 Constitution would require him to have a sworn statement electing Philippine citizenship.a natural born. But through the petitioner’s motion. the change of schedule was not published and it was heard within 6 months from the last publication of hearing.G. A petition to annual his proclamation was filed on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen.S. citizen. He claimed that his petition for repatriation was granted by a special Committee on Naturalization created by PD 725 and he took his oath of allegiance on June 30. 17. his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective office in the Philippines did not of itself constitute a waiver of the status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the USA.HELD: The claim of petitioner that his naturalization was not his own free choice must be rejected. There are many Filipinos in the U. 1995. Caasi vs COMELEC 191 SCRA 229 FACTS: Private respondent Miguel was elected Municipal Mayor of Bolinao Pangasinan. 1995. 40 . Statutes which are curative and which create new rights should be given retroactive effect. But once surrendered and renounced it is gone and cannot be lightly restored. such did not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. Even if he lost his American citizenship by his participation in Phil election. “Therefore. the renewal of his loyalty land love. 725 created a new right and provides for a new remedy to reacquire Philippine citizenship under simplified procedures of repatriation. Petitioner filed a petition for the annulment of the proclamation. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some acts independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. he has not effectively recovered Philippine citizenship. While the petition was granted. Frivaldo vs. 1995. 1995. On May 11. Without such prior waiver. 1994. Respondent filed a petition to disqualify him on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. Even the repatriation granted under it should be deemed to have retroacted to the date of application. similarly situated who did not take oath of allegiance to the U. he was “disqualified to run for any elective office”.S. By simply filing his certificate of candidacy. not of Bolinao. Petitioner won as governor. It then ordered the proclamation of respondent as the winner since he obtained the 2 nd highest member of votes. the COMELEC. P. petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the office of governor. hence a permanent resident of the United States of America. That is not the formal declaration required for repatriation. denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner. the law requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have “waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country. It is the intent of the law to benefit the greatest number of former Filipinos. Retroactivity also prevents prejudice to applicants in case of delay in the processing of their application. COMELEC 257 SCRA 727 FACTS: On March 8. HELD: To be disqualified to run for elective office in the Philippines. the motion for reconsideration of petition was not denied until after the election on May 8. Petitioner who was a rival candidate of Miguel sought the disqualification of private respondent (elected mayor) on the ground that he is a green card holder. Citizenship is favored by the Constitution and law.N. The returning renegade must show by an express and unequivocal act. HELD: The repatriation of petitioner should be deemed to retroact to the date of the filing of his application on Aug.S. It is not only the law which should be given retroactive effect. Philippine citizenship previously disowned is not that cheaply recovered. Aquino vs COMELEC 248 SCRA 400 FACTS: Petitioner Agapito Aquino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative for the 2nd district of Makati City. Rodriguez vs COMELEC 259 SCRA 296 FACTS: Petitioner Rodriguez and private respondent Marquez were protagonist for the position of Governor in Quezon Province. 41 . where he. what stands consistently clear is that his domicile of origin of records up to the filing of his most recent certificate of candidacy for the 1995 election was Conception Tarlac. Art VI of the Constitution. Facts show that the petitioner was a resident of Tarlac since his birth.Marcos vs. or to do other things of temporary nature does not constitute loss of residence in Tacloban City her residence since childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy. Private respondent contended that Mrs. The court has stated many times that an individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residences in different places. 1985. HELD: In order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Representative of the second district of Makati City. to study. eventually intends to return and remain. where a charge is pending against the latter for fraudulent insurance claims. He provided in his certificate of candidacy that he has been residing in district for 1 year and 13 days as evidenced by a lease contract between petitioner and an owner of a condominium unit in said city. 1985 and the issuance of the arrest warrant was almost five months after. The issue raised has whether or not Rodriguez was considered a “fugitive from justice” so as not to qualify him for the said gubernatorial post. he must prove that he has established not just residence but domicile of choice. MOVE Makati. grand theft and attempted grand theft of personal property. while the filing of the felony complaint against him was on Nov. is that to which the constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purpose of election law. The absence from legal residence to pursue a profession. Rodriguez arrived in the Philippines on June 25. Domicile of origin is not easily lost. Petitioner is ineligible for the elective position of representative of Makati. no matter where he may be found at any given time. his domicile. COMELEC 243 SCRA 300 FACTS: Private respondent Montejo filed a petition of cancellation and disqualification of the candidacy of Imelda Marcos alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. filed a petition to disqualify petitioner on the ground that petitioner lacked residence qualification as a candidate for congressman as provided by Sec 6. Marquez challenge Rodriguez victory as the former revealed that Rodriguez left the U. Marcos lacked the one year requirement on the evidence of declaration made by her in her voter registration record and certificate of candidacy stated that “she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence” HELD: When the constitution speaks of residence in election law. it actually means only of domicile. hence 52 years immediately preceding that election. 12. The place “where a party actually or contructively has his permanent home. a duly registered political party. Rodriguez won and was proclaimed duly elected governor. Petitioner must prove actual removal. from the data furnished by petitioner to the Comelec at various times during his political career.S. the present petition for HC may be deemed moot & academic as in similar cases. Nominees must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. Where a person continues to be unlawfully denied one or more of his constitutional freedoms. his detention cell.” Held: Moncupa may have been released fr. a resident of the Philippines for a period not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of election. Rodriguez’ case just cannot fit in this concept. A release that renders a pet. in the light of subsequent dev’ts. The COMELEC approved the manifestation. or of a promulgated judgment of conviction. Enrile Facts: Moncupa et al were arrested & detained. involuntary restraints. the person concerned or those applying in his behalf may still avail themselves of the privilege of the writ. He was alleged to be a National Democratic Font staff member. is free & no longer under the custody of the resps.S Bayan Muna vs COMELEC GR 147613. where the restraints are not merely involuntary but appear to be unnecessary. a registered voter. A Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) was issued vs.HELD: The Supreme Court has already ruled that a “fugitive from justice” includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who after being charged. After 2 separate investigations. There can only be an intent to evade prosecution or punishment when there is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment. become arbitrary.. For it is impossible for him to have known about such felony complaint & arrest warrant at the time he left the U. June 26. Lukban rule warrant the Court’s relieving him of such restraints as may be illegal. Respondents claim that the privilege of the writ of HC had been suspended as to Moncupa & filed a MTD stating “Since the pet. it was ascertained that Moncupa was not a member of any subversive organization. where there is present a denial of due process. 42 . The petitioners’ motions for bail were deined. Appendix to Minnie’s Habeas Corpus Opus Habeas Corpus # 9 Moncupa v. is at least 25 years old on day of election. HELD: The court ruled that Sec 9 of RA 7941 must be followed such as that the nominee must be natural born citizen of the Philippines. them.. flee to avoid prosecution. the non-marginalized or overrepresented. Both investigators recommended his prosecution only for illegal possession of firearms & subversive documents. & where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has. but the restraints attached to his temporary release preclude freedom of action & under the Villavicencio v. The definition stated indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor that animates one’s flight from a particular jurisdiction. It is not physical restraint alone w/c is inquired into by the writ of habeas corpus. and not more than 30 years old if representing youth sector. The principle is clear. arguing mainly that the party list system has intended to benefit the marginalized and under represented. Of 154 parties and organization and quality them for the party list election. The nominee of the party must belong and represent marginalize by a retiree. a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of the election. Petitioners seek the disqualification of private respondents. not the mainstream political parties. for a WHC moot & academic must be one w/c is free fr. able to read and wrote. 2001 FACTS: This is a case about the party list system of the 2001 Election. Toyoto. the remedy is a petition to quash the warrant of arrest or petition for reinvestigation of the case. petitioner Renato Suarez. 2. unlawful imprisonment and ordinarily it cannot be properly used for another purpose. CA Facts: Respondent Manese filed a petition for writ of HC vs. The sole function of the writ is to relieve fr. Salvana v. While the issuance of the writ connotes the commencement of a civil action. Alimpoos v. WON private offended party may take part in the case? Held: 1. Saliendra Facts: Salvana and Saliendra are the parents of 15 year old Felicisima Salvana. for HC becomes mute & epidemic (he he) when the restraint on the liberty of the pets. Neither the fact that the parents sought to compel her to marry against her wishes a legal ground for depriving parents their parental authority over the child as to deny them the right. situation. V. does writ lie? Held: Ordinarily. Issue: WON WHC should issue? Held: It should issue. a pet. So. 32 (4) and other applicable provisions of the Civil Code. rule that a HC shld. private parties. et al. detention. Ramos Facts: Petitioners temporarily released fr. WON damages may be awarded in a Habeas Corpus case? 3. She filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice to her right to file another action for custody of minor. The WHC is not the proper remedy. The pet. he also filed a claim for damages premised on Arts. When a warrant of arrest is being assailed for improper preliminary investigation. Issues: 1. Mosquito filed a petition for Habeas Corpus before the Trial Court. He was detained by virtue of a warrant of arrest which was issued without the observance of the legal requirements for the issuance thereof. CA Facts: Reynaldo Mosquito has been accused of Robbery w/ less Serious Physical Injuries. 3. WON the writ of Habeas Corpus if the proper remedy for Mosquito? 2. his mother & sister. Under this principle the moment a person is acquitted on a crim charge he can no longer be detained or rearrested for the same offense. SUAREZ VS. Mosquito named as defendants in the case the Prov. But the instant case presents a diff. The parents filed a petition for WHC to regain parental authority over the minor. It is also only the fiscal who may appeal the order granting the writ as mandated by Sec. A WHC is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a minor daughter even though the child is in custody of a 3rd person of her OWN FREE WILL. The Q to be resolved is whether the State can reserve the power to re-arrest a person for an offense after a court of competent jurisdiction has absolved him of the offense. The proper party is the Chief of Police or the person having the accused in detention and not the private offended party. the proceedings for HC is technically not yet a suit bet. 19 RULE 41 of the ROC. contending that the issue as to who has rightful custody of the child 43 . not be resorted to when there is another remedy available. No. Damages cannot be awarded. was denied on the ground that the parents are guilty of abusing their child by forcing her to marry another against the her wishes. The minor is presently in the custody of a justice of peace. Such a reservation is repugnant to the government of laws & not of men principle. It is the gen. Is lifted either temporarily or permanently. Fiscal and the private offended parties. Their counsel filed a MTQ. CA Facts: Three separate information (1 homicide. has the remedy of appeal or certiorari because it will not be permitted to perform the functions of a writ of error or appeal for the purpose of reviewing mere errors or irregularities in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction over the person & subject matter. each of the accused executed affidavits and waived their rights under Art. HELD: NO. They were brought to Manila and investigated.. in which the State has a paramount interest. Issue: WON petition for HC was properly filed together with the present petition for certiorari and mandamus Held: Writ of HC and certiorari may be ancillary to each other where necessary to give effect to the supervisory powers of the higher courts. It is worthy to note though that the ground upon which the motion to dismiss was filed was erroneous since the question as to who shall have custody of the child can be sufficiently resolved in the petition for writ of HC pursuant to Rule 102. Assuming that the trial court felt that the accused should have been given more “ample chance and opportunity to be heard in the preliminary investigation”. were later withdrawn in a Motion by the prosecutor. OK?) for the alleged shooting of the Vinculados. but on the same day.. don’t follow his footsteps. In the absence of exceptional circumstances. filed four separate information (same three plus illegal possession of firearms).” This time. the accused were brought back to Palawan and another preliminary investigation was held. The fundamental policy in the Constitution promoting & protecting the welfare of children should not be disregarded by a mere technicality in resolving disputes which involve the family & youth. Galvez (incumbent mayor of one of the towns in Bulacan . The absence of such investigation did not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective.could be fully adjudicated in another action and not in the present action for HC. TC granted motion but with prejudice. Writ cannot be granted in the case at bar since petitioners failed to adduce any justification or exceptional circumstances which would warrant the grant of such writ. FIGUEROA FACTS: The accused were found by the Philippine Navy off the province of Palawan with untaxed blue-seal cigarettes in their possession. During this preliminary investigation. 125 of the RPC (arbitrary detention). it was held in Manila and not Palawan where the alleged crime was committed. GALVEZ VS. HC is not ordinarily available in advance of trial to determine jurisdictional questions that may arise. if there was. ROC. allegedly for the purpose of “affirm(ing) the truth of the sworn statements. the orderly course of trial should be pursued & the usual remedies exhausted before the writ may be invoked. 44 . holding that the preliminary investigation was conducted “hurriedly”. however. Petition for HC is not the appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial. But HC does not lie where pet. Judge ordered the arrest of the petitioners since no bail was recommended. The controversy in the instant case involves a litigation initiated by the natural mother over the welfare & custody of her child. Said infos. ISSUE: WON the trial court correctly dismissed the information based on the lack of preliminary investigation. The writ reaches the body & jurisdictional matters while certiorari reaches the record. 2 frustrated homicide) were filed vs. what it should have properly done was not to dismiss the information but to hold the case in abeyance and conduct its own investigation or require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation. PEOPLE VS. The lower court granted the MTQ. On recommendation of the Manila fiscal. contrary to the constitutional mandate that decisions rendered by the court must clearly & distinctly state the law & facts on which it is based. TC dismissed the case without stating the reasons or the basis therefore. Peter. the accused declined counsel and readily affirmed their previous affidavits. Much less did it affect the jurisdiction of the lower court over the case. Issue: WON order of dismissal with prejudice is res judicata to present action for custody of minor & support Held: The order of dismissal cannot be considered as a valid adjudication on the merits which would serve as a bar to the second action for custody of minor. claiming that the information was filed without a preliminary investigation and. PAREDES VS. An information was subsequently filed and a warrant of arrest issued against Paredes. Gregorio Honasan. introduced as to Atty. as a matter of right. for a writ of HC but a Motion for the TC to quash the Warrant of Arrest. Petitioners argue that the arrests were illegal & violative of the Consti. Answered that the Writ was suspended as to them by virtue of Proc. or that no prelim inv has been conducted. They were denied bail. A preliminary investigation was held but the summons for Paredes to appear therein did not reach him. SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: A criminal complaint was filed against Governor Paredes for violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. Held: IF the detained attys. IBP Davao Chapter. 45 . He now petitions for habeas corpus on the ground that the preliminary investigation was invalid and that the offense has prescribed. He was visited by 15 lawyers fr. ENRILE (When we went to Davao. It is a proper ground for a motion to quash which should be filed before the arraignment of the accused for whether the crime may still be prosecuted and penalized should be determined in the criminal case not in a special proceeding of habeas corpus. ISSUE: WON the circumstances constitute valid grounds for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. All questions which may arise in the orderly course of a criminal prosecution are to be determined by the court to whose jurisdiction the defendant has been subjected by the law. The Court will no longer countenance pleas like the present that clearly short-circuit the judicial process and burden it with the resolution of issues properly within the original competence of the lower courts. and even then. The criminal case before Judge Salazar was the normal venue for invoking the petitioner’s right to have provisional liberty pending trial and judgment. another IBP member was arrested. the remedy is not a pet. HELD: NO. ILAGAN V. The court. not without first applying to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief was also available there. and the Panlilio spouses were arrested by PNP agents on a warrant of arrest issued by Judge Salazar. the Daddy of Mamay. Davao Chapter. 1990. and the fact that a defendant has a good and sufficient defense to a criminal charge on which he is held will not entitle him to his discharge on habeas corpus. Judge Quitain. SALAZAR FACTS: Juan Ponce Enrile. The remedy of the accused in such a case is to call the attention of the court to the lack of a preliminary investigation and demand. that one be conducted. claiming a right to bail per se by reason of the weakness of the evidence against him. Resps. The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the case nor impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective. Enrile and the Panlilios filed this petition for habeas corpus. The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction by filing a petition to be admitted to bail. should merely suspend the trial and order the fiscal to conduct a preliminary investigation. HELD: NO. The defense of prescription of the offense should be pleaded in the criminal action. of improper arrest.) Facts: Atty. none being recommended in the information which charged them with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the failed coup attempt of Dec. Defense. of Integrated Bar of the Phils. Ilagan was arrested in Davao City & detained on the basis of a mission order allegedly issued by the Ministry of Nat’l. Question their detention bec. Ilagan who was then pres. #2045-A.ENRILE VS. otherwise it would be deemed waived. invoking denial of the constitutional right to bail. Only after that remedy was denied by the trial court should the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court have been invoked. One of the visitors was also arrested & detinaed on the basis of an unsigned MO. &/or the info on grounds provided by the rules or to ask for an investigation/ reinvestigation of the case. After several days. instead of dismissing the information. ISSUE: WON a petition for habeas corpus is the appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial. since arrests cannot be made on the basis of mission orders. May picture pa kami w/ him. Pet. the lawyers. Judge at the time of filing comp. The term “searching Q & A” means only taking into consideration the purpose of the prelim exam. judge in violation of law since the exam was not reduced to in writing in the form of searching Q & A. such Q’s having tendency to show the commission of the crime & the perpetrator. The existence of probable cause depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the exam. w/c is to determine “whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that an offense has been committed & the accused is probably guilty thereof so that a warrant of arrest may be issued & the accused be held for trial. The latter declared that their answers were true. freely & voluntarily made. is now mood & academic bec. Judge claims substantial compliance. & that they fully understood the Q & A & were willing to sign their respective affidavits. Plaza Facts: Supporting the complaint for murder were sworn statements of prosecution witness in the form of Q & A taken by the PC investigator.This pet. filed writ for certiorari on the ground that he was deprived of liberty w/o due process since the imprisonment & detention was the result of a WOA issued by resp. 46 . & subscribed & sworn to before the resp. Judge issued warrant of arrest. Judge read to the proecution witnesses the Q & A. RA 3828 does not prohibit the Mun Judge fr. This was how he examined them. Luna v. of criminal charges for rebellion filed vs. adopting the questions asked by the previous investigator. Held: There was substantial compliance.