Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests

1R 2011-2012 CASE DIGESTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Justice Francisco P. Acosta I.NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION Santiago vs. Commission on E !"tions Fa"ts# On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, founding member of the Movement for Peo le!s "niti#tive, filed $ith the %OM&'&% # (Petition to Amend the %onstitution, to 'ift )erm 'imits of &lective Offici#ls, by Peo le!s "niti#tive( citing Section *, Article +,"" of the %onstitution. Acting on the etition, the %OM&'&% set the c#se for he#ring #nd directed Delfin to h#ve the etition ublished. After the he#ring the #rguments bet$een etitioners #nd o osing #rties, the %OM&'&% directed Delfin #nd the o ositors to file their (memor#nd# #nd-or o ositions-memor#nd#( $ithin five d#ys. On December 1., 1996, Sen#tor Miri#m Defensor S#nti#go, Ale/#nder P#dill#, #nd M#ri# "s#bel Ong in filed # s eci#l civil #ction for rohibition under 0ule 61 r#ising the follo$ing #rguments, #mong others2 1.3 )h#t the %onstitution c#n only be #mended by eo le4s initi#tive if there is #n en#bling l#$ #ssed by %ongress, to $hich no such l#$ h#s yet been #ssed5 #nd *.3 )h#t 0.A. 6671 does not suffice #s #n en#bling l#$ on eo le4s initi#tive on the %onstitution, unli8e in the other modes of initi#tive. Iss$!# 0.A. 9o. 6671 sufficient to en#ble #mendment of the %onstitution by eo le4s initi#tive: H! %# 9O. 0.A. 6671 is in#de;u#te to cover the system of initi#tive on #mendments to the %onstitution. <nder the s#id l#$, initi#tive on the
%onstitution is confined only to ro os#ls to AM&9D. )he eo le #re not #ccorded the o$er to (directly ro ose, en#ct, # rove, or re=ect, in $hole or in #rt, the %onstitution( through the system of initi#tive. )hey c#n only do so $ith res ect to (l#$s, ordin#nces, or resolutions.( )he use of the cl#use ( ro osed l#$s sought to be en#cted, # roved or re=ected, #mended or re e#led( denotes th#t 0.A. 9o. 6671 e/cludes initi#tive on #mendments to the %onstitution. Also, $hile the l#$ rovides subtitles for 9#tion#l "niti#tive #nd 0eferendum #nd for 'oc#l "niti#tive #nd 0eferendum, no subtitle is rovided for initi#tive on the %onstitution. )his me#ns th#t the m#in thrust of the l#$ is initi#tive #nd referendum on n#tion#l #nd loc#l l#$s. "f 0.A. 9o. 6671 $ere intended to fully rovide for the im lement#tion of the initi#tive on #mendments to the %onstitution, it could h#ve rovided for # subtitle therefor, considering th#t in the order of things, the rim#cy of interest, or hier#rchy of v#lues, the right of the eo le to directly ro ose #mendments to the %onstitution is f#r more im ort#nt th#n the initi#tive on n#tion#l #nd loc#l l#$s. >hile 0.A. 9o. 6671 s eci#lly det#iled the rocess in im lementing initi#tive #nd referendum on n#tion#l #nd loc#l l#$s, it intention#lly did not do so on the system of initi#tive on #mendments to the %onstitution. Gon&a !s vs. Commission on E !"tions Fa"ts# )he c#se is #n origin#l #ction for rohibition, $ith relimin#ry in=unction. )he m#in f#cts #re not dis uted. On M#rch 16, 1966, the Sen#te #nd the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives #ssed the follo$ing resolutions2 1. 0. @. ?. A0esolution of @oth ?ouses3 9o. 1, ro osing th#t Section 1, Article ,", of the %onstitution of the Phili ines, be #mended so #s to incre#se the membershi of the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives from # m#/imum of 1*B, #s rovided in the resent %onstitution, to # m#/imum of 1.B, to be # ortioned #mong the sever#l rovinces #s ne#rly #s m#y
1
1R 2011-2012 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II CASE DIGESTS
be #ccording to the number of their res ective inh#bit#nts, #lthough e#ch rovince sh#ll h#ve, #t le#st, one A13 member5 *. 0. @. ?. 9o. *, c#lling # convention to ro ose #mendments to s#id %onstitution, the convention to be com osed of t$o A*3 elective deleg#tes from e#ch re resent#tive district, to be (elected in the gener#l elections to be held on the second )uesd#y of 9ovember, 19615( #nd 7. 0. @. ?. 9o. 7, ro osing th#t Section 16, Article ,", of the s#me %onstitution, be #mended so #s to #uthoriCe Sen#tors #nd members of the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives to become deleg#tes to the #forementioned constitution#l convention, $ithout forfeiting their res ective se#ts in %ongress. Subse;uently, %ongress #ssed # bill, $hich, u on # rov#l by the President, on June 16, 1966, bec#me 0e ublic Act 9o. D917, roviding th#t the #mendments to the %onstitution ro osed in the #forementioned 0esolutions 9o. 1 #nd 7 be submitted, for # rov#l by the eo le, #t the gener#l elections $hich sh#ll be held on 9ovember 1D, 1966. Iss$!#
office, #re v#lid, insof#r #s the ublic is concerned. ()he =udici#l de #rtment is the only constitution#l org#n $hich c#n be c#lled u on to determine the ro er #lloc#tion of o$ers bet$een the sever#l de #rtments #nd #mong the integr#l or constituent units thereof.( Article +, of the %onstitution rovides2 . . .)he %ongress in =oint session #ssembled, by # vote of threeE fourths of #ll the Members of the Sen#te #nd of the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives voting se #r#tely, m#y ro ose #mendments to this %onstitution or c#ll # contention for th#t ur ose. Such #mendments sh#ll be v#lid #s #rt of this %onstitution $hen # roved by # m#=ority of the votes c#st #t #n election #t $hich the #mendments #re submitted to the eo le for their r#tific#tion. From our vie$ oint, the rovisions of Article +, of the %onstitution #re s#tisfied so long #s the elector#te 8no$s th#t 0. @. ?. 9o. 7 ermits %ongressmen to ret#in their se#ts #s legisl#tors, even if they should run for #nd #ssume the functions of deleg#tes to the %onvention. Sani%a% vs. Commission on E !"tions
>hether or 9ot # 0esolution of %ongress, #cting #s # constituent #ssembly, viol#tes the %onstitution. H! %# "n#smuch #s there #re less th#n eight A.3 votes in f#vor of decl#ring 0e ublic Act D917 #nd 0. @. ?. 9os. 1 #nd 7 unconstitution#l #nd inv#lid, the etitions in these t$o A*3 c#ses must be, #s they #re hereby, dismiss #nd the $rits therein r#yed for denied, $ithout s eci#l ronouncement #s to costs. "t is so ordered. As # conse;uence, the title of # de f#cto officer c#nnot be #ss#iled coll#ter#lly. "t m#y not be contested e/ce t directly, by ;uo $#rr#nto roceedings. 9either m#y the v#lidity of his #cts be ;uestioned u on the ground th#t he is merely # de f#cto officer. And the re#sons #re obvious2 A13 it $ould be #n indirect in;uiry into the title to the office5 #nd A*3 the #cts of # de f#cto officer, if $ithin the com etence of his
Fa"ts# On * Se t 1966, M#rcos issued PD 9o. 991 c#lling for # n#tion#l referendum on 16 Oct 1966 for the %itiCens Assemblies AGb#r#ng#ysH3 to resolve, #mong other things, the issues of m#rti#l l#$, the interim #ssembly, its re l#cement, the o$ers of such re l#cement, the eriod of its e/istence, the length of the eriod for the e/ercise by the President of his resent o$ers. )$enty d#ys #fter, the President issued #nother rel#ted decree, PD 9o. 1B71, #mending the revious PD 9o. 991, by decl#ring the rovisions of PD 9o. **9 roviding for the m#nner of voting #nd c#nv#ss of votes in Gb#r#ng#ysH # lic#ble to the n#tion#l referendumE lebiscite of Oct 16, 1966. Iuite relev#ntly, PD 9o. 1B71 re e#led inter #li#, Sec D, of PD 9o. 991. On the s#me d#te of ** Se t 1966, M#rcos issued PD 9o. 1B77, st#ting the ;uestions to he submitted to the eo le in the referendumE lebiscite on October 16, 1966. )he Decree recites in its
2
G$here#sH cl#uses th#t the eo le4s continued o osition to the convening of the interim 9#tion#l Assembly evinces their desire to h#ve such body #bolished #nd re l#ced thru # constitution#l #mendment, roviding for # ne$ interim legisl#tive body, $hich $ill be submitted directly to the eo le in the referendumE lebiscite of October 16. On Se tember *6, 1966, S#nid#d filed # Prohibition $ith Prelimin#ry "n=unction see8ing to en=oin the %ommission on &lections from holding #nd conducting the 0eferendum Plebiscite on October 165 to decl#re $ithout force #nd effect Presidenti#l Decree 9os. 991 #nd 1B77, insof#r #s they ro ose #mendments to the %onstitution, #s $ell #s Presidenti#l Decree 9o. 1B71, insof#r #s it directs the %ommission on &lections to su ervise, control, hold, #nd conduct the 0eferendumEPlebiscite scheduled on October 16, 1966.Petitioners contend th#t under the 1971 #nd 1967 %onstitutions there is no gr#nt to the incumbent President to e/ercise the constituent o$er to ro ose #mendments to the ne$ %onstitution. As # conse;uence, the 0eferendumEPlebiscite on October 16 h#s no constitution#l or leg#l b#sis. )he SocEJen contended th#t the ;uestion is olitic#l in n#ture hence the court c#nnot t#8e cogniC#nce of it. Iss$!# >hether or not M#rcos c#n v#lidly ro ose #mendments to the %onstitution. H! %# )he #mending rocess both #s to ro os#l #nd r#tific#tion r#ises # =udici#l ;uestion. )his is es eci#lly true in c#ses $here the o$er of the Presidency to initi#te the #mending rocess by ro os#ls of #mendments, # function norm#lly e/ercised by the legisl#ture, is seriously doubted. <nder the terms of the 1967 %onstitution, the o$er to ro ose #mendments to the %onstitution resides in the interim 9#tion#l Assembly during the eriod of tr#nsition ASec. 11, )r#nsitory Provisions3. After th#t eriod, #nd the regul#r 9#tion#l Assembly in its #ctive session, the o$er to ro ose #mendments becomes i so f#cto the rerog#tive of the regul#r 9#tion#l Assembly
ASec. 1, #rs. 1 #nd * of Art. +,", 1967 %onstitution3. )he norm#l course h#s not been follo$ed. 0#ther th#n c#lling the interim 9#tion#l Assembly to constitute itself into # constituent #ssembly, the incumbent President undertoo8 the ro os#l of #mendments #nd submitted the ro osed #mendments thru Presidenti#l Decree 1B77 to the eo le in # 0eferendumEPlebiscite on October 16. <n#void#bly, the regul#rity of the rocedure for #mendments, $ritten in l#mbent $ords in the very %onstitution sought to be #mended, r#ises # contest#ble issue. )he im lementing Presidenti#l Decree 9os. 991, 1B71, #nd 1B77, $hich commonly ur ort to h#ve the force #nd effect of legisl#tion #re #ss#iled #s inv#lid, thus the issue of the v#lidity of s#id Decrees is l#inly # =ustici#ble one, $ithin the com etence of this %ourt to #ss u on. Section * A*3 Article + of the ne$ %onstitution rovides2 GAll c#ses involving the constitution#lity of # tre#ty, e/ecutive #greement, or l#$ sh#ll be he#rd #nd decided by the Su reme %ourt en b#nc #nd no tre#ty, e/ecutive #greement, or l#$ m#y be decl#red unconstitution#l $ithout the concurrence of #t le#st ten Members. . . ..H )he Su reme %ourt h#s the l#st $ord in the construction not only of tre#ties #nd st#tutes, but #lso of the %onstitution itself. )he #mending, li8e #ll other o$ers org#niCed in the %onstitution, is in form # deleg#ted #nd hence # limited o$er, so th#t the Su reme %ourt is vested $ith th#t #uthority to determine $hether th#t o$er h#s been disch#rged $ithin its limits. )his etition is ho$ever dismissed. )he President c#n ro ose #mendments to the %onstitution #nd he $#s #ble to resent those ro os#ls to the eo le in sufficient time. Lam'ino( !t.a . vs. Commission on E !"tions Fa"ts# )he '#mbino Jrou commenced g#thering sign#tures for #n initi#tive etition to ch#nge the 19.6 %onstitution #nd then filed # etition $ith %OM&'&% to hold # lebiscite for r#tific#tion under Sec. 1Ab3 #nd Ac3 #nd Sec. 6 of 0A 6671. )he ro osed ch#nges under the etition $ill shift the resent @ic#mer#lEPresidenti#l system to # <nic#mer#lEP#rli#ment#ry form of government. %OM&'&% did not
3
give it due course for l#c8 of #n en#bling l#$ governing initi#tive etitions to #mend the %onstitution, ursu#nt to S#nti#go v. %omelec ruling Iss$!s# A13 >hether or not the ro osed ch#nges constitute #n #mendment or revision A*3 >hether or not the initi#tive etition is sufficient com li#nce $ith the constitution#l re;uirement on direct ro os#l by the eo le H! %# "niti#tive etition does not com ly $ith Sec. *, Art. +,"" on direct ro os#l by eo le Sec.*, Art. +,""...is the governing rovision th#t #llo$s # eo le4s initi#tive to ro ose #mendments to the %onstitution. >hile this rovision does not e/ ressly st#te th#t the etition must set forth the full te/t of the ro osed #mendments, the deliber#tions of the fr#mers of our %onstitution cle#rly sho$ th#t2 A#3 the fr#mers intended to #do t relev#ntbAmeric#n =uris rudence on eo le4s initi#tive5 #nd Ab3 in #rticul#r, the eo le must first seethe full te/t of the ro osed #mendments before they sign, #nd th#t the eo le must sign on # etition cont#ining such full te/t. )he essence of #mendments Gdirectly ro osed by the eo le through initi#tive u on # etitionH is th#t the entire ro os#l on its f#ce is # etition by the eo le. )his me#ns t$o essenti#l elements must be resent. 1. First, the eo le must #uthor #nd thus sign the entire ro os#l. 9o #gent or re resent#tive c#n sign on their beh#lf. *. Second, #s #n initi#tive u on # etition, the ro os#l must be embodied in # etition. )hese essenti#l elements #re resent only if the full te/t of the ro osed #mendments is first sho$n to the eo le $ho e/ ress their #ssent by signing such com lete ro os#l in # etition. )he full te/t of the ro osed #mendments m#y be either $ritten on the f#ce of the etition, or #tt#ched to it. "f so #tt#ched, the etition must st#te the f#ct of such #tt#chment. )his is #n #ssur#nce th#t every one of the sever#l millions of sign#tories to the etition h#d seen the full te/t of
the ro osed #mendments before K not #fter K signing. Moreover, G#n initi#tive signer must be informed #t the time of signing of the n#ture #nd effect of th#t $hich is ro osedH #nd f#ilure to do so is Gdece tive #nd misle#dingH $hich renders the initi#tive void. "n the c#se of the '#mbino Jrou 4s etition, there4s not # single $ord, hr#se, or sentence of te/t of the ro osed ch#nges in the sign#ture sheet. 9either does the sign#ture sheet st#te th#t the te/t of the ro osed ch#nges is #tt#ched to it. )he sign#ture sheet merely #s8s # ;uestion $hether the eo le # rove # shift from the @ic#mer#lEPresidenti#l to the <nic#mer#lE P#rli#ment#ry system of government. )he sign#ture sheet does not sho$ to the eo le the dr#ft of the ro osed ch#nges before they #re #s8ed to sign the sign#ture sheet. )his omission is f#t#l. An initi#tive th#t g#thers sign#tures from the eo le $ithout first sho$ing to the eo le the full te/t of the ro osed #mendments is most li8ely # dece tion, #nd c#n o er#te #s # gig#ntic fr#ud on the eo le. )h#t4s $hy the %onstitution re;uires th#t #n initi#tive must beH directly ro osed by the eo le / / / in # etitionH E me#ning th#t the eo le must sign on # etition th#t cont#ins the full te/t of the ro osed #mendments. On so vit#l #n issue #s #mending the n#tion4s fund#ment#l l#$, the $riting of the te/t of the ro osed #mendments c#nnot be hidden from the eo le under # gener#l or s eci#l o$er of #ttorney to unn#med, f#celess, #nd unelected individu#ls. )he initi#tive viol#tes Section *, Article +,"" of the %onstitution dis#llo$ing revision through initi#tives #rticle +,"" of the %onstitution s e#8s of three modes of #mending the %onstitution. )he first mode is through %ongress u on threeEfourths vote of #ll its Members. )he second mode is through # constitution#l convention. )he third mode is through # eo le4s initi#tive. Section 1 of Article +,"", referring to the first #nd second modes, # lies to G#ny #mendment to, or revision of, this %onstitution.H "n contr#st, Section * of Article +,"", referring to the third mode, # lies only to G#mendments to this %onstitution.H )his distinction $#s intention#l #s sho$n by the deliber#tions of the %onstitution#l %ommission. A eo le4s initi#tive to ch#nge the %onstitution # lies only to #n #mendment of the %onstitution #nd not to its revision. "n
4
contr#st, %ongress or # constitution#l convention c#n ro ose both #mendments #nd revisions to the %onstitution. Does the '#mbino Jrou 4s initi#tive constitute # revision of the %onstitution: Les. @y #ny leg#l test #nd under #ny =urisdiction, # shift from # @ic#mer#lEPresidenti#l to # <nic#mer#lEP#rli#ment#ry system, involving the #bolition of the Office of the President #nd the #bolition of one ch#mber of %ongress, is beyond doubt # revision, not # mere #mendment. II. T)! Constit$tion an% t)! Co$*ts D$m ao vs. Commission on E !"tions Fa"ts# Duml#o $#s the former governor of 9uev# ,iCc#y#. ?e h#s retired from his office #nd he h#s been receiving retirement benefits there from. ?e filed for reEelection to the s#me office for the 19.B loc#l elections. On the other h#nd, @P 1* $#s #ssed A #r 1 thereof3 roviding dis;u#lific#tion for the li8es of Duml#o. Duml#o #ss#iled the @P #verring th#t it is cl#ss legisl#tion hence unconstitution#l. ?is etition $#s =oined by Atty. "got #nd S#l# #nt#n Jr. )hese t$o ho$ever h#ve different issues. )he suits of "got #nd S#l# #nt#n #re more of # t#/ #yer4s suit #ss#iling the other rovisions of @P 1* reg#rding the term of office of the elected offici#ls, the length of the c#m #ign #nd the rovision b#rring ersons ch#rged for crimes m#y not run for ublic office #nd th#t the filing of com l#ints #g#inst them #nd #fter relimin#ry investig#tion $ould #lre#dy dis;u#lify them from office. "n gener#l, Duml#o invo8ed e;u#l rotection in the eye of the l#$. Iss$!# >hether or not the there is c#use of #ction. H! %#
)he S% ointed out the rocedur#l l# ses of this c#se for this c#se $ould never h#ve been merged. Duml#o4s c#use is different from "got4s. )hey h#ve se #r#te issues. Further, this c#se does not meet #ll the re;uisites so th#t it4d be eligible for =udici#l revie$. )here #re st#nd#rds th#t h#ve to be follo$ed in the e/ercise of the function of =udici#l revie$, n#mely2 A13 the e/istence of #n # ro ri#te c#se5 A*3 #n interest erson#l #nd subst#nti#l by the #rty r#ising the constitution#l ;uestion5 A73 the le# th#t the function be e/ercised #t the e#rliest o ortunity5 #nd AD3 the necessity th#t the constitution#l ;uestion be #ssed u on in order to decide the c#se. "n this c#se, only the 7rd re;uisite $#s met. )he S% ruled ho$ever th#t the rovision b#rring ersons ch#rged for crimes m#y not run for ublic office #nd th#t the filing of com l#ints #g#inst them #nd #fter relimin#ry investig#tion $ould #lre#dy dis;u#lify them from office #s null #nd void. )he #ssertion th#t Sec D of @P 1* is contr#ry to the s#fegu#rd of e;u#l rotection is neither $ell t#8en. )he constitution#l gu#r#ntee of e;u#l rotection of the l#$s is sub=ect to r#tion#l cl#ssific#tion. "f the grou ings #re b#sed on re#son#ble #nd re#l differenti#tions, one cl#ss c#n be tre#ted #nd regul#ted differently from #nother cl#ss. For ur oses of ublic service, em loyees 61 ye#rs of #ge, h#ve been v#lidly cl#ssified differently from younger em loyees. &m loyees #tt#ining th#t #ge #re sub=ect to com ulsory retirement, $hile those of younger #ges #re not so com ulsorily retir#ble. "n res ect of election to rovinci#l, city, or munici #l ositions, to re;uire th#t c#ndid#tes should not be more th#n 61 ye#rs of #ge #t the time they #ssume office, if # lic#ble to everyone, might or might not be # re#son#ble cl#ssific#tion #lthough, #s the Solicitor Jener#l h#s intim#ted, # good olicy of the l#$ should be to romote the emergence of younger blood in our olitic#l elective echelons. On the other h#nd, it might be th#t ersons more th#n 61 ye#rs old m#y #lso be good elective loc#l offici#ls. 0etirement from government service m#y or m#y not be # re#son#ble dis;u#lific#tion for elective loc#l offici#ls. For one thing, there c#n #lso be retirees from government service #t #ges, s#y belo$ 61. "t m#y neither be re#son#ble to dis;u#lify retirees, #ged
5
61, for # 61Eye#r old retiree could be # good loc#l offici#l =ust li8e one, #ged 61, $ho is not # retiree. @ut, in the c#se of # 61Eye#r old elective loc#l offici#l ADuml#o3, $ho h#s retired from # rovinci#l, city or munici #l office, there is re#son to dis;u#lify him from running for the s#me office from $hich he h#d retired, #s rovided for in the ch#llenged rovision. +ACU vs. S!"*!ta*, o- E%$"ation Fa"ts# )he Phili ine Associ#tion of %olleges #nd <niversities m#de # etition th#t Acts 9o. *6B6 other$ise 8no$n #s the GAct m#8ing the "ns ection #nd 0ecognition of riv#te schools #nd colleges oblig#tory for the Secret#ry of Public "nstructionH #nd $#s #mended by Act 9o. 7B61 #nd %ommon$e#lth Act 9o. 1.B be decl#red unconstitution#l on the grounds th#t 13 the #ct de rives the o$ner of the school #nd colleges #s $ell #s te#chers #nd #rents of liberty #nd ro erty $ithout due rocess of '#$5 *3 it $ill #lso de rive the #rents of their 9#tur#l 0ights #nd duty to re#r their children for civic efficiency #nd 73 its rovisions conferred on the Secret#ry of &duc#tion unlimited o$ers #nd discretion to rescribe rules #nd st#nd#rds constitute to$#rds unl#$ful deleg#tion of 'egisl#tive o$ers. Section 1 of Act 9o. *6B6 G"t sh#ll be the duty of the Secret#ry of Public "nstruction to m#int#in # gener#l st#nd#rd of efficiency in #ll riv#te schools #nd colleges of the Phili ines so th#t the s#me sh#ll furnish #de;u#te instruction to the ublic, in #ccord#nce $ith the cl#ss #nd gr#de of instruction given in them, #nd for this ur ose s#id Secret#ry or his duly #uthoriCed re resent#tive sh#ll h#ve #uthority to #dvise, ins ect, #nd regul#te s#id schools #nd colleges in order to determine the efficiency of instruction given in the s#me,H )he etitioner #lso com l#in th#t securing # ermit to the Secret#ry of &duc#tion before o ening # school is not origin#lly included in the origin#l Act *6B6.And in su ort to the first ro osition of the etitioners they contended th#t the %onstitution gu#r#nteed the right
of # citiCen to o$n #nd o er#te # school #nd #ny l#$ re;uiring revious government#l # rov#l or ermit before such erson could e/ercise the s#id right On the other h#nd, the defend#nt 'eg#l 0e resent#tive submitted # memor#ndum contending th#t 13 the m#tters resented no =ustici#ble controversy e/hibiting un#void#ble necessity of deciding the constitution#l ;uestion5 *3 Petitioners #re in esto els to ch#llenge the v#lidity of the s#id #ct #nd 73 the Act is constitution#lly v#lid. )hus, the etition for rohibition $#s dismissed by the court. Iss$!# >hether or not Act 9o. *6B6 #s #mended by Act no. 7B61 #nd %ommon$e#lth Act no. 1.B m#y be decl#red void #nd unconstitution#l: H! %# )he Petitioner suffered no $rong under the terms of l#$ #nd needs no relief in the form they see8 to obt#in. Moreover, there is no =ustici#ble controversy resented before the court. "t is #n est#blished rinci le th#t to entitle # riv#te individu#l immedi#tely in d#nger of sust#ining # direct in=ury #nd it is not sufficient th#t he h#s merely invo8e the =udici#l o$er to determined the v#lidity of e/ecutive #nd legisl#tive #ction he must sho$ th#t he h#s sust#ined common interest to #ll members of the ublic. Furthermore, the o$er of the courts to decl#re # l#$ unconstitution#l #rises only $hen the interest of litig#nt re;uire the use of =udici#l #uthority for their rotection #g#inst #ctu#l interference. As such, Judici#l Po$er is limited to the decision of #ctu#l c#ses #nd controversies #nd the #uthority to #ss on the v#lidity of st#tutes is incident#l to the decisions of such c#ses $here conflicting cl#ims under the constitution #nd under the legisl#tive #ct #ss#iled #s contr#ry to the constitution but it is legitim#te only in the l#st resort #nd it must be necess#ry to determined # re#l #nd vit#l controversy bet$een litig#nts. )hus, #ctions li8e this #re brought for # ositive ur ose to obt#in #ctu#l ositive relief #nd the court does not sit to #d=udic#te # mere #c#demic ;uestion to s#tisfy schol#rly interest therein. )he court ho$ever, finds the defend#nt osition to be sufficiently
6
sust#ined #nd st#te th#t the etitioner remedy is to ch#llenge the regul#tion not to inv#lid#te the l#$ bec#use it needs no #rgument to sho$ th#t #buse by offici#ls entrusted $ith the e/ecution of the st#tute does not er se demonstr#te the unconstitution#lity of such st#tute. On this h#se of the litig#tion the court conclude th#t there h#s been no undue deleg#tion of legisl#tive o$er even if the etitioners # ended # list of circul#rs #nd memor#nd# issued by the De #rtment of &duc#tion they f#il to indic#te $hich of such offici#l documents $#s constitution#lly ob=ection#ble for being c# ricious or #in nuis#nce. )herefore, the court denied the etition for rohibition. .i os'a,an vs. /o*ato Fa"ts# )his is # etition see8ing to decl#re the &'A inv#lid on the ground th#t it is subst#nti#lly the s#me #s the %ontr#ct of 'e#se nullified in J. 0. 9o. 117767, *7* S%0A 11B. Petitioners contended th#t the #mended &'A is inconsistent $ith #nd viol#tive of P%SO4s ch#rter #nd the decision of the Su reme %ourt of 1 M#y 1991, th#t it viol#ted the l#$ on ublic bidding of contr#cts #s $ell #s Section *A*3, Article "+ED of the 19.6 %onstitution in rel#tion to the %OA %ircul#r 9o. .1E 11EA. 0es ondents ;uestioned the etitioners4 st#nding to bring this suit. Iss$!# >hether or not etitioners ossess the leg#l st#nding to file the inst#nt etition. H! %# )he Su reme %ourt ruled in the neg#tive. St#nding is # s eci#l concern in constitution#l l#$ bec#use some c#ses #re brought not by #rties $ho h#ve been erson#lly in=ured by the o er#tion of the l#$ or by offici#l #ction t#8en, but by concerned citiCens, t#/ #yers or voters $ho #ctu#lly sue in the ublic interest. Petitioners do not in f#ct sho$ $h#t #rticul#riCed interest they h#ve for bringing this suit.
And they do not h#ve resent subst#nti#l interest in the &'A #s $ould entitle them to bring this suit. Ti0am vs. Si'ong)ano, Fa"ts# )i=#m filed for recovery of P1,9B. M leg#l interest from Sibong#h#noy. Defend#nts filed # counter bond $ith M#nil# Surety #nd Fidelity %o ASurety3. Judgement $#s in f#vour of the l#intiffs, # $rit of e/ecution $#s issued #g#inst the defend#nt. Defend#nts moved for $rit of e/ecution #g#inst surety $hich $#s gr#nted. Surety moved to ;u#sh the $rit but $#s denied, # e#led to %A $ithout r#ising the issue on l#c8 of =urisdiction. %A #ffirmed the # e#led decision. Surety then filed Motion to Dismiss on the ground of l#c8 of =urisdiction #g#inst %F" %ebu in vie$ of the effectivity of Judici#ry Act of 19D. # month before the filing of the etition for recovery. Act l#ced origin#l e/clusive =urisdiction of inferior courts #ll civil #ctions for dem#nds not e/ceeding *,BBB e/clusive of interest. %A set #side its e#rlier decision #nd referred the c#se to S% since it h#s e/clusive =urisdiction over (#ll c#ses in $hich the =urisdiction of #ny inferior court is in issue. Iss$!# >hether or not the Surety bond is esto ed from ;uestioning the =urisdiction of the %F" %ebu for the first time u on # e#l. H! %# Les. S% believes th#t th#t the Surety is no$ b#rred by l#ches from invo8ing this le# #fter #lmost fifteen ye#rs before the Surety filed its motion to dismiss r#ising the ;uestion of l#c8 of =urisdiction for the first time E A #rty m#y be esto ed or b#rred from r#ising # ;uestion in different $#ys #nd for different re#sons. )hus $e s e#8 of esto el in #is, or esto el by deed or by record, #nd of esto el by l#ches. '#ches, in # gener#l sense is f#ilure or neglect, for #n
7
unre#son#ble #nd une/ l#ined length of time, to do th#t $hich, by e/ercising due diligence, could or should h#ve been done e#rlier E Furthermore, it h#s #lso been held th#t #fter volunt#rily submitting # c#use #nd encountering #n #dverse decision on the merits, it is too l#te for the loser to ;uestion the =urisdiction or o$er of the court E(undesir#ble r#ctice( of # #rty submitting his c#se for decision #nd then #cce ting the =udgment, only if f#vor#ble, #nd #tt#c8ing it for l#c8 of =urisdiction, $hen #dverse. In *! C$nanan Fa"ts# "n the m#nner of the etitions for Admission to the @#r of unsuccessful c#ndid#tes of 19D6 to 19175 Albino %un#n#n et. #l etitioners. "n recent ye#rs fe$ controversi#l issues h#ve #roused so much ublic interest #nd concern #s 0.A. 96* o ul#rly 8no$n #s the G@#r Flun8ers4 Act of 1917.H Jener#lly # c#ndid#te is deemed #ssed if he obt#ins # gener#l #ve of 61N in #ll sub=ects $-o f#lling belo$ 1BN in #ny sub=ect, #lthough for the #st fe$ e/#ms the #ssing gr#des $ere ch#nged de ending on the strictness of the correcting of the b#r e/#min#tions A19D6E 6*N, 19D6E 69N, 19D.E 6BN 19D9E6DN, 191BE1917 K 61N3. @elieving themselves to be fully ;u#lified to r#ctice l#$ #s those reconsidered #nd #ssed by the S.%., #nd feeling th#t they h#ve been discrimin#ted #g#inst, unsuccessful c#ndid#tes $ho obt#ined #ver#ges of # fe$ ercent#ges lo$er th#n those #dmitted to the b#r $ent to congress for, #nd secured in 1911 Sen#te @ill no. 1*, but $#s vetoed by the resident #fter he $#s given #dvise #dverse to it. 9ot overriding the veto, the sen#te then # roved sen#te bill no. 76* embodying subst#nti#lly the rovisions of the vetoed bill. )he bill then bec#me l#$ on June *1, 1917. 0e ublic Act 96* h#s for its ob=ect, #ccording to its #uthor, to #dmit to the @#r those c#ndid#tes $ho suffered from insufficiency of re#ding m#teri#ls #nd in#de;u#te re #r#tions. @y #nd l#rge, the l#$ is contr#ry to ublic interest since it ;u#lifies 1,B9D l#$ gr#du#tes
$ho h#d in#de;u#te re #r#tion for the r#ctice of l#$ rofession, #s evidenced by their f#ilure in the e/#ms. Iss$!s# >hether or not the 0e ublic Act. 96* is constitution#l. H! %# An #de;u#te leg#l re #r#tion is one of the vit#l re;uisites for the r#ctice of the l#$ th#t should be develo ed const#ntly #nd m#int#ined firmly. )he Judici#l system from $hich ours h#s been derived, the #ct of #dmitting, sus ending, disb#rring, #nd reinst#ting #ttorneys #t l#$ in the r#ctice of the rofession is concededly =udici#l. )he %onstitution h#s not conferred on %ongress #nd the S.%. e;u#l res onsibilities concerning the #dmission to the r#ctice of l#$. )he rim#ry o$er #nd res onsibility $hich the constitution recogniCes continue to reside in this court. "ts retro#ctivity is inv#lid in such # $#y, th#t $h#t the l#$ see8s to GcureH #re not the rules set in l#ce by the S.%. but the l#c8 of $ill or the defect in =udgment of the court, #nd this o$er is not included in the o$er gr#nted by the %onst. to %ongress, it lies e/clusively $-in the =udici#ry. 0e#sons for <nconstitution#lity2 1. )here $#s # m#nifest encro#chment on the constitution#l res onsibility of the Su reme %ourt. *. "t is in effect # =udgment revo8ing the resolution of the court, #nd only the S.%. m#y revise or #lter them, in #ttem ting to do so 0.A. 96* viol#ted the %onstitution. 7. )h#t congress h#s e/ceeded its o$er to re e#l, #lter, #nd su lement the rules on #dmission to the b#r Asince the rules m#de by congress must elev#te the rofession, #nd those rules romulg#ted #re considered the b#re minimum.3 D. "t is # cl#ss legisl#tion 1. Art. * of 0.A. 96* is not embr#ced in the title of the l#$, contr#ry to $h#t the constitution en=oins, #nd being inse #r#ble from the rovisions of #rt. 1, the entire l#$ is void. <nder the #uthority of the court2 1. )h#t the ortion of #rt. 1 of 0.A. 96* referring to the e/#min#tions of 19D6 to 191* #nd #ll of #rt. * of the s#id l#$ #re unconstitution#l
8
#nd therefore void #nd $-o force #nd effect. *. )he #rt of A0) 1 th#t refers to the e/#min#tions subse;uent to the # rov#l of the l#$ A1917E 19113 is v#lid #nd sh#ll continue in force. Athose etitions by the c#ndid#tes $ho f#iled the b#r from 19D6 to 191* #re denied, #nd #ll the c#ndid#tes $ho in the e/#min#tion of 1917 obt#ined # J&9 Ave. of 61.1N $-o getting # gr#de of belo$ 1BN in #ny sub=ect #re considered #s h#ving #ssed $hether they h#ve filed etitions for #dmissions or not.3 III. FUNDA/ENTAL +OWERS OF THE STATE A. +OLICE +OWER 1// +*omotion an% /anag!m!nt( In". vs. CA Fa"ts# Due to the de#th of one M#ricris Sioson in 1991, %ory b#nned the de loyment of erforming #rtists to J# #n #nd other destin#tions. )his $#s rel#/ed ho$ever $ith the introduction of the &ntert#inment "ndustry Advisory %ouncil $hich l#ter ro osed # l#n to PO&A to screen #nd tr#in erforming #rtists see8ing to go #bro#d. "n ursu#nt to the ro os#l PO&A #nd the secret#ry of DO'& sought # D ste l#n to re#liCe the l#n $hich included #n Artist4s 0ecord @oo8 $hich # erforming #rtist must #c;uire rior to being de loyed #bro#d. )he Feder#tion of )#lent M#n#gers of the Phili ines #ss#iled the v#lidity of the s#id regul#tion #s it viol#ted the right to tr#vel, #bridge e/isting contr#cts #nd rights #nd de rives #rtists of their individu#l rights. JMM intervened to bolster the c#use of F&)MOP. )he lo$er court ruled in f#vor of &"A%. Iss$!# >hether or not the regul#tion by &"A% is v#lid. H! %# )he S% ruled in f#vor of the lo$er court. )he regul#tion is # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. Police o$er concerns government en#ctments $hich recisely interfere $ith erson#l liberty or ro erty
in order to romote the gener#l $elf#re or the common good. As the #ss#iled De #rtment Order en=oys # resumed v#lidity, it follo$s th#t the burden rests u on etitioners to demonstr#te th#t the s#id order, #rticul#rly, its A0@ re;uirement, does not enh#nce the ublic $elf#re or $#s e/ercised #rbitr#rily or unre#son#bly. )he $elf#re of Fili ino erforming #rtists, #rticul#rly the $omen $#s #r#mount in the issu#nce of De #rtment Order 9o. 7. Short of # tot#l #nd #bsolute b#n #g#inst the de loyment of erforming #rtists to Ghigh ris8H destin#tions, # me#sure $hich $ould only drive recruitment further underground, the ne$ scheme #t the very le#st r#tion#liCes the method of screening erforming #rtists by re;uiring re#son#ble educ#tion#l #nd #rtistic s8ills from them #nd limits de loyment to only those individu#ls #de;u#tely re #red for the un redict#ble dem#nds of em loyment #s #rtists #bro#d. "t c#nnot be g#ins#id th#t this scheme #t le#st lessens the room for e/ loit#tion by unscru ulous individu#ls #nd #gencies. L$t& vs. A*an!ta Fa"ts# >#lter 'utC, #s the Judici#l Administr#tor of the "ntest#te &st#te of Antonio J#yme 'edesm#, see8s to recover from J. Antonio Ar#net#, the %ollector of "ntern#l 0evenue, the sum of money #id by the est#te #s t#/es, ursu#nt to the Sug#r Ad=ustment Act. <nder Section 7 of s#id Act, t#/es #re levied on the o$ners or ersons in control of the l#nds devoted to the cultiv#tion of sug#r c#ne. Furthermore, Section 6 st#tes #ll the collections m#de under s#id Act sh#ll be for #id #nd su ort of the sug#r industry e/clusively. 'utC contends th#t such ur ose is not # m#tter of ublic concern hence m#8ing the t#/ levied for th#t c#use unconstitution#l #nd void. )he %ourt of First "nst#nce dismissed his etition, thus this # e#l before the Su reme %ourt. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the t#/ levied under the Sug#r Ad=ustment Act A %ommon$e#lth Act 1663 is unconstitution#l.
9
H! %# )he t#/ levied under the Sug#r Ad=ustment Act is constitution#l. )he t#/ under s#id Act is levied $ith # regul#tory ur ose, to rovide me#ns for the reh#bilit#tion #nd st#biliC#tion of the thre#tened sug#r industry. Since sug#r roduction is one of the gre#t industries of our n#tion, its romotion, rotection, #nd #dv#ncement, therefore redounds gre#tly to the gener#l $elf#re. ?ence, s#id ob=ectives of the Act is # ublic concern #nd is therefore constitution#l. "t follo$s th#t the 'egisl#ture m#y determine $ithin re#son#ble bounds $h#t is necess#ry for its rotection #nd e/ edient for its romotion. "f ob=ectives #nd methods #re #li8e constitution#lly v#lid, no re#son is seen $hy the st#te m#y not levy t#/es to r#ise funds for their rosecution #nd #tt#inment. )#/#tion m#y be m#de $ith the im lement of the st#te4s olice o$er. "n #ddition, it is only r#tion#l th#t the t#/es be obt#ined from those th#t $ill directly benefit from it. )herefore, the t#/ levied under the Sug#r Ad=ustment Act is held to be constitution#l. Asso"iation o- Sma Lan%o2n!*s vs. S!"*!ta*, o- DAR Fa"ts# Sever#l etitions #re the root of the c#se2 #. A etition #lleging the constitution#lity of PD 9o. *6, &O **. #nd **9 #nd 0A 6616. Sub=ects of the etition #re # 9Ehect#re #nd 1 hect#re 0icel#nd $or8ed by four ten#nts. )en#nts $ere decl#red full o$ners by &O **. #s ;u#lified f#rmers under PD *6. )he etitioners no$ contend th#t President A;uino usur ed the legisl#ture4s o$er. b. A etition by l#ndo$ners #nd sug#r l#nters in ,ictori#4s Mill 9egros Occident#l #g#inst Procl#m#tion 171 #nd &O **9. Procl#m#tion 171 is the cre#tion of Agr#ri#n 0eform Fund $ith initi#l fund of P1B@illion. c. A etition by o$ners of l#nd $hich $#s l#ced by the DA0 under the cover#ge of O er#tion '#nd )r#nsfer. d. A etition invo8ing the right of retention under PD *6 to o$ners of rice #nd corn l#nds not e/ceeding seven hect#res.
Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the #forementioned &O4s, PD, #nd 0A $ere constitution#l. H! %# )he romulg#tion of PD *6 by President M#rcos $#s v#lid in e/ercise of Police o$er #nd eminent dom#in. )he o$er of President A;uino to romulg#te Proc. 171 #nd &O **. #nd **9 $#s #uthoriCed under Sec. 6 of the )r#nsitory Provisions of the 19.6 %onstitution. )herefore it is # v#lid e/ercise of Police Po$er #nd &minent Dom#in. 0A 6616 is li8e$ise v#lid. )he c#rrying out of the regul#tion under %A0P becomes necess#ry to de rive o$ners of $h#tever l#nds they m#y o$n in e/cess of the m#/imum #re# #llo$ed, there is definitely # t#8ing under the o$er of eminent dom#in for $hich #yment of =ust com ens#tion is im er#tive. )he t#8ing contem l#ted is not # mere limit#tion of the use of the l#nd. >h#t is re;uired is the surrender of the title #nd the hysic#l ossession of s#id e/cess #nd #ll benefici#l rights #ccruing to the o$ner in f#vour of the f#rmer. A st#tute m#y be sust#ined under the olice o$er only if there is concurrence of the l#$ful sub=ect #nd the method. Sub=ect #nd ur ose of the Agr#ri#n 0eform '#$ is v#lid, ho$ever $h#t is to be determined is the method em loyed to #chieve it. Lo&ano vs. /a*tin!& Fa"ts# Petitioners, ch#rged $ith @#t#s P#mb#ns# @il#ng ** A@P ** for short3, o ul#rly 8no$n #s the @ouncing %hec8 '#$, #ss#il the l#$!s constitution#lity. @P ** unishes # erson ($ho m#8es or dr#$s #nd issues #ny chec8 on #ccount or for v#lue, 8no$ing #t the time of issue th#t he
10
does not h#ve sufficient funds in or credit $ith the dr#$ee b#n8 for the #yment of s#id chec8 in full u on resentment, $hich chec8 is subse;uently dishonored by the dr#$ee b#n8 for insufficiency of funds or credit or $ould h#ve been dishonored for the s#me re#son h#d not the dr#$er, $ithout #ny v#lid re#son, ordered the b#n8 to sto #yment.( )he en#lty rescribed for the offense is im risonment of not less th#n 7B d#ys nor more th#n one ye#r or # fine or not less th#n the #mount of the chec8 nor more th#n double s#id #mount, but in no c#se to e/ceed P*BB,BBB.BB, or both such fine #nd im risonment #t the discretion of the court. )he st#tute li8e$ise im oses the s#me en#lty on (#ny erson $ho, h#ving sufficient funds in or credit $ith the dr#$ee b#n8 $hen he m#8es or dr#$s #nd issues # chec8, sh#ll f#il to 8ee sufficient funds or to m#int#in # credit to cover the full #mount of the chec8 if resented $ithin # eriod of ninety A9B3 d#ys from the d#te # e#ring thereon, for $hich re#son it is dishonored by the dr#$ee b#n8. An essenti#l element of the offense is (8no$ledge( on the #rt of the m#8er or dr#$er of the chec8 of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit $ith the b#n8 to cover the chec8 u on its resentment. Since this involves # st#te of mind difficult to est#blish, the st#tute itself cre#tes # rim# f#cie resum tion of such 8no$ledge $here #yment of the chec8 (is refused by the dr#$ee bec#use of insufficient funds in or credit $ith such b#n8 $hen resented $ithin ninety A9B3 d#ys from the d#te of the chec8. )o mitig#te the h#rshness of the l#$ in its # lic#tion, the st#tute rovides th#t such resum tion sh#ll not #rise if $ithin five A13 b#n8ing d#ys from recei t of the notice of dishonor, the m#8er or dr#$er m#8es #rr#ngements for #yment of the chec8 by the b#n8 or #ys the holder the #mount of the chec8. Another rovision of the st#tute, #lso in the n#ture of # rule of evidence, rovides th#t the introduction in evidence of the un #id #nd dishonored chec8 $ith the dr#$ee b#n8!s refus#l to #y (st#m ed or $ritten thereon or #tt#ched thereto, giving the re#son therefore, (sh#ll constitute rim# f#cie roof of (the m#8ing or issu#nce of s#id chec8, #nd the due resentment to the dr#$ee for #yment #nd the dishonor thereof ... for the re#son $ritten, st#m ed
or #tt#ched by the dr#$ee on such dishonored chec8.( )he resum tions being merely rim# f#cie, it is o en to the #ccused of course to resent roof to the contr#ry to overcome the s#id resum tions. Iss$!s# A13 >hether or not @P ** viol#tes the constitution#l rovision forbidding im risonment for debt. A*3 >hether or not @P ** im #irs the freedom to contr#ct. A73 >hether or not it viol#tes the e;u#l rotection cl#use. HELD# A13 9o. )he gr#v#men of the offense unished by @P ** is the #ct of m#8ing #nd issuing # $orthless chec8 or # chec8 th#t is dishonored u on its resent#tion for #yment. "t is not the nonE #yment of #n oblig#tion $hich the l#$ unishes. )he l#$ is not intended or designed to coerce # debtor to #y his debt. )he thrust of the l#$ is to rohibit, under #in of en#l s#nctions, the m#8ing of $orthless chec8s #nd utting them in circul#tion. @ec#use of its deleterious effects on the ublic interest, the r#ctice is roscribed by the l#$. )he l#$ unishes the #ct not #s #n offense #g#inst ro erty, but #n offense #g#inst ublic order. )he effects of the issu#nce of # $orthless chec8 tr#nscends the riv#te interests of the #rties directly involved in the tr#ns#ction #nd touches the interests of the community #t l#rge. )he mischief it cre#tes is not only # $rong to the #yee or holder, but #lso #n in=ury to the ublic. )he h#rmful r#ctice of utting v#lueless commerci#l # ers in circul#tion, multi lied # thous#nd fold, c#n very $ell ollute the ch#nnels of tr#de #nd commerce, in=ure the b#n8ing system #nd eventu#lly hurt the $elf#re of society #nd the ublic interest. )he en#ctment of @P ** is # decl#r#tion by the legisl#ture th#t, #s # m#tter of ublic olicy, the m#8ing #nd issu#nce of # $orthless chec8 is deemed ublic nuis#nce to be #b#ted by the im osition of
11
en#l s#nctions. A*3 9o. )he freedom of contr#ct $hich is constitution#lly rotected is freedom to enter into (l#$ful( contr#cts. %ontr#cts $hich contr#vene ublic olicy #re not l#$ful. @esides, $e must be#r in mind th#t chec8s c#n not be c#tegoriCed #s mere contr#cts. "t is # commerci#l instrument $hich, in this modem d#y #nd #ge, h#s become # convenient substitute for money5 it forms #rt of the b#n8ing system #nd therefore not entirely free from the regul#tory o$er of the st#te. A73 9o. Petitioners contend th#t the #yee is =ust #s res onsible for the crime #s the dr#$er of the chec8, since $ithout the indis ens#ble #rtici #tion of the #yee by his #cce t#nce of the chec8 there $ould be no crime. )his #rgument is t#nt#mount to s#ying th#t, to give e;u#l rotection, the l#$ should unish both the s$indler #nd the s$indled. Moreover, the cl#use does not reclude cl#ssific#tion of individu#ls, $ho m#y be #ccorded different tre#tment under the l#$ #s long #s the cl#ssific#tion is no unre#son#ble or #rbitr#ry. 3not vs. Int!*m!%iat! A44! at! Co$*t Fa"ts# Petitioner $#s ch#rged of viol#tion of &O 6*6 $hen he tr#ns orted si/ c#r#b#os in # um bo#t from M#sb#te to "loilo on J#nu#ry 17, 19.D, $hen they $ere confisc#ted by the olice st#tion comm#nder of @#rot#c 9uevo, "loilo, for viol#tion of the #bove me#sure. 1 )he etitioner sued for recovery, #nd the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt of "loilo %ity issued # $rit of re levin u on his filing of # su ersede #s bond of P1*,BBB.BB. Petitioner r#ised the issue of &O4s constitution#lity #nd filed c#se in the lo$er court. ?o$ever, the court sust#ined the confisc#tion of the c#r#b#os #nd, since they could no longer be roduced, ordered the confisc#tion of the bond. )he court #lso declined to rule on the constitution#lity of the e/ecutive order, #s r#ised by the etitioner. )herefore, etitioner # e#led the decision to "A% $ith the follo$ing contentions2
1. &O is unconstitution#l #s confisc#tion is outright *. Pen#lty is inv#lid #s it is im osed $ithout the o$ner!s right to be he#rd before # com etent #nd im #rti#l court. 7. Me#sure should h#ve not been resumed D. 0#ises # ch#llenge to the im ro er e/ercise of the legisl#tive o$er by the former President. Iss$!# >hether &/ecutive Order 9o. 6*6EA is constitution#l or not. H! %# Petiton is J0A9)&D $ith the follo$ing =ustific#tions2 1. 0ight of the etitioner to ;uestion for constitution#lity is v#lid #s there4s no e/igency sho$ing to =ustify the e/ercise of this e/tr#ordin#ry o$er of the President *. Pro erties involved $ere not even inimic#l er se #s to re;uire their inst#nt destruction 7. %#se involved Oroving commission4 #nd inv#lid deleg#tion of o$ers #nd inv#lid e/ercise of olice o$er D. Due rocess is viol#ted bec#use the o$ner is denied the right to be he#rd in his defense #nd $#s immedi#tely condemned #nd unish Cit, Gov!*nm!nt o- 5$!&on Cit, vs. E*i"ta Fa"ts# IueCon %ity en#cted #n ordin#nce entitled GO0D"9A9%& 0&J<'A)"9J )?& &S)A@'"S?M&9), MA"9)&9A9%& A9D OP&0A)"O9 OF P0",A)& M&MO0"A' )LP& %&M&)&0L O0 @<0"A' J0O<9D >")?"9 )?& J<0"SD"%)"O9 OF I<&PO9 %")L A9D P0O,"D"9J P&9A')"&S FO0 )?& ,"O'A)"O9 )?&0&OFH )he l#$ b#sic#lly rovides th#t #t le#st si/ A63 ercent of the tot#l #re# of the memori#l #r8 cemetery sh#ll be set #side for ch#rity buri#l of dece#sed ersons $ho #re #u ers #nd h#ve been residents of IueCon %ity for #t le#st 1 ye#rs rior to their de#th, to
12
be determined by com etent %ity Authorities. I% =ustified the l#$ by invo8ing olice o$er. Iss$!# >hether or not the ordin#nce is v#lid. H! %# )he S% held the l#$ #s #n inv#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. )here is no re#son#ble rel#tion bet$een the setting #side of #t le#st si/ A63 ercent of the tot#l #re# of #ll riv#te cemeteries for ch#rity buri#l grounds of dece#sed #u ers #nd the romotion of he#lth, mor#ls, good order, s#fety, or the gener#l $elf#re of the eo le. )he ordin#nce is #ctu#lly # t#8ing $ithout com ens#tion of # cert#in #re# from # riv#te cemetery to benefit #u ers $ho #re ch#rges of the munici #l cor or#tion. "nste#d of building or m#int#ining # ublic cemetery for this ur ose, the city #sses the burden to riv#te cemeteries. W)it! Lig)t Co*4o*ation vs. Cit, o- /ani a Fa"ts# On 7 Dec 199*, then M#yor 'im signed into l#$ Ord 666D entitled GAn Ordin#nceH rohibiting short time #dmission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, ension houses #nd simil#r est#blishments in the %ity of M#nil#. >hite 'ight %or is #n o er#tor of mini hotels #nd motels $ho sought to h#ve the Ordin#nce be nullified #s the s#id Ordin#nce infringes on the riv#te rights of their #trons. )he 0)% ruled in f#vor of >'%. "t ruled th#t the Ordin#nce stri8es #t the erson#l liberty of the individu#l gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution. )he %ity m#int#ins th#t the ordin#nce is v#lid #s it is # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. <nder the 'J%, the %ity is em o$ered to regul#te the est#blishment, o er#tion #nd m#inten#nce of c#fes, rest#ur#nts, beer houses, hotels, motels, inns, ension houses, lodging houses #nd other simil#r est#blishments, including tourist guides #nd tr#ns orts. )he %A ruled in f#vor of the %ity.
Iss$!# >hether or not Ord 666D is v#lid. H! %# )he S% ruled th#t the s#id ordin#nce is null #nd void #s it indeed infringes u on individu#l liberty. "t #lso viol#tes the due rocess cl#use $hich serves #s # gu#r#nty for rotection #g#inst #rbitr#ry regul#tion or seiCure. )he s#id ordin#nce inv#des riv#te rights. 9ote th#t not #ll $ho goes into motels #nd hotels for $#sh u r#te #re re#lly there for obscene ur oses only. Some #re tourists $ho needed rest or to G$#sh u H or to freshen u . ?ence, the infidelity sought to be #voided by the s#id ordin#nce is more or less sub=ected only to # limited grou of eo le. )he S% reiter#tes th#t individu#l rights m#y be #dversely #ffected only to the e/tent th#t m#y f#irly be re;uired by the legitim#te dem#nds of ublic interest or ublic $elf#re. 6. +OWER OF E/INENT DO/AIN Cit, o- /ani a vs. C)in!s! Comm$nit, Fa"ts# )he %ity of M#nil#, l#intiff herein, r#yed for the e/ ro ri#tion of # ortion riv#te cemetery for the conversion into #n e/tension of 0iC#l Avenue. Pl#intiff cl#ims th#t it is necess#ry th#t such ublic im rovement be m#de in the s#id ortion of the riv#te cemetery #nd th#t the s#id l#nds #re $ithin their =urisdiction. Defend#nts herein #ns$ered th#t the s#id e/ ro ri#tion $#s not necess#ry bec#use other routes $ere #v#il#ble. )hey further cl#imed th#t the e/ ro ri#tion of the cemetery $ould cre#te irre #r#ble loss #nd in=ury to them #nd to #ll those ersons o$ing #nd interested in the gr#ves #nd monuments th#t $ould h#ve to be destroyed.
13
)he lo$er court ruled th#t the s#id ublic im rovement $#s not necess#ry on the #rticul#rEstri of l#nd in ;uestion. Pl#intiff herein #ss#iled th#t they h#ve the right to e/ercise the o$er of eminent dom#in #nd th#t the courts h#ve no right to in;uire #nd determine the necessity of the e/ ro ri#tion. )hus, the s#me filed #n # e#l. Iss$!# >hether or not the courts m#y in;uire into, #nd he#r roof of the necessity of the e/ ro ri#tion. H! %# )he courts h#ve the o$er of restricting the e/ercise of eminent dom#in to the #ctu#l re#son#ble necessities of the c#se #nd for the ur oses design#ted by the l#$. )he moment the munici #l cor or#tion or entity #ttem ts to e/ercise the #uthority conferred, it must com ly $ith the conditions #ccom #nying the #uthority. )he necessity for conferring the #uthority u on # munici #l cor or#tion to e/ercise the right of eminent dom#in is #dmittedly $ithin the o$er of the legisl#ture. @ut $hether or not the munici #l cor or#tion or entity is e/ercising the right in # #rticul#r c#se under the conditions im osed by the gener#l #uthority, is # ;uestion th#t the courts h#ve the right to in;uire to. +!o4 ! vs. Fa0a*%o Fa"ts# )he munici #l council of b##o, c#m#rines sur st#ting #mong others th#t construction of # building, $hich $ill destroy the vie$ of the l#C#, sh#ll not be #llo$ed #nd therefore be destroyed #t the e/ ense of the o$ner, en#cted #n ordin#nce. ?erein # ell#nt filed # $ritten re;uest $ith the incumbent munici #l m#yor for # ermit to construct # building #d=#cent to their g#soline st#tion on # #rcel of l#nd registered in F#=#rdo!s n#me, loc#ted #long the n#tion#l high$#y #nd se #r#ted from the ublic l#C# by # cree8. )he re;uest $#s denied, for the re#son #mong others th#t the ro osed building $ould destroy the vie$ or be#uty of the ublic l#C#.
Defend#nts reiter#ted their re;uest for # building ermit, but #g#in the m#yor turned do$n the re;uest. >hereu on, # ell#nts roceeded $ith the construction of the building $ithout # ermit, bec#use they needed # l#ce of residence very b#dly, their former house h#ving been destroyed by # ty hoon #nd hitherto they h#d been living on le#sed ro erty. )here#fter, defend#nts $ere ch#rged in viol#tion of the ordin#nce #nd subse;uently convicted. ?ence this # e#l. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the ordin#nce is # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. H! %# 9o. "t is not # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. )he ordin#nce is unre#son#ble #nd o ressive, in th#t it o er#tes to erm#nently de rive # ell#nts of the right to use their o$n ro erty5 hence, it overste s the bounds of olice o$er, #nd #mounts to # t#8ing of # ell#nt4s ro erty $ithout =ust com ens#tion. >e do not overloo8 th#t the modern tendency is to reg#rd the be#utific#tion of neighborhoods #s conducive to the comfort #nd h# iness of residents. As the c#se no$ st#nds, every structure th#t m#y be erected on # ell#nts! l#nd, reg#rdless of its o$n be#uty, st#nds condemned under the ordin#nce in ;uestion, bec#use it $ould interfere $ith the vie$ of the ublic l#C# from the high$#y. )he # ell#nts $ould, in effect, be constr#ined to let their l#nd rem#in idle #nd unused for the obvious ur ose for $hich it is best suited, being urb#n in ch#r#cter. )o leg#lly #chieve th#t result, the munici #lity must give # ell#nts =ust com ens#tion #nd #n o ortunity to be he#rd. R!4$' i" vs. Cast! vi Fa"ts# "n 19D6, the re ublic, through the Armed Forces of the Phili ines AAFP3, entered into # le#se #greement $ith %#stelvi on # ye#rEtoE
14
ye#r b#sis. >hen %#stelvi g#ve notice to termin#te the le#se in 1916, the AFP refused. She then instituted #n e=ectment roceeding #g#inst the AFP. "n 1919, ho$ever, the re ublic commenced the e/ ro ri#tion roceedings for the l#nd in ;uestion. Iss$!#
dem#nd AArt. 1669, 9e$ %ivil %ode3. )he Su reme %ourt, ho$ever, did not # ly Art. 1*1B of the 9e$ %ivil %ode for the #d=ustment of the eso r#te in times of e/tr#ordin#ry infl#tion or defl#tion bec#use in eminent dom#in c#ses the oblig#tion to #y #rises from l#$ inde endent of contr#ct. +)i i44in! +*!ss Instit$t!( In". vs. Commission on E !"tions
>hether or 9ot the com ens#tion should be determined #s of 19D6 or 1919. H! %# )he Su reme %ourt ruled th#t the Gt#8ingH should not be rec8oned #s of 19D6, #nd th#t =ust com ens#tion should not be determined on the b#sis of the v#lue of the ro erty #s of th#t ye#r. )he re;uisites for t#8ing #re2 13 the e/ ro ri#tor must enter # riv#te ro erty, *3 the entry must be for more th#n # moment#ry eriod, 73 it must be under $#rr#nt or color of #uthorities, D3 the ro erty must be devoted for ublic use or other$ise inform#lly # ro ri#ted or in=uriously #ffected, #nd 13 the utiliC#tion of the ro erty for ublic use must be such # $#y #s to oust the o$ner #nd de rive him of benefici#l en=oyment of the ro erty. <nder Sec. D 0ule 66 of the 0ules of %ourt, G=ust com ens#tionH is to be determined #s of the d#te of the filing of the com l#int. )he Su reme %ourt h#s ruled th#t $hen the t#8ing of the ro erty sought to be e/ ro ri#ted coincides $ith the commencement of the e/ ro ri#tion roceedings, or t#8es l#ce subse;uent to the filing of the com l#int for eminent dom#in, the =ust com ens#tion should be determined #s of the d#te of the filing of the com l#int. "n the inst#nt c#se, it is undis uted th#t the 0e ublic $#s l#ced in ossession of the %#stelvi ro erty, by #uthority of court, on August 1B, 1919. )he Gt#8ingH of the %#stelvi ro erty for the ur oses of determining the =ust com ens#tion to be #id must, therefore, be rec8oned #s of June *6, 1919 $hen the com l#int for eminent dom#in $#s filed. )here is no b#sis to the contention of the 0e ublic th#t # le#se on # ye#rEtoEye#r b#sis c#n give rise to erm#nent right to occu y since by e/ ress rovision # le#se m#de for # determin#te time, #s $#s the le#se of %#stelvi l#nd in the inst#nt c#se, ce#ses u on the d#y fi/ed, $ithout need of #
Fa"ts# Petition for %ertior#ri #nd Prohibition $ith r#yer for the issu#nce of # )em or#ry 0estr#ining Order. PP", # nonEstoc8, nonE rofit org#niC#tion of ne$s # er #nd m#g#Cine ublishers, #s8s us to decl#re %omelec 0esolution 9o. *66* unconstitution#l #nd void on the ground th#t it viol#tes the rohibition im osed by the %onstitution u on the government, #nd #ny of its #gencies, #g#inst the t#8ing of riv#te ro erty for ublic use $ithout =ust com ens#tion. Petitioner #lso contends th#t the ** M#rch 1991 letter directives of %omelec re;uiring ublishers to give free G%omelec S #ceH #nd #t the s#me time rocess r#$ d#t# to m#8e it c#mer#Ere#dy, constitute im ositions of involunt#ry servitude, contr#ry to the rovisions of Section 1. A*3, Article """ of the 19.6 %onstitution. Fin#lly, PP" #rgues th#t Section . of %omelec 0esolution 9o. *66* is viol#tive of the constitution#lly gu#r#nteed freedom of s eech, of the ress #nd of e/ ression. On the other h#nd, )he Office of the Solicitor Jener#l filed its %omment on beh#lf of res ondent %omelec #lleging th#t %omelec 0esolution 9o. *66* does not im ose u on the ublishers #ny oblig#tion to rovide free rint s #ce in the ne$s # ers #s it does not rovide #ny crimin#l or #dministr#tive s#nction for nonE com li#nce $ith th#t 0esolution. According to the Solicitor Jener#l, the ;uestioned 0esolution merely est#blished guidelines to be follo$ed in connection $ith the rocurement of G%omelec s #ce,H the rocedure for #nd mode of #lloc#tion of such s #ce to c#ndid#tes #nd the conditions or re;uirements for the c#ndid#te4s utiliC#tion of the G%omelec s #ceH rocured. At the s#me time, ho$ever, the Solicitor Jener#l #rgues th#t even if the ;uestioned 0esolution #nd its im lementing letter directives #re vie$ed #s m#nd#tory, the s#me
15
$ould nevertheless be v#lid #s #n e/ercise of the olice o$er of the St#te. )he Solicitor Jener#l #lso m#int#ins th#t Section . of 0esolution 9o. *66* is # ermissible e/ercise of the o$er of su ervision or regul#tion of the %omelec over the communic#tion #nd inform#tion o er#tions of rint medi# enter rises during the election eriod to s#fegu#rd #nd ensure # f#ir, im #rti#l #nd credible election. Iss$!# >hether or not 0esolution 9o. *66* issued by res ondent %ommission on &lections is v#lid. H! %# Petition for %ertior#ri #nd Prohibition is J0A9)&D in #rt #nd Section * of 0esolution 9o. *66* in its resent form #nd the rel#ted letterEdirectives d#ted ** M#rch 1991 #re hereby S&) AS"D& #s null #nd void, #nd the )em or#ry 0estr#ining Order is hereby MAD& P&0MA9&9). )he Petition is D"SM"SS&D in #rt, to the e/tent it rel#tes to Section . of 0esolution 9o. *66*. 9o ronouncement #s to costs. Section * of 0esolution 9o. *66*, in its resent form #nd #s inter reted by %omelec in its ** M#rch 1991 letter directives, ur orts to re;uire rint medi# enter rises to Gdon#teH free rint s #ce to %omelec. As such, Section * suffers from # f#t#l constitution#l vice #nd must be set #side #nd nullified. )o the e/tent it ert#ins to Section . of 0esolution 9o. *66*, the Petition for %ertior#ri #nd Prohibition must be dismissed for l#c8 of #n #ctu#l, =ustici#ble c#se or controversy. S$m$ ong vs. G$!**!*o
l#nds for soci#liCed housing. Among those l#nds sought to be e/ ro ri#ted #re the etitioners!! l#nds. )hey brought this suit in the S% ch#llenging the constitution#lity of PD 1**D. Iss$!# >hether or not it is # v#lid e/ercise of eminent dom#in. H! %# Petitioners contend th#t soci#liCed housing for the ur ose of condemn#tion roceedings is not ublic use since it $ill benefit only # h#ndful of eo le. )he ( ublic use( re;uirement is #n evolving conce t influences by ch#nging conditions. <rb#n rene$#l or redevelo ment #nd the construction of lo$Ecost housing is recogniCed #s # ublic ur ose, not only bec#use of the e/ #nded conce t of ublic use but #lso bec#use of s ecific rovisions in the %onstitution. Short#ge in housing is # m#tter of st#te concern since it directly #nd signific#ntly #ffects ublic he#lth, s#fety, the environment #nd, in sum, the gener#l $elf#re. Petitioners cl#im th#t there #re v#st #re#s of l#nds in 0iC#l hundreds of hect#res of $hich #re o$ned by # fe$ l#ndo$ners only. >hy should the 9?A ic8 their sm#ll lots: &/ ro ri#tion is not confined to l#nded est#tes. )he test to be # lied for # v#lid e/ ro ri#tion of riv#te l#nds $#s the #re# of the l#nd #nd not the number of eo le $ho stood to be benefitted. )he St#te #cting through the 9?A is vested $ith bro#d discretion to design#te the ro erty. )he ro erty o$ner m#y not inter ose ob=ections merely bec#use in their =udgment some other ro erty $ould h#ve been more suit#ble. )he rovisions on =ust com ens#tion found in PD 1**D, 1*19, #nd 1717 #re the s#me rovisions $hich $ere decl#red unconstitution#l in &PPA v. Dul#y A19.63 for being encro#chments on =udici#l rerog#tives. E+7A vs. D$ a,
Fa"ts# Fa"ts# On December 1, 1966, the 9#tion#l ?ousing Authority filed # com l#int for the e/ ro ri#tion of *1 hect#res of l#nd in Anti olo, 0iC#l ursu#nt to PD 1**D #uthoriCing the e/ ro ri#tion of riv#te )he four #rcels of l#nd $hich #re the sub=ect of this c#se is $here the M#ct#n &/ ort Processing Pone Authority in %ebu A&PPA3 is to
16
be constructed. Priv#te res ondent S#n Antonio Develo ment %or or#tion AS#n Antonio, for brevity3, in $hich these l#nds #re registered under, cl#imed th#t the l#nds $ere e/ ro ri#ted to the government $ithout them re#ching the #greement #s to the com ens#tion. 0es ondent Judge Dul#y then issued #n order for the # ointment of the commissioners to determine the =ust com ens#tion. "t $#s l#ter found out th#t the #yment of the government to S#n Antonio $ould be P11 er s;u#re meter, $hich $#s ob=ected to by the l#tter contending th#t under PD 1177, the b#sis of =ust com ens#tion sh#ll be f#ir #nd #ccording to the f#ir m#r8et v#lue decl#red by the o$ner of the ro erty sought to be e/ ro ri#ted, or by the #ssessor, $hichever is lo$er. Such ob=ection #nd the subse;uent Motion for 0econsider#tion $ere denied #nd he#ring $#s set for the rece tion of the commissioner4s re ort. &PPA then filed this etition for certior#ri #nd m#nd#mus en=oining the res ondent from further he#ring the c#se. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the e/clusive #nd m#nd#tory mode of determining =ust com ens#tion in PD 1177 is unconstitution#l. H! %# )he Su reme %ourt ruled th#t the mode of determin#tion of =ust com ens#tion in PD 1177 is unconstitution#l. )he method of #scert#ining =ust com ens#tion constitutes im ermissible encro#chment to =udici#l rerog#tives. "t tends to render the courts inutile in # m#tter in $hich under the %onstitution is reserved to it for fin#nci#l determin#tion. )he v#lu#tion in the decree m#y only serve #s guiding rinci le or one of the f#ctors in determining =ust com ens#tion, but it m#y not substitute the court4s o$n =udgment #s to $h#t #mount should be #$#rded #nd ho$ to #rrive #t such #mount. )he determin#tion of =ust com ens#tion is # =udici#l function. )he e/ecutive de #rtment or the legisl#ture m#y m#8e the initi#l determin#tion but $hen # #rty cl#ims # viol#tion of the gu#r#ntee in the @ill of 0ights th#t the riv#te #rty m#y not be t#8en for ublic use $ithout =ust com ens#tion, no st#tute, decree, or e/ecutive order c#n m#nd#te th#t its o$n determin#tion sh#ll rev#il
over the court4s findings. Much less c#n the courts be recluded from loo8ing into the =ustness of the decreed com ens#tion. /$ni"i4a it, o- +a*ana8$! vs. 9./. R!a t, Co*4o*ation Fa"ts# Petitioner sought to e/ercise its o$er of eminent dom#in b#sed on # resolution by the munici #l council. Petitioner cites # revious c#se $herein # resolution g#ve #uthority to e/ercise eminent dom#in. Petitioner #lso relies on the "m lementing 0ules, $hich rovides th#t # resolution #uthoriCes # 'oc#l Jovernment <nit to e/ercise eminent dom#in. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot #n 'J< c#n e/ercise its o$er of eminent dom#in ursu#nt to # resolution by its l#$Em#8ing body. H! %# <nder Section 19, of the resent 'oc#l Jovernment %ode A0A 616B3, it is st#ted #s the first re;uisite th#t 'J<s c#n e/ercise its o$er of eminent dom#in if there is #n ordin#nce en#cted by its legisl#tive body en#bling the munici #l chief e/ecutive. A resolution is not #n ordin#nce, the former is only #n o inion of # l#$Em#8ing body, the l#tter is # l#$. )he c#se cited by Petitioner involves @P 776, $hich $#s the revious 'oc#l Jovernment %ode, $hich is obviously no longer in effect. 0A 616B rev#ils over the "m lementing 0ules, the former being the l#$ itself #nd the l#tter only #n #dministr#tive rule $hich c#nnot #mend the former. Nationa +o2!* Co*4o*ation vs. 6!n0amin Ong Co Fa"ts# )he etitioner herein, 9P%, is # government cor or#tion cre#ted under 0.A. 9o.6791 to undert#8e the develo ment of hydroelectric gener#tion of o$er #nd the roduction of electricity from nucle#r,
17
geotherm#l #nd other sources, #s $ell #s the tr#nsmission of electric o$er on # n#tion$ide b#sis. "ts ch#rter gr#nts to etitioner, #mong others, the o$er to e/ercise the right to eminent dom#in. Sometime in June *6, *BB1, etitioner filed # com l#int $ith the 0)% of S#n Fern#ndo, P#m #ng#, for the #c;uisition of #n e#sement of rightEofE $#y over three A73lots #t @#r#ng#y %#b#l#nti#n, @#color, P#m #ng# belonging to res ondent herein for ur oses of construction of its tr#nsmission lines for its '#h#r Affected )r#nsmission 'ine Pro=ect. On M#rch *1, *BB*, 9P% obt#ined # $rit of ossession #nd on A ril 11, *BB* theytoo8 ossession of the ro erty.On he#ring the 0)% # ointed 7 commissioners to determine the f#ir m#r8et v#lue of the ro erty #s of 11 A ril *BB*. )he first t$o commissioners # r#ised the ro erty #tP1,9BB.BB er s;u#re meter or # tot#l of P1,169,BBB.BB. >hile the third commissioner eg the v#lue of the ro erty #t P.61.BB er s;u#re meter. )he 0)% rendered its P#rti#l Decision, $herein it decl#red the v#lidity of thee/ ro ri#tion #nd ordered etitioner to #y the sum of P1,169,BBB.BB, $ith interest #t6N er #nnum beginning A ril 11, *BB*, the d#te of #ctu#l t#8ing, until full #yment.9ot s#tisfied $ith the ruling of lo$er court 9P% elev#te the c#se to %A, $hich the# ell#te court #lso rendered Decision holding etitioner li#ble to #y the full f#ir m#r8etv#lue #t the time of #ctu#l t#8ing, $ith interest #t 6N er #nnum from 11 A ril *BB*.Aggrieved $ith the order 9P% # e#led to S% hence this c#se. Iss$!#
u on ro er determin#tion by the courts. )he resence of tr#nsmission lines undoubtedly restricts res ondent4s use of his ro erty. Petitioner is thus li#ble to #y res ondent the full m#r8et v#lue of the ro erty.<PO9 )?& DA)& OF F"'"9J. 0ule 66 cle#rly rovides th#t the v#lue of =ustcom ens#tion sh#ll Gbe determined #s of the d#te of the t#8ing of the ro erty or thefiling of the com l#int, $hichever c#me first.H"t is settled th#t =ust com ens#tion is to be #scert#ined #s of the time of thet#8ing, $hich usu#lly coincides $ith the commencement of the e/ ro ri#tion roceedings. >here the institution of the #ction recedes entry into the ro erty, the =ust com ens#tion is to be #scert#ined #s of the time of the filing of the com l#int. )here #re e/ce tionsQ A13 gr#ve in=ustice to the ro erty o$ner, A*3 the t#8ing did not h#ve color of leg#l #uthority, A73 the t#8ing of the ro erty $#s not initi#lly for e/ ro ri#tion #nd the o$ner $ill begiven undue increment #dv#nt#ges bec#use of the e/ ro ri#tion. ?o$ever, none of these e/ce tions #re resent in the inst#nt c#se.@#sed on the foregoing, the rec8oning d#te for the determin#tion of the #mount of =ust com ens#tion is *6 June *BB1, the d#te $hen etitioner filed its e/ ro ri#tion com l#int. C. +o2!* o- Ta:ation +as"$a vs. S!"*!ta*, o- +$' i" Wo*;s
>hether or not etitioner herein should #y the sub=ect ro erty in its full m#r8etv#lue:"s the rec8oning d#te for the determin#tion of =ust com ens#tion is u on osition or u onthe d#te of filing: H! %# L&S. As e#rlier mentioned, Section 7A of 0.A. 9o. 6791, #s #mended, subst#nti#lly rovides th#t ro erties $hich $ill be tr#versed by tr#nsmission lines $ill only beconsidered #s e#sements #nd =ust com ens#tion for such right of $#y e#sement sh#llnot e/ceed 1B ercent of the m#r8et v#lue. ?o$ever, this %ourt h#s re e#tedly ruled th#t $hen etitioner t#8es riv#te ro erty to construct tr#nsmission lines, it is li#ble to #y the full m#r8et v#lue
Fa"ts# P#scu#l, in his offici#l c# #city #s the Provinci#l Jovernor of 0iC#l, etitioned for # $rit of certior#ri #g#inst the dismiss#l of the c#se #nd dissolving of the relimin#ry in=unction held by the %ourt of the First "nst#nce. Petitioner r#yed for th#t 0A R9*B be decl#red null #nd void, th#t the #lleged Deed of Don#tion m#de by Puluet# be decl#red unconstitution#l. Petitioner #lso r#yed for #n in=unction en=oining Secret#ry of Public >or8s #nd %ommunic#tions, Director of Public >or8s #nd ?igh$#ys #nd the disbursing officers of the l#tter de #rtment from m#8ing #nd securing #ny further rele#se of funds for the s#id ro#d ro=ect. 0AR 9*B cont#ined #n item # ro ri#ting
18
P.1,BBB.BB $hich the etitioner #lleged th#t it $#s for the construction of ro#ds im roving the riv#te ro erty of Jose Pulet#, # member of the Sen#te. Iss$!s# 1. >hether or not 0A R 9*B is unconstitution#l. *. >hether or not P#scu#l h#s the leg#l c# #city or to sue. H! %# 1. 0A R9*B is unconstitution#l bec#use the %ongress is $ithout o$er to # ro ri#te ublic revenue for #nything but ublic ur ose. *. P#scu#l h#s the erson#lity to sue #s # t#/ #yer recogniCing the right of the t#/ #yer to #ss#il the constitution#lity of # legisl#tion # ro ri#ting ublic funds. +$n&a an vs. /$ni"i4a 6oa*% o- /ani a Fa"ts# Petitioners, $ho #re rofession#ls in the city, #ss#il Ordin#nce 9o. 779. together $ith the l#$ #uthoriCing it ASection 1. of the 0evised %h#rter of the %ity of M#nil#3. )he ordin#nce im oses # munici #l occu #tion t#/ on ersons e/ercising v#rious rofessions in the city #nd en#liCes nonE #yment of the s#me. )he l#$ #uthoriCing s#id ordin#nce em o$ers the Munici #l @o#rd of the city to im ose # munici #l occu #tion t#/ on ersons eng#ged in v#rious rofessions. Petitioners, h#ving #lre#dy #id their occu #tion t#/ under section *B1 of the 9#tion#l "ntern#l 0evenue %ode, #id the t#/ under rotest #s im osed by Ordin#nce 9o. 779.. )he lo$er court decl#red the ordin#nce inv#lid #nd #ffirmed the v#lidity of the l#$ #uthoriCing it. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the ordin#nce #nd l#$ #uthoriCing it constitute cl#ss legisl#tion, #nd #uthoriCe $h#t #mounts to double t#/#tion.
H! %# )he 'egisl#ture m#y, in its discretion, select $h#t occu #tions sh#ll be t#/ed, #nd in its discretion m#y t#/ #ll, or select cl#sses of occu #tion for t#/#tion, #nd le#ve others unt#/ed. "t is not for the courts to =udge $hich cities or munici #lities should be em o$ered to im ose occu #tion t#/es #side from th#t im osed by the 9#tion#l Jovernment. )h#t m#tter is $ithin the dom#in of olitic#l de #rtments. )he #rgument #g#inst double t#/#tion m#y not be invo8ed if one t#/ is im osed by the st#te #nd the other is im osed by the city. "t is $idely recogniCed th#t there is nothing inherently terrible in the re;uirement th#t t#/es be e/#cted $ith res ect to the s#me occu #tion by both the st#te #nd the olitic#l subdivisions thereof. Judgment of the lo$er court is reversed $ith reg#rds to the ordin#nce #nd #ffirmed #s to the l#$ #uthoriCing it. L an%o" vs. Commission!* o- Int!*na R!v!n$! Fa"ts# Sometime in 1916, M.@. &st#te "nc., of @#colod %ity, don#ted 1B,BBB.BB esos in c#sh to Fr. %ris in 0uiC, the #rish riest of ,ictori#s, 9egros Occident#l, #nd redecessor of Fr. 'l#doc, for the construction of # ne$ %#tholic church in the loc#lity. )he don#ted #mount $#s s ent for such ur ose. On M#rch 7, 191., the donor M.@. &st#te filed the donor!s gift t#/ return. <nder d#te of A ril *9, 196B. %ommissioner of "ntern#l 0evenue issued #n #ssessment for the donee!s gift t#/ #g#inst the %#tholic P#rish of ,ictori#s of $hich etitioner $#s the #rish riest. Iss$!# >hether or not the im osition of gift t#/ des ite the f#ct the Fr. 'l#doc $#s not the P#rish riest #t the time of don#tion, %#tholic P#rish riest of ,ictori#s did not h#ve =uridic#l erson#lity #s the constitution#l e/em tion for religious ur ose is v#lid.
19
H! %# Les, im osition of the gift t#/ $#s v#lid, under Section **A73 Article ," of the %onstitution contem l#tes e/em tion only from #yment of t#/es #ssessed on such ro erties #s Pro erty t#/es contr# distinguished from &/cise t#/es )he im osition of the gift t#/ on the ro erty used for religious ur ose is not # viol#tion of the %onstitution. A gift t#/ is not # ro erty by $#y of gift inter vivos. )he he#d of the Diocese #nd not the #rish riest is the re#l #rty in interest in the im osition of the donee!s t#/ on the ro erty don#ted to the church for religious ur ose. A'*a 9a !, Co !g! vs. A8$ino Fa"ts# Petitioner, #n educ#tion#l cor or#tion #nd institution of higher le#rning duly incor or#ted $ith the Securities #nd &/ch#nge %ommission in 19D., filed # com l#int to #nnul #nd decl#re void the G9otice of SeiCure4 #nd the G9otice of S#leH of its lot #nd building loc#ted #t @#ngued, Abr#, for nonE #yment of re#l est#te t#/es #nd en#lties #mounting to P1,1DB.71. S#id G9otice of SeiCureH by res ondents Munici #l )re#surer #nd Provinci#l )re#surer, defend#nts belo$, $#s issued for the s#tisf#ction of the s#id t#/es thereon. )he #rties entered into # sti ul#tion of f#cts #do ted #nd embodied by the tri#l court in its ;uestioned decision. )he tri#l court ruled for the government, holding th#t the second floor of the building is being used by the director for residenti#l ur oses #nd th#t the ground floor used #nd rented by 9orthern M#r8eting %or or#tion, # commerci#l est#blishment, #nd thus the ro erty is not being used e/clusively for educ#tion#l ur oses. "nste#d of erfecting #n # e#l, etitioner #v#iled of the inst#nt etition for revie$ on certior#ri $ith r#yer for relimin#ry in=unction before the Su reme %ourt, by filing s#id etition on 16 August 196D.
Iss$!# >hether or not the lot #nd building #re used e/clusively for educ#tion#l ur oses. H! %# Section **, #r#gr# h 7, Article ,", of the then 1971 Phili ine %onstitution, e/ ressly gr#nts e/em tion from re#lty t#/es for cemeteries, churches #nd #rson#ges or convents # urten#nt thereto, #nd #ll l#nds, buildings, #nd im rovements used e/clusively for religious, ch#rit#ble or educ#tion#l ur oses. 0e#son#ble em h#sis h#s #l$#ys been m#de th#t the e/em tion e/tends to f#cilities $hich #re incident#l to #nd re#son#bly necess#ry for the #ccom lishment of the m#in ur oses. )he use of the school building or lot for commerci#l ur oses is neither contem l#ted by l#$, nor by =uris rudence. "n the c#se #t b#r, the le#se of the first floor of the building to the 9orthern M#r8eting %or or#tion c#nnot by #ny stretch of the im#gin#tion be considered incident#l to the ur ose of educ#tion. )he test of e/em tion from t#/#tion is the use of the ro erty for ur oses mentioned in the %onstitution. )he decision of the %F" Abr# A@r#nch "3 is #ffirmed sub=ect to the modific#tion th#t h#lf of the #ssessed t#/ be returned to the etitioner. )he modific#tion is derived from the f#ct th#t the ground floor is being used for commerci#l ur oses Ale#sed3 #nd the second floor being used #s incident#l to educ#tion Aresidence of the director3. + ant!*s +*o%$"ts( In". vs. F!*ti4)i Co*4o*ation Fa"ts# Phili ine Pl#nters Products APP"3 #nd Ferti hil %or . #re riv#te cor or#tions incor or#ted under Phili ine l#$s, $hich #re both eng#ged in the im ort#tion #nd distribution of fertiliCers, esticides #nd #gricultur#l chemic#ls. On June 7, 19.1, Pres. Ferdin#nd M#rcos issued 'O" 9o. 1D61 $hich rovided, #mong others, for the
20
im osition of # c# it#l recovery com onent A%0%3 on the domestic s#le of #ll gr#des of fertiliCers in the Phili ines. Pursu#nt to the #formentioned 'O", Ferti hil #id P1B for every b#g of fertiliCer it sold in the domestic m#r8et to the FertiliCer #nd Pesticide Authority AFPA3, $hich remitted the #mount collected to the F#r &#st @#n8 #nd )rust %om #ny, the de ository b#n8 of PP". After the 19.6 &DSA revolution, FPA volunt#rily sto ed the im osition of the P1B levy, for $hich Ferti hil dem#nded PP" # refund of the #mounts it #id under 'O" 9o. 1D61. @ut then, PP" refused to give in to the dem#nd. >ith th#t, Ferti hil filed # com l#int for collection #nd d#m#ges #g#inst FPA #nd PP" $ith the 0)% in M#8#ti. "t ;uestioned the constitution#lity of 'O" 9o. 1D61 for being un=ust #nd unre#son#ble, #nd f#voring one riv#tely o$ned cor or#tion, $hich is the PP". 0)%!s decision on 9ovember *B, 1991 f#vored Ferti hil #nd ordered the l#tter to #y # cert#in sum of the reviously collected #mount $ith #n interest, #nd some other fees. Iss$!# >hether or not the P1B #ssessment on fertiliCer s#le # v#lid e/ercise of t#/#tion: H! %# 9o. An inherent limit#tion on the o$er of t#/#tion is ublic ur ose. )#/es #re e/#cted on for # ublic ur ose #nd c#nnot be used for urely riv#te ur oses or for e/clusive benefit of riv#te ersons. )he 'O" e/ ressly rovided th#t the levy be im osed to benefit PP", # riv#te com #ny. )hus, this #lre#dy e/ceeded the limit#tion $hich t#/es #re su osed to be limited to, inherently #nd n#tur#lly. &ven if the levy $#s #cted for the enforcement of olice o$ers, it is still unconstitution#l bec#use it did not romote ublic interest. @eing void, Ferti hil is not re;uired to #y the levy. All levies #id should be refunded in #ccord#nce $ith the gener#l civil code rinci le #g#inst un=ust enrichment2 ('#$s #re re e#led only by subse;uent ones, #nd their viol#tion or nonEobserv#nce sh#ll not be e/cused by disuse or custom or r#ctice to the contr#ry. >hen the courts decl#re # l#$ to be inconsistent $ith the %onstitution, the former sh#ll be void #nd the l#tter sh#ll govern.( )he etition $#s denied.
I9. ARTICLE III - THE 6ILL OF RIGHTS Section 1 -- Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of the Laws Due Process of Law ICHONG 9S. HERNANDE7 Fa"ts# 0e ublic Act 11.B or commonly 8no$n #s GAn Act to 0egul#te the 0et#il @usinessH $#s #ssed. )he s#id l#$ rovides for # rohibition #g#inst foreigners #s $ell #s cor or#tions o$ned by foreigners from eng#ging from ret#il tr#de in our country. )his $#s rotested by the etitioner in this c#se. According to him, the s#id l#$ viol#tes the intern#tion#l #nd tre#ty of the Phili ines therefore it is unconstitution#l. S ecific#lly, the )re#ty of Amity bet$een the Phili ines #nd %hin# $#s viol#ted #ccording to him. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot 0e ublic Act 11.B is # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. H! %# According to the %ourt, 0A 11.B is # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. "t $#s #lso then rovided th#t olice o$er c#n not be b#rg#ined #$#y through the medium of # tre#ty or # contr#ct. )he %ourt #lso rovided th#t 0A 11.B $#s en#cted to remedy # re#l #nd #ctu#l d#nger to n#tion#l economy osed by #lien domin#nce #nd control. "f ever the l#$ infringes u on the s#id tre#ty, the l#tter is #l$#ys sub=ect to ;u#lific#tion or #mendment by # subse;uent l#$ #nd the s#me m#y never curt#in or restrict the sco e of the olice o$er of the st#te. +HIL. +HOS+HATE FERTILI7ER COR+. 9S. TORRES
21
Fa"ts# Phil hos Movement for Progress, "nc. APMP" for brevity3, filed $ith the De #rtment of '#bor #nd &m loyment # etition for certific#tion election #mong the su ervisory em loyees of etitioner, #lleging th#t #s # su ervisory union duly registered $ith the De #rtment of '#bor #nd &m loyment it $#s see8ing to re resent the su ervisory em loyees of Phili ine Phos h#te FertiliCer %or or#tion. Medi#torE Arbiter 0odolfo S. Mil#do issued #n order directing the holding of # certific#tion election #mong the su ervisory em loyees of etitioner, e/cluding therefrom the su erintendents #nd the rofession#l #nd technic#l em loyees. ?o$ever, the PMP" filed #n #mended etition $ith the Medi#torEArbiter $herein it sought to re resent not only the su ervisory em loyees of etitioner but #lso its rofession#l-technic#l #nd confidenti#l em loyees. )he #rties therein #greed to submit their res ective osition # ers #nd to consider the #mended etition submitted for decision on the b#sis thereof #nd rel#ted documents. Medi#torEArbiter Mil#do issued #n order gr#nting the etition #nd directing the holding of # certific#tion election #mong the (su ervisory, rofession#l Aengineers, #n#lysts, mech#nics, #ccount#nts, nurses, mid$ives, etc.3, technic#l, #nd confidenti#l em loyees. P?"'P?OS # e#led the order to the Secret#ry of '#bor #nd &m loyment $ho rendered # decision through <ndersecret#ry @ienvenido '#guesm# dismissing the # e#l. P?"'P?OS moved for reconsider#tion but the s#me $#s denied5 hence, the inst#nt etition #lleging deni#l of due rocess on the #rt of the DO'& to $hich the medi#torE#rbiter $#s under. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot there $#s deni#l of due rocess. H! %# )here $#s no deni#l of due rocess. )he essence of due rocess is sim ly #n o ortunity to be he#rd or, #s # lied to #dministr#tive roceedings, #n o ortunity to e/ l#in one!s side or #n o ortunity to see8 # reconsider#tion of the #ction or ruling com l#ined of etitioner P?"'P?OS #greed to file its osition # er $ith the Medi#torEArbiter
#nd to consider the c#se submitted for decision on the b#sis of the osition # ers filed by the #rties, there $#s sufficient com li#nce $ith the re;uirement of due rocess, #s etitioner $#s #fforded re#son#ble o ortunity to resent its side. Moreover, etitioner could h#ve, if it so desired, insisted on # he#ring to confront #nd e/#mine the $itnesses of the other #rty. @ut it did not5 inste#d it o ted to submit its osition # er $ith the Medi#torEArbiter. @esides, etitioner h#d #ll the o ortunity to ventil#te its #rguments in its # e#l to the Secret#ry of '#bor. 1A9IER 9S. CO/ELEC Fa"ts# )he etitioner #nd the riv#te res ondent $ere c#ndid#tes in Anti;ue for the @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns# in the M#y 19.D elections. )he former # e#red to en=oy more o ul#r su ort but the l#tter h#d the #dv#nt#ge of being the nominee of the S@' $ith #ll its er;uisites of o$er. On M#y 17, 19.D, the eve of the elections, the bitter contest bet$een the t$o c#me to # he#d $hen sever#l follo$ers of the etitioner $ere #mbushed #nd 8illed, #llegedly by the l#tter!s men. Seven sus ects, including res ondent P#cific#dor, #re no$ f#cing tri#l for these murders. O$ing to $h#t he cl#imed $ere #ttem ts to r#ilro#d the riv#te res ondent!s rocl#m#tion, the etitioner $ent to the %ommission on &lections to ;uestion the c#nv#ss of the election returns. ?is com l#ints $ere dismissed #nd the riv#te res ondent $#s rocl#imed $inner by the Second Division of the s#id body. )he etitioner thereu on c#me to this %ourt, #rguing th#t the rocl#m#tion $#s void bec#use m#de only by # division #nd not by the %ommission on &lections en b#nc #s re;uired by the %onstitution. Me#n$hile, on the strength of his rocl#m#tion, the riv#te res ondent too8 his o#th #s # member of the @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns#. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the Second Division of the %ommission on &lections #uthoriCed to romulg#te its decision of July *7, 19.D, rocl#iming
22
the riv#te res ondent the $inner in the election. H! %#
the e/ercise of olice o$er to conserve the c#r#b#os th#t $ere still fit for f#rm $or8 or breeding. Iss$!#
)his %ourt h#s re e#tedly #nd consistently dem#nded (the cold neutr#lity of #n im #rti#l =udge( #s the indis ens#ble im er#tive of due rocess. )o bolster th#t re;uirement, $e h#ve held th#t the =udge must not only be im #rti#l but must #lso # e#r to be im #rti#l #s #n #dded #ssur#nce to the #rties th#t his decision $ill be =ust. )he litig#nts #re entitled to no less th#n th#t. )hey should be sure th#t $hen their rights #re viol#ted they c#n go to # =udge $ho sh#ll give them =ustice. )hey must trust the =udge, other$ise they $ill not go to him #t #ll. )hey must believe in his sense of f#irness, other$ise they $ill not see8 his =udgment. >ithout such confidence, there $ould be no oint in invo8ing his #ction for the =ustice they e/ ect. Due rocess is intended to insure th#t confidence by re;uiring com li#nce $ith $h#t Justice Fr#n8furter c#lls the rudiments of f#ir l#y. F#ir l#y c#ns for e;u#l =ustice. )here c#nnot be e;u#l =ustice $here # suitor # ro#ches # court #lre#dy committed to the other #rty #nd $ith # =udgment #lre#dy m#de #nd $#iting only to be form#liCed #fter the litig#nts sh#ll h#ve undergone the ch#r#de of # form#l he#ring. Judici#l A#nd #lso e/tr#E=udici#l3 roceedings #re not orchestr#ted l#ys in $hich the #rties #re su osed to m#8e the motions #nd re#ch the denouement #ccording to # re #red scri t. )here is no $riter to foreord#in the ending. )he =udge $ill re#ch his conclusions only #fter #ll the evidence is in #nd #ll the #rguments #re filed, on the b#sis of the est#blished f#cts #nd the ertinent l#$. 3NOT 9S. IAC Fa"ts# &/ecutive Order 9o. 6*6EA rohibited the tr#ns ort#tion of c#r#b#os #nd c#r#beef from one rovince to #nother. )he c#r#b#os of etitioner $ere confisc#ted for viol#tion of &/ecutive Order 9o 6*6EA $hile he $#s tr#ns orting them from M#sb#te to "loilo. Petitioner ch#llenged the constitution#lity of &/ecutive Order 9o. 6*6EA. )he government #rgued th#t &/ecutive Order 9o. 6*6EA $#s issued in
>hether or 9ot &O 9o. 6*6EA is # viol#tion of Subst#ntive Due Process. H! %# )he ch#llenged me#sure is #n inv#lid e/ercise of olice o$er, bec#use it is not re#son#bly necess#ry for the ur ose of the l#$ #nd is unduly o ressive. "t is difficult to see ho$ rohibiting the tr#nsfer of c#r#b#os from one rovince to #nother c#n revent their indiscrimin#te 8illing. 0et#ining the c#r#b#os in one rovince $ill not revent their sl#ughter there. Prohibiting the tr#nsfer of c#r#beef, #fter the sl#ughter of the c#r#b#os, $ill not revent the sl#ughter either. A ont! v. Sav! ano Fa"ts# Pending before the court #re t$o se #r#te etitioners, one filed by etitioner @#y#ni M. Alonte, doc8eted J.r. 9o. 17161*, #nd the other by etitioner @uen#ventur# %once cion, doc8eted J.0. 9o. 1716*., th#t #ss#il the decision of the res ondent Judge M#/imo A. S#vell#no, Jr.., of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, @r#nch 17, of M#nil# finding both etitioner guilty beyond re#son#ble doubt of the crime of r# e. )he t$o etitioners $ere consolid#ted. On December 1, 1996, #n inform#tion for r# e $#s filed #g#inst etitioners @#y#ni M. Alonte, #n incumbent M#yor of @iT#n '#gun# #nd @uen#ventur# %once cion redic#ted on # com l#int filed by JuvieE'yn Punongb#y#n. )he c#se $#s doc8eted %rimin#l %#se 9o. 9619E@ #nd #s signed by r#ffle to @r#nch *1 of the 0)% of @iT#n '#gun# resided over by Judge P#blo @. Fr#ncisco. On December 17, 1996, JuvieElyn Punongb#y#n, through her counsel Attorney 0emedios %. @#lbin, #nd Assist#nt %hief St#te
23
Prosecutor 'eon#rdo Jui#b, Jr., filed $ith the Office of the %ourt Administr#tor # etitione for # ch#nge of venue Adoc8eted Administr#tive M#tter 9o. 96E1E1*E0)%3 to h#ve the c#se tr#nsferred #nd tried by #ny of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourts in Metro M#nil#. On June *., 1996, Atty. 0#mon %.%#s#no on beh#lf of etitioners, moved to h#ve the etition for ch#nge of venue dismissed on the ground th#t it h#d become moot in vie$ of com l#in#nt4s #ffid#vit of desist#nce. On August **, 1996, A%SP Jui#b filed his comment on the motion to dismiss. Jui#b #sserted th#t he $#s not #$#re of the desist#nce of riv#te com l#in#nt #nd o ined th#t the desist#nce, in #ny c#se, $ould not roduce #ny leg#l effect since it $#s the ublic rosecutor $ho h#d direction #nd control of the rosecution of the crimin#l #ction. ?e r#yed for the deni#l of the motion to dismiss. On Se tember 16, 1996, the c#se, no$ reEdoc8eted %rimin#l c#se 9o. 96E119971 by the %ler8 of %ourts of M#nil#, $#s #ssigned by r#ffle to @r#nch 17, 0)% M#nil#, $ith res ondent Judge M#/imo A. S#vell#no, Jr., residing. On October 6, 1996, JuvieElyn Punongb#y#n, through Atty. @#lbin, submitted to the M#nil# court, # com li#nce $here she reiter#ted her decision to #bide by her Affid#vit of Desist#nce. "n #n order, d#ted October 9, 1996, Judge S#vell#no found rob#ble c#use for the issu#nce of $#rr#nts for the #rrest of etitioners Alonte #nd %once cion $ithout re=udice to, #nd inde endent of, this %ourt4s se #r#te determin#tion #s the trier of f#cts, of the volunt#riness #nd v#lidity of the riv#te com l#in#nt4s desist#nce in the lights of the o osition of the ublic rosecutor, Asst. %hief St#te Prosecutor 'eon#rdo Jui#b. Iss$!<s# U>hether or not there c#n be shortEcut to the leg#l rocess, #nd there c#n be #n e/cuse for not #ffording #n #ccused his full d#y in court. U>hether or not # c#se c#n be dismissed u on # mere #ffid#vit of desist#nce of the com l#in#nt. U>hether or not #ny #rdon m#de by the riv#te com l#in#nt, $hether by s$orn st#tement or on the $itness st#nd, c#n e/tinguish crimin#l li#bility. U>hether or not the de#th of the offended #rty c#n e/tinguish the
c#se once it is filed in court. U>hether or not the roceedings did conform $ith the rocedure for tri#l #s rovided in the 19.1 0ules on %rimin#l Procedure. U>hether or not #n o ortunity to crossEe/#mine $#s #fforded etitioners #nd their counsels such th#t they c#n be deemed to h#ve $#ived s#id right by in#ction. U>hether or not #n evidence $hich # #rty desires to submits for the consider#tion of the court must form#lly be offered be offered by him. H! %# )he Solicitor Jener#l h#s # tly discerned # fe$ of the devi#tions from $h#t other$ise should h#ve been the regul#r course of tri#l2 A13 Petitioners h#ve not been directed to resent evidence to rove their defenses nor h#ve d#tes therefore been scheduled for the ur ose5 A*3 the #rties h#ve not been given the o ortunity to resent rebutting evidence nor h#ve d#tes been set by res ondent Judge for the ur ose5 #nd A73 etitioners h#ve not #dmitted the #ct ch#rged in the inform#tion so #s to =ustify #ny modific#tion in the order of tri#l. )here c#n be no shortEcut to the leg#l rocess, #nd there c#n be no e/cuse for not #ffording #n #ccused hiss full d#y in court. Due rocess, rightly occu ying the first #nd foremost l#ce of honor in our @ill of 0ights, is #n enshrined #nd inv#lu#ble right th#t c#nnot be denied even to the most undeserving. "n riv#te crimes, #n #ffid#vit of desist#nce filed by # riv#te com l#in#nt is #lso fro$ned u on by the courts. Although such #ffid#vit m#y deserve # second loo8 #t the c#se, there is h#rdly #n inst#nce $hen this court u held it in riv#te crimes #nd dismissed the c#se on the sole b#sis thereof. "ndeed, # c#se is not dismissed $here there e/ist s eci#l circumst#nces th#t r#ise doubts #s to the reli#bility of the #ffid#vit. Article 7DD #lso rovides for the e/tinction of crimin#l li#bility in riv#te crimes. "t mentions t$o modes2 #rdon #nd m#rri#ge, $hich $hen v#lidly #nd timely m#de, result in the tot#l e/tinction of crimin#l li#bility of the offender. )he #rdon in riv#te crimes must be m#de before the institution of the crimin#l #ction. "n #dultery #nd concubin#ge, the #rdon m#y be e/ ress or im lied $hile in
24
seduction, #bduction, r# e #nd #cts of l#sciviousness, the #rdon must be e/ ress. "n #ll c#ses, the #rdon must come rior to the institution of the crimin#l #ction. After the c#se h#s been filed in court, #ny #rdon m#de by the riv#te com l#in#nt, $hether by s$orn st#tement or on the $itness st#nd, c#nnot e/tinguish crimin#l li#bility. )he only #ct th#t e/tinguishes the en#l #ction #nd the en#lty th#t m#y h#ve been im osed is the m#rri#ge bet$een the offender #nd the offended #rty. )he de#th of the offended #rty c#nnot e/tinguish the c#se once it is filed in court. "f the offended #rty dies immedi#tely #fter filing the com l#int but before the institution of the crimin#l #ction, his de#th is not # ground to dismiss the c#se. %le#rly, the $ill #nd #rtici #tion of the offended #rty is necess#ry only to determine $hether to file the com l#int or not. )here#fter, the $ill of the St#te rev#ils. )he roceedings did not conform $ith the rocedure for tri#l #s rovided in the 19.1 0ules on %rimin#l Procedure. Petitioners $ere never instructed to resent evidence to rove their defenses. )he #rties $ere never given the o ortunity to resent their res ective evidence rebutting the testimony of riv#te com l#in#nt. )here $#s no #dmission by etitioners of the ch#rge in the inform#tion #s to =ustify # ch#nge in the order of tri#l. Follo$ing res ondent =udge4s finding #nd #ssuming th#t the 9ovember 6, 1996 he#ring $#s #lre#dy # tri#l on the merits, etitioners $ere never #fforded their right to confront #nd crossE e/#mine the $itness. )he court did not, #t the very le#st, in;uire #s to $hether the etitioners $#nted to crossEe/#mine riv#te com l#in#nt $ith res ect to her #ffid#vit of October *1, 1996. 9o o ortunity to crossEe/#mine $#s #fforded etitioners #nd their counsels such th#t they c#nnot be deemed to h#ve $#ived s#id right by in#ction. )he #dmission of riv#te com l#in#nt4s #ffid#vit of October *1, 1996 $#s m#de solely in res onse to res ondent =udge4s ;uestioning. "t $#s this #ffid#vit $hich res ondent =udge used to convict the etitioners. )his #ffid#vit, ho$ever, $#s not m#r8ed nor $#s it form#lly offered before the court. )he 0evised 0ules on &vidence
cle#rly #nd e/ ressly rovide th#t Gthe court sh#ll consider no evidence $hich h#s not form#lly offered.H &vidence not form#lly offered in court $ill not be t#8en into consider#tion by the court in dis osing of the issues of the c#se. Any evidence $hich # #rty desires to submit for the consider#tion of the court must form#lly be offered by him, other$ise it is e/cluded #nd re=ected. )he %ourt hereby 0<'&S th#tE A#3 )he submission of the GAffid#vit of Desist#nceH e/ecuted by JuvieElyn L.Punongb#y#n on June *1, 1996, h#ving been filed #fter the institution of %rimin#l %#se 9o. 96E119971, does not $#rr#nt the dismiss#l of s#id crimin#l c#se5 Ab3 For f#ilure of due rocess, the #ss#iled =udgement, d#ted December 1*, 1996, convicting etitioners is decl#red 9<'' #nd ,O"D #nd thereby Set Aside5 #ccordingly, the c#se is 0em#nded to the tri#l court for further roceedings5 #nd Ac3 Judge M#/imo A. S#vell#no Jr., residing =udge of @r#nch 17 of 0)% of M#nil#, is &9JO"9&D from further he#ring %rimin#l %#se 9o. 96E1199715 inste#d, the c#se sh#ll immedi#tely be scheduled for r#ffle #mong the other br#nches of th#t court for ro er dis osition. Aniag( 1*. v. Com! !" GDriver under$ent illeg#l se#rch #nd seiCure on chec8 t. K etitioner ch#rged in viol#tion of Omnibus &lection %ode Agun b#n3K invo8es de riv#tion of %onstitution#l right on due rocess of l#$.H Fa"ts# < on the issu#nce of decl#r#tion of gun b#n by the %omelec in connection to the n#tion#l V loc#l election, the SgtE#tEArms of the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives re;uested etitioner to return the * fire#rms issued by the ?ouse to him. "n com li#nce, etitioner ordered his driver Arell#no to ic8 u the fire#rms in his house to return them to %ongress. On his $#y b#c8 to the @#t#s#n %om le/, Arell#no $#s fl#gged do$n in # chec8 oint #nd olice se#rch the
25
c#r. < on finding the guns, he $#s # rehended #nd det#ined #nd his c#se $#s referred for in;uest to the %ity rosecutor office. Petitioner $#s not m#de # #rty to the ch#rge but $#s invited to shed light on the incident. Petitioner e/ l#ined the ur ose ho$ Arell#no c#me to h#ve the fire#rms bo#rded on the c#r #nd $rote the rosecutor to e/oner#te Arell#no from the ch#rges. )he rosecutor recommended dismissing the c#se. )he %omelec ho$ever issued # resolution filing inform#tion in viol#tion of the gun b#n #g#inst etitioner. Petitioner moves for reconsider#tion to the %omelec $hich $#s denied hence this etition contending th#t the se#rch on his c#r $#s illeg#l #nd th#t he $#s not im le#ded #s res ondent in the relimin#ry investig#tion #nd his constitution#l rights for due rocess $#s viol#ted. Iss$!# >hether or not etitioner $#s denied of due rocess of l#$. H! %# )he court held th#t #s # rule, # v#lid se#rch must be #uthoriCed by # se#rch $#rr#nt duly issued by #n # ro ri#te #uthority. ?o$ever, this is not #bsolute. Aside from # se#rch incident to # l#$ful #rrest, # $#rr#ntless se#rch h#d been u held in c#ses of A13 moving vehicles A*3 the seiCure of evidence in l#in vie$ #nd A73 se#rch conducted #t olice or milit#ry chec8 oints $hich #re not illeg#l for #s long #s the vehicle is neither se#rched nor its occu #nts sub=ected to # body se#rch, #nd the ins ection of the vehicle is merely limited to # visu#l se#rch, #nd AD3 Sto E#ndEse#rch $ithout $#rr#nt conducted by olice officers on the b#sis of rior confidenti#l inform#tion $hich $ere re#son#bly corrobor#ted by other #ttend#nt m#tters is #lso recogniCed by the court to be leg#l. An e/tensive se#rch $ithout $#rr#nt could only be resorted to if the officers conducting the se#rch h#d re#son#ble or rob#ble c#use to believe before the se#rch th#t either the motorist $#s # l#$ offender or th#t they $ould find the instrument#lity or evidence ert#ining to the commission of # crime in the vehicle to be se#rched. @ec#use there $#s no sufficient evidence th#t $ould im el the olicemen to sus ect Arell#no to =ustify the se#rch they h#ve conducted, such #ction constitutes #n
unre#son#ble intrusion of the etitioner4s riv#cy #nd security of his ro erty in viol#tion of Section *, Article """ of the %onstitution. %onse;uently, the fire#rms obt#ined in viol#tion of etitioner!s right #g#inst $#rr#ntless se#rch c#nnot be #dmitted for #ny ur ose in #ny roceeding. )he m#nner by $hich %OM&'&% roceeded #g#inst etitioner runs counter to the due rocess cl#use of the %onstitution. )he f#cts sho$ th#t etitioner $#s not #mong those ch#rged by the P9P $ith viol#tion of the Omnibus &lection %ode. 9or $#s he sub=ected by the %ity Prosecutor to # relimin#ry investig#tion for such offense. )hus the court decl#red the $#rr#ntless se#rch #nd seiCure of the fire#rms #s illeg#l hence in#dmissible to court #s evidence in #ny roceeding #g#inst the etitioner. ANG TI6A3 9S. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Fa"ts# )here $#s #greement bet$een Ang )ib#y #nd the 9#tion#l '#bor <nion, "nc A9'<3. )he 9'< #lleged th#t the su osed l#c8 of le#ther m#teri#l cl#imed by )oribio )eodoro $#s but # scheme #do ted to system#tic#lly disch#rge #ll the members of the 9'<, from $or8. And this #verment is desired to be roved by the etitioner $ith the records of the @ure#u of %ustoms #nd @oo8s of Accounts of n#tive de#lers in le#ther. )h#t 9#tion#l >or8er!s @rotherhood <nion of Ang )ib#y is # com #ny or em loyer union domin#ted by )oribio )eodoro, $hich $#s #lleged by the 9'< #s #n illeg#l one. )he %"0, decided the c#se #nd elev#ted it to the Su reme %ourt, but # motion for ne$ tri#l $#s r#ised by the 9'<. @ut the Ang )ib#y filed # motion for o osing the s#id motion. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot, the motion for ne$ tri#l is meritorious to be gr#nted. H! %# )o begin $ith the issue before us is to re#liCe the functions of the %"0. )he %"0 is # s eci#l court $hose functions #re s ecific#lly
26
st#ted in the l#$ of its cre#tion $hich is the %ommon$e#lth Act 9o. 1B73. "t is more #n #dministr#tive bo#rd th#n # #rt of the integr#ted =udici#l system of the n#tion. "t is not intended to be # mere rece tive org#n of the government. <nli8e # court of =ustice $hich is essenti#lly #ssive, #cting only $hen its =urisdiction is invo8ed #nd deciding only c#ses th#t #re resented to it by the #rties litig#nt, the function of the %"0, #s $ill # e#r from erus#l of its org#nic l#$ is more #ctive, #ffirm#tive #nd dyn#mic. "t not only e/ercises =udici#l or ;u#siE=udici#l functions in the determin#tion of dis utes bet$een em loyers #nd em loyees but its functions #re f#r more com rehensive #nd e/tensive. "t h#s =urisdiction over the entire Phili ines, to consider, investig#te, decide, #nd settle #ny ;uestion, m#tter controversy or dis utes #rising bet$een, #nd- or #ffecting em loyers #nd em loyees or l#borers, #nd l#ndlords #nd ten#nts or f#rmEl#borers, #nd regul#tes the rel#tions bet$een them, sub=ect to, #nd in #ccord#nce $ith, the rovisions of %A 1B7. As l#id do$n in the c#se of Joseco v. %"0, the S% h#d the occ#sion to oint out th#t the %"0 is not n#rro$ly constr#ined by technic#l rules of rocedure, #nd e;uity #nd subst#nti#l merits of the c#se, $ithout reg#rd to technic#lities or leg#l forms #nd sh#ll not be bound by #ny technic#l rules of leg#l evidence but m#y inform its mind in such m#nner #s it m#y deem =ust #nd e;uit#ble. )he f#ct, ho$ever, th#t the %"0 m#y be s#id to be free from rigidity of cert#in rocedur#l re;uirements does not me#n th#t it c#n in =ustici#ble c#ses coming before it, entirely ignore or disreg#rd the fund#ment#l #nd essenti#l re;uirements of due rocess in tri#ls #nd investig#tions of #n #dministr#tive ch#r#cter. )here c#rdin#l rim#ry rights $hich must be res ected even in roceedings of this ch#r#cter2 A13 the right to # he#ring, $hich includes the right to resent one!s c#use #nd submit evidence in su ort thereof5 A*3 )he tribun#l must consider the evidence resented5 A73 )he decision must h#ve something to su ort itself5 AD3 )he evidence must be subst#nti#l5 A13 )he decision must be b#sed on the evidence resented #t the he#ring5 or #t le#st cont#ined in the record #nd disclosed to the
#rties #ffected5 A63 )he tribun#l or body or #ny of its =udges must #ct on its o$n inde endent consider#tion of the l#$ #nd f#cts of the controversy, #nd not sim ly #cce t the vie$s of # subordin#te5 A63 )he @o#rd or body should, in #ll controversi#l ;uestions, render its decision in such m#nner th#t the #rties to the roceeding c#n 8no$ the v#rious "ssue involved, #nd the re#son for the decision rendered. )he f#ilure to gr#s the fund#ment#l issue involved is not entirely #ttribut#ble to the #rties #dversely #ffected by the result. Accordingly, the motion for # ne$ tri#l should be, #nd the s#me is hereby gr#nted, #nd the entire record of this c#se sh#ll be rem#nded to the %"0, $ith instruction th#t it reo en the c#se receive #ll such evidence #s m#y be relev#nt, #nd other$ise roceed in #ccord#nce $ith the re;uirements set forth. So ordered. At!n!o %! /ani a Univ!*sit, v. Ca4$ ong Fa"ts# As # result of the initi#tion rights held by the A;uil# 'egis Fr#ternity on Febru#ry .E1B, 1991, 'eon#rdo 'ennie ,ill# died of serious hysic#l in=uries #t the %hinese Jener#l ?os it#l. A Joint Administr#tionEF#cultyEStudent %ommittee $#s t#s8ed to investig#te the circumst#nces resulting in ,ill#s de#th $ithin 6* hours. 0es ondent students MendoC#, Ab#s, et #l, $ere #lso re;uired to submit $ritten st#tements $ithin *D hours from recei t. S#id res ondents f#iled to give # re ly, $hile being l#ced on reventive sus ension. On Febru#ry 1D, 1991, #fter receiving the $ritten st#tements #nd testimonies of sever#l $itnesses, the %ommittee found rim# f#cie c#se #g#inst res ondent students for viol#tion of 0ule 7 of the '#$ School %#t#logue ADisci line3. )he students $ere re;uired to file #ns$ers on or before Febru#ry 1., other$ise, they $ould be deemed to h#ve $#ived their right to resent their defense. On Febru#ry *B, De#n del %#stillo cre#ted # Disci lin#ry @o#rd to he#r the ch#rges #g#inst s#id res ondent students. On the s#me d#y, the students $ere
27
informed of their viol#tion, giving them until the **nd of Febru#ry to res ond. After sever#l ost onements #nd # letter from etitioner @ern#s, # resolution d#ted M#rch 9 found res ondents guilty of viol#tion of 0ule 7 of the Ateneo '#$ School 0ules of Disci line, for h#ving #rtici #ted in the initi#tion #s #u/ili#ries, heightened by the f#ct th#t they m#de no effect to revent the infliction of further in=ury. )he bo#rd, ho$ever, left the im osition of the en#lty to the Administr#tion. Petitioner @ern#s im osed the en#lty of dismiss#l on #ll res ondent students. On M#rch 1B, res ondent students filed # etition for certior#ri, m#nd#mus, rohibition #nd )0O $ith relimin#ry in=unction, #lleging l#c8 of due rocess. After the issu#nce of # )0O on A ril 6, # s eci#l civil #ction for certior#ri $#s filed $ith the S%. Iss$!# >ere res ondent students denied due rocess: 9O. H! %#
$hich bec#me the b#sis of the Febru#ry 1D order. Jr#nting $ithout #dmitting th#t they $ere denied such, disci lin#ry c#ses involving students do not necess#rily need or include the right to cross e/#min#tion. "t m#y be summ#ry in n#ture. 0uling2 0&SPO9D&9) S)<D&9)S, D"SM"SS&D Equal Protection of the Laws 5$into an% To !ntino v. Commission on E !"tions FACTS# Petitioners &le#C#r P. Iuinto #nd Jerino A. )olentino, Jr. filed # etition for certiorari #nd rohibition #g#inst the %OM&'&% for issuing # resolution decl#ring # ointive offici#ls $ho filed their certific#te of c#ndid#cy #s ipso facto resigned from their ositions. "n this defense, the %OM&'&% #vers th#t it only co ied the rovision from Sec. 17 of 0.A. 9769. ISSUE#
%ontr#ry to res ondents #rgument of deni#l of rocedur#l due rocess, the %ourt finds no indic#tion th#t such right h#s been viol#ted. Petitioners h#ve meticulously res ected res ondents rights in # school disci lin#ry roceeding, #s st#ted in JuCm#n vs. 9<, Alcu#C vs. PS@AEI%, etc. Further, the JuCm#n c#se, #nd not the A9J )"@AL c#se #sserted by res ondents, rovides the minimum st#nd#rds to be s#tisfied in the im osition of disci lin#ry #ctions in #c#demic institutions2 1.Students must be informed in $riting of the n#ture or c#use of the #ccus#tions #g#inst them. *.)hey sh#ll h#ve the right to #ns$er the ch#rges #g#inst them $ith the #ssist#nce of counsel. 7.)hey sh#ll be informed of the evidence #g#inst them. D.)hey sh#ll h#ve the right to #ddress evidence in their o$n beh#lf 1.)he evidence must be duly considered by the investig#ting committee or offici#l design#ted by school #uthorities to he#r #nd decide the c#se. )he re;uisites #s st#ted h#ve been met #de;u#tely. 0es ondents c#nnot hide behind the #rgument th#t they $ere not #ccorded the o ortunity to see #nd e/#mine the $ritten st#tements
>hether or not the s#id %OM&'&% resolution $#s v#lid. HELD# 9O. "n the Farias c#se, the etitioners ch#llenged Sec. 1D of 0A. 9BB6 re e#ling Sec. 66 of the Omnibus &lection %ode AO&%3 for giving undue benefit to elective offici#ls in com #rison $ith # ointive offici#ls. "ncident#lly, the %ourt u held the subst#nti#l distinctions bet$een the t$o #nd ronounced th#t there $#s no viol#tion of the e;u#l rotection cl#use. ?o$ever in the resent c#se, the %ourt held th#t the discussion on the e;u#l rotection cl#use $#s #n obiter dictum since the issue r#ised therein $#s #g#inst the re e#ling cl#use. "t didn4t s;u#rely ch#llenge Sec. 66. Sec. 17 of 0A. 9769 unduly discrimin#ted # ointive #nd elective offici#ls. A lying the D re;uisites of # v#lid cl#ssific#tion, the roviso does not com ly $ith the second re;uirement K th#t it must be germ#ne to the ur ose of the l#$.
28
)he obvious re#son for the ch#llenged rovision is to revent the use of # government#l osition to romote one4s c#ndid#cy, or even to $ield # d#ngerous or coercive influence of the elector#te. )he me#sure is further #imed #t romoting the efficiency, integrity, #nd disci line of the ublic service by elimin#ting the d#nger th#t the disch#rge of offici#l duty $ould be motiv#ted by olitic#l consider#tions r#ther th#n the $elf#re of the ublic. )he restriction is #lso =ustified by the ro osition th#t the entry of civil serv#nts to the elector#te #ren#, $hile still in office, could result in neglect or inefficiency in the erform#nce of duty bec#use they $ould be #ttending to their c#m #ign r#ther th#n to their office $or8. Sec. 17 of 0A. 9769 ert#ins to #ll civil serv#nts holding # ointive osts $ithout distinction #s to $hether they occu y high ositions in government or not. %ert#inly, # utility $or8er in the government $ill #lso be considered #s ipso facto resigned once he files his certific#te of c#ndid#cy for the election. )his scen#rio is #bsurd for, indeed, it is unim#gin#ble ho$ he c#n use his osition in the government to $ield influence in the olitic#l $orld. )he rovision s directed to the #ctivity #ny #nd #ll ublic offices, $hether they be #rtis#n or non #rtis#n in ch#r#cter, $hether they be in the n#tion#l, munici #l or b#r#ng#y level. %ongress h#s not sho$n # com elling st#te interest to restrict the fund#ment#l right involved on such # s$ee ing sc#le. MO)"O9 FO0 0&%O9S"D&0A)"O9 FACTS
offici#ls $ho intend to be elected in the reviously held *B1B elections #nd $ho felt #ggrieved by the issu#nce of the ;uestioned resolution. ISSUE: >hether or not Section D A#3 of %OM&'&% 0esolution 9o. .66. is constitution#l. HELD: )he Su reme %ourt overruled its revious decision decl#ring the #ss#iled resolution unconstitution#l. ?ere, it strongly u holds the constitution#lity of the resolution s#ying th#t it does not viol#te the e;u#l rotection cl#use. "t is settled th#t the e;u#l rotection cl#use does not dem#nd #bsolute e;u#lity5 it merely re;uires th#t #ll ersons sh#ll be tre#ted #li8e, under li8e circumst#nces #nd conditions both #s to rivileges conferred #nd li#bilities enforced. )he test used is re#son#bleness $hich re;uires th#t21. )he cl#ssific#tion rests on subst#nti#l distinctions5*. "t is germ#ne to the ur oses of the l#$57. "t is not limited to e/isting conditions only5 #ndD. "t # lies e;u#lly to #ll members of the s#me cl#ss. "n the c#se under consider#tion, there is # subst#nti#l distinction bet$een ublic #nd elective offici#ls $hich h#s been rendered moot #nd #c#demic by the ruling m#de in the c#se of Farinas, etl al !s E"ecuti!e Secretar#, et al. Section D A#3 of %OM&'&% 0esolution 9o. .66. is constitution#l. 6i*aogo v. T)! +)i i44in! T*$t) Commission
: )his is # motion for reconsider#tion filed by the %ommission on &lections. )he l#tter moved to ;uestion #n e#rlier decision of the Su reme %ourt decl#ring Section D A#3 of %OM&'&% 0esolution 9o. .66. unconstitution#l. Section D A#3 of %OM&'&% 0esolution 9o. .66. rovides th#t, GAny erson holding # ublic # ointive office or osition including #ctive members of the Armed Forces of the Phili ines, #nd other officers #nd em loyees in governmentEo$ned or controlled cor or#tions, sh#ll be considered ipso facto resigned from his office u on the filing of his certific#te of c#ndid#cy.H @e it noted th#t etitioners of the #boveEentitled c#se #re # ointive
Fa"ts# )he genesis of the foregoing c#ses c#n be tr#ced to the events rior to the historic M#y *B1B elections, $hen then Sen#tor @enigno Simeon A;uino """ decl#red his st#unch condemn#tion of gr#ft #nd corru tion $ith his slog#n, (Sung $#l#ng corru t, $#l#ng m#hir# .( )he Fili ino eo le, convinced of his sincerity #nd of his #bility to c#rry out this noble ob=ective, c#t# ulted the good sen#tor to the residency.
29
)he first c#se is J.0. 9o. 19*971, # s eci#l civil #ction for rohibition instituted by etitioner 'ouis @ir#ogo A@ir#ogo3 in his c# #city #s # citiCen #nd t#/ #yer. @ir#ogo #ss#ils &/ecutive Order 9o. 1 for being viol#tive of the legisl#tive o$er of %ongress under Section 1, Article ," of the %onstitution #s it usur s the constitution#l #uthority of the legisl#ture to cre#te # ublic office #nd to # ro ri#te funds therefor. )he second c#se, J.0. 9o. 197B76, is # s eci#l civil #ction for certior#ri #nd rohibition filed by etitioners &dcel %. '#gm#n, 0odolfo @. Alb#no Jr., Simeon A. D#tum#nong, #nd Orl#ndo @. Fu#, Sr. A etitionersElegisl#tors3 #s incumbent members of the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives. )hus, #t the d#$n of his #dministr#tion, the President on July 7B, *B1B, signed &/ecutive Order 9o. 1 est#blishing the Phili ine )ruth %ommission of *B1B A)ruth %ommission3. Iss$!s# >hether or not &/ecutive Order 9o. 1 viol#tes the e;u#l rotection cl#use5 #nd H! %# $iolation of t%e E&ual 'rotection Clause )he etitioners #ss#il &/ecutive Order 9o. 1 bec#use it is viol#tive of this constitution#l s#fegu#rd. )hey contend th#t it does not # ly e;u#lly to #ll members of the s#me cl#ss such th#t the intent of singling out the ( revious #dministr#tion( #s its sole ob=ect m#8es the P)% #n (#dventure in #rtis#n hostility.( )hus, in order to be #ccorded $ith v#lidity, the commission must #lso cover re orts of gr#ft #nd corru tion in virtu#lly #ll #dministr#tions revious to th#t of former President Arroyo. )he e;u#l rotection cl#use is #imed #t #ll offici#l st#te #ctions, not =ust those of the legisl#ture. "ts inhibitions cover #ll the de #rtments of the government including the olitic#l #nd e/ecutive de #rtments, #nd e/tend to #ll #ctions of # st#te denying e;u#l rotection of the l#$s, through $h#tever #gency or $h#tever guise is t#8en. A lying these rece ts to this c#se, &/ecutive Order 9o. 1 should be struc8 do$n #s viol#tive of the e;u#l rotection cl#use. )he cle#r
m#nd#te of the envisioned truth commission is to investig#te #nd find out the truth (concerning the re orted c#ses of gr#ft #nd corru tion during the revious #dministr#tion(only. )he intent to single out the revious #dministr#tion is l#in, #tent #nd m#nifest. Mention of it h#s been m#de in #t le#st three ortions of the ;uestioned e/ecutive order. Decision )he issue th#t seems to t#8e center st#ge #t resent is E $hether or not the Su reme %ourt, in the e/ercise of its constitution#lly m#nd#ted o$er of Judici#l 0evie$ $ith res ect to recent initi#tives of the legisl#ture #nd the e/ecutive de #rtment, is e/ercising undue interference. "s the ?ighest )ribun#l, $hich is e/ ected to be the rotector of the %onstitution, itself guilty of viol#ting fund#ment#l tenets li8e the doctrine of se #r#tion of o$ers: )ime #nd #g#in, this issue h#s been #ddressed by the %ourt, but it seems th#t the resent olitic#l situ#tion c#lls for it to once #g#in e/ l#in the leg#l b#sis of its #ction lest it continu#lly be #ccused of being # hindr#nce to the n#tion4s thrust to rogress. >?&0&FO0&, the etitions #re J0A9)&D. &/ecutive Order 9o. 1 is hereby decl#red <9%O9S)")<)"O9A' insof#r #s it is viol#tive of the e;u#l rotection cl#use of the %onstitution. As #lso r#yed for, the res ondents #re hereby ordered to ce#se #nd desist from c#rrying out the rovisions of &/ecutive Order 9o. 1. 9i !gas v. Hi$ C)iong Tsai +ao Ho =>? SCRA 2@0 A1B@>CD FACTS# P#o ?o is # %hinese n#tion#l em loyed in the %ity of M#nil#. On *6 M#rch 196., then M#nil# M#yor Antonio ,illeg#s signed Ordin#nce 9o. 6176. )he s#id ordin#nce rohibits foreign n#tion#ls to be em loyed $ithin the %ity of M#nil# $ithout first securing # ermit from the M#yor of M#nil#. )he ermit $ill cost them P1B.BB. P#o ?o, on BD M#y 196. filed # etition for rohibition #g#inst the s#id Ordin#nce #lleging th#t #s # olice o$er me#sure, it m#8es no distinction bet$een useful #nd nonEuseful occu #tions, im osing # fi/ed P1B.BB em loyment ermit, $hich is out of ro ortion to the cost of
30
registr#tion #nd th#t it f#ils to rescribe4 #ny st#nd#rd to guide #nd-or limit the #ction of the M#yor, thus, viol#ting the fund#ment#l rinci le on illeg#l deleg#tion of legisl#tive o$ers. Judge Arc# of M#nil# %F" ruled in f#vor of P#o ?o #nd he decl#red the Ordin#nce #s being null #nd void. ISSUE2 >hether or not there # viol#tion of e;u#l rotection by virtue Ord 6176. HELD# )he decision of Judge Arc# is #ffirmed. Ordin#nce 9o. 6176 does not l#y do$n #ny criterion or st#nd#rd to guide the M#yor in the e/ercise of his discretion. ?ence #n undue deleg#tion of o$er. Further, the P1B.BB fee is unre#son#ble not only bec#use it is e/cessive but bec#use it f#ils to consider v#lid subst#nti#l differences in situ#tion #mong individu#l #liens $ho #re re;uired to #y it. Although the e;u#l rotection cl#use of the %onstitution does not forbid cl#ssific#tion, it is im er#tive th#t the cl#ssific#tion, should be b#sed on re#l #nd subst#nti#l differences h#ving # re#son#ble rel#tion to the sub=ect of the #rticul#r legisl#tion. )he s#me #mount of P1B.BB is being collected from every em loyed #lien, $hether he is c#su#l or erm#nent, #rt time or full time or $hether he is # lo$ly em loyee or # highly #id e/ecutive. 0e;uiring # erson before he c#n be em loyed to get # ermit from the %ity M#yor of M#nil# $ho m#y $ithhold or refuse it #t $ill is t#nt#mount to denying him the b#sic right of the eo le in the Phili ines to eng#ge in # me#ns of livelihood. >hile it is true th#t the Phili ines #s # St#te is not obliged to #dmit #liens $ithin its territory, once #n #lien is #dmitted, he c#nnot be de rived of life $ithout due rocess of l#$. )his gu#r#ntee includes the me#ns of livelihood. )he shelter of rotection under the due rocess #nd e;u#l rotection cl#use is given to #ll ersons, both #liens #nd citiCens. D$m ao v. Com! !" FACTS#
Duml#o $#s the former governor of 9uev# ,iCc#y#. ?e h#s retired from his office #nd he h#s been receiving retirement benefits therefrom. ?e filed for reEelection to the s#me office for the 19.B loc#l elections. On the other h#nd, @P 1* $#s #ssed A #r 1 thereof3 roviding dis;u#lific#tion for the li8es of Duml#o. Duml#o #ss#iled the @P #verring th#t it is cl#ss legisl#tion hence unconstitution#l. ?is etition $#s =oined by Atty. "got #nd S#l# #nt#n Jr. )hese t$o ho$ever h#ve different issues. )he suits of "got #nd S#l# #nt#n #re more of # t#/ #yer4s suit #ss#iling the other rovisions of @P 1* reg#rding the term of office of the elected offici#ls, the length of the c#m #ign #nd the rovision b#rring ersons ch#rged for crimes m#y not run for ublic office #nd th#t the filing of com l#ints #g#inst them #nd #fter relimin#ry investig#tion $ould #lre#dy dis;u#lify them from office. "n gener#l, Duml#o invo8ed e;u#l rotection in the eye of the l#$. ISSUE# >hether or not the there is c#use of #ction. HELD# )he S% ointed out the rocedur#l l# ses of this c#se for this c#se $ould never h#ve been merged. Duml#o4s c#use is different from "got4s. )hey h#ve se #r#te issues. Further, this c#se does not meet #ll the re;uisites so th#t it4d be eligible for =udici#l revie$. )here #re st#nd#rds th#t h#ve to be follo$ed in the e/ercise of the function of =udici#l revie$, n#mely2 A13 the e/istence of #n # ro ri#te c#se5 A*3 #n interest erson#l #nd subst#nti#l by the #rty r#ising the constitution#l ;uestion5 A73 the le# th#t the function be e/ercised #t the e#rliest o ortunity5 #nd AD3 the necessity th#t the constitution#l ;uestion be #ssed u on in order to decide the c#se. "n this c#se, only the 7rd re;uisite $#s met. )he S% ruled ho$ever th#t the rovision b#rring ersons ch#rged for crimes m#y not run for ublic office #nd th#t the filing of com l#ints #g#inst them #nd #fter relimin#ry investig#tion $ould #lre#dy dis;u#lify them from office #s null #nd void.
31
)he #ssertion th#t Sec D of @P 1* is contr#ry to the s#fegu#rd of e;u#l rotection is neither $ell t#8en. )he constitution#l gu#r#ntee of e;u#l rotection of the l#$s is sub=ect to r#tion#l cl#ssific#tion. "f the grou ings #re b#sed on re#son#ble #nd re#l differenti#tions, one cl#ss c#n be tre#ted #nd regul#ted differently from #nother cl#ss. For ur oses of ublic service, em loyees 61 ye#rs of #ge, h#ve been v#lidly cl#ssified differently from younger em loyees. &m loyees #tt#ining th#t #ge #re sub=ect to com ulsory retirement, $hile those of younger #ges #re not so com ulsorily retir#ble. "n res ect of election to rovinci#l, city, or munici #l ositions, to re;uire th#t c#ndid#tes should not be more th#n 61 ye#rs of #ge #t the time they #ssume office, if # lic#ble to everyone, might or might not be # re#son#ble cl#ssific#tion #lthough, #s the Solicitor Jener#l h#s intim#ted, # good olicy of the l#$ should be to romote the emergence of younger blood in our olitic#l elective echelons. On the other h#nd, it might be th#t ersons more th#n 61 ye#rs old m#y #lso be good elective loc#l offici#ls. 0etirement from government service m#y or m#y not be # re#son#ble dis;u#lific#tion for elective loc#l offici#ls. For one thing, there c#n #lso be retirees from government service #t #ges, s#y belo$ 61. "t m#y neither be re#son#ble to dis;u#lify retirees, #ged 61, for # 61Eye#r old retiree could be # good loc#l offici#l =ust li8e one, #ged 61, $ho is not # retiree. @ut, in the c#se of # 61Eye#r old elective loc#l offici#l ADum#lo3, $ho h#s retired from # rovinci#l, city or munici #l office, there is re#son to dis;u#lify him from running for the s#me office from $hich he h#d retired, #s rovided for in the ch#llenged rovision. +)i i44in! Asso"iation o- S!*vi"! E:4o*t!*s v. D*i on Fa"ts# PAS&" is eng#ged in the recruitment of Fili ino $or8ers, m#le #nd fem#le, for overse#s em loyment. "t ch#llenged the v#lidity of De #rtment Order 9o. 1 of the De #rtment of '#bor #nd &m loyment in the ch#r#cter of Juidelines Joverning the )em or#ry Sus ension of De loyment of Fili ino Domestic #nd ?ousehold >or8ers.
Me#sure is #ss#iled for being discrimin#tory #g#inst fem#le domestic $or8ers-hel ers #nd th#t it is viol#tive of the right to tr#vel. Further, the com #ny contended th#t the me#sure is #n inv#lid e/ercise of the l#$m#8ing o$er, being th#t olice o$er is legisl#tive #nd not e/ecutive in ch#r#cter. Iss$!# >hether or not the De #rtment Order is # v#lid regul#tion. H! %# )he '#bor %ode h#s vested the De #rtment of '#bor #nd &m loyment $ith the ruleEm#8ing o$ers in order to effectively romote the $elf#re #nd interests of Fili ino $or8ers. Protection to l#bor does not only signify the romotion of em loyment #lone, more im ort#nt is th#t such be decent, =ust #nd hum#ne. )he reference for fem#le $or8ers being covered by the s#id regul#tion h#s been motiv#ted by # gro$ing incidence of Fili in# #buses overse#s. Offici#l #cts en=oy # resumed v#lidity. Himagan v. +!o4 ! FACTS# ?im#g#n is # olicem#n #ssigned in %#m %#tititg#n, D#v#o %ity. ?e $#s ch#rged for the murder of @en=#min M#chit#r Jr #nd for the #ttem ted murder of @en=#min4s younger brother, @#rn#be. Pursu#nt to Sec D6 of 0A 6961, ?im#g#n $#s l#ced into sus ension ending the murder c#se. )he l#$ rovides th#t G< on the filing of # com l#int or inform#tion sufficient in form #nd subst#nce #g#inst # member of the P9P for gr#ve felonies $here the en#lty im osed by l#$ is si/ A63 ye#rs #nd one A13 d#y or more, the court sh#ll immedi#tely sus end the #ccused from office until the c#se is termin#ted. Such c#se sh#ll be sub=ect to continuous tri#l #nd sh#ll be termin#ted $ithin ninety A9B3 d#ys from #rr#ignment of the #ccused. ?im#g#n #ss#iled the sus ension #verring th#t Sec D* of PD .B6 of the %ivil Service Decree, th#t his sus ension should be limited to ninety A9B3 d#ys. ?e cl#ims th#t #n im osition of reventive sus ension of over 9B d#ys is
32
contr#ry to the %ivil Service '#$ #nd $ould be # viol#tion of his constitution#l right to e;u#l rotection of l#$s. ISSUE# >hether or not Sec D6, 0A 6961 viol#tes e;u#l rotection gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution. HELD# )he l#ngu#ge of the first sentence of Sec D6 of 0A 6961 is cle#r, l#in #nd free from #mbiguity. "t gives no other me#ning th#n th#t the sus ension from office of the member of the P9P ch#rged $ith gr#ve offense $here the en#lty is si/ ye#rs #nd one d#y or more sh#ll l#st until the termin#tion of the c#se. )he sus ension c#nnot be lifted before the termin#tion of the c#se. )he second sentence of the s#me Section roviding th#t the tri#l must be termin#ted $ithin ninety A9B3 d#ys from #rr#ignment does not ;u#lify or limit the first sentence. )he t$o c#n st#nd inde endently of e#ch other. )he first refers to the eriod of sus ension. )he second de#ls $ith the time from $ithin $hich the tri#l should be finished. )he re#son $hy members of the P9P #re tre#ted differently from the other cl#sses of ersons ch#rged crimin#lly or #dministr#tively insof#r #s the # lic#tion of the rule on reventive sus ension is concerned is th#t olicemen c#rry $e# ons #nd the b#dge of the l#$ $hich c#n be used to h#r#ss or intimid#te $itnesses #g#inst them, #s succinctly brought out in the legisl#tive discussions. "f # sus ended olicem#n crimin#lly ch#rged $ith # serious offense is reinst#ted to his ost $hile his c#se is ending, his victim #nd the $itnesses #g#inst him #re obviously e/ osed to const#nt thre#t #nd thus e#sily co$ed to silence by the mere f#ct th#t the #ccused is in uniform #nd #rmed. the im osition of reventive sus ension for over 9B d#ys under Sec D6 of 0A 6961 does not viol#te the sus ended olicem#n4s constitution#l right to e;u#l rotection of the l#$s. Su ose the tri#l is not termin#ted $ithin ninety d#ys from #rr#ignment, should the sus ension of #ccused be lifted: )he #ns$er is cert#inly no. >hile the l#$ uses the m#nd#tory $ord Gsh#llH before the hr#se Gbe termin#ted $ithin ninety A9B3 d#ysH, there is nothing in 0A 6961 th#t suggests th#t the reventive
sus ension of the #ccused $ill be lifted if the tri#l is not termin#ted $ithin th#t eriod. 9onetheless, the Judge $ho f#ils to decide the c#se $ithin the eriod $ithout =ustifi#ble re#son m#y be sub=ect to #dministr#tive s#nctions #nd, in # ro ri#te c#ses $here the f#cts so $#rr#nt, to crimin#l or civil li#bility. "f the tri#l is unre#son#bly del#yed $ithout f#ult of the #ccused such th#t he is de rived of his right to # s eedy tri#l, he is not $ithout # remedy. ?e m#y #s8 for the dismiss#l of the c#se. Should the court refuse to dismiss the c#se, the #ccused c#n com el its dismiss#l by certior#ri, rohibition or m#nd#mus, or secure his liberty by h#be#s cor us. O*mo" S$ga* Co.( In". v. T*!as. o- O*mo" Cit, FACTS# Ormoc city #ssed #n ordin#nce $hich rovides2 (T%ere s%all be paid to t%e Cit# Treasurer on an# and all productions of centrifu)al su)ar milled at t%e *rmoc Su)ar Compan#, Incorporated, in *rmoc Cit#, a municipal ta" e&ui!alent to one per centum +,-. per e"port sale to t%e United States of America and ot%er forei)n countries ( Ormoc Sug#r %om #ny filed # com l#int #g#inst the city of Ormoc, #lleging th#t the #foreEst#ted ordin#nce is unconstitution#l for being viol#tive of the e;u#l rotection cl#use ASec. 1W1X, Art. """, %onstitution3 #nd the rule of uniformity of t#/#tion ASec. **W1X3, Art. ,", %onstitution3 ISSUE# >-9 the ordin#nce viol#tes the e;u#l rotection cl#use #nd the uniformity of t#/#tionHELD2 L&S. )he e;u#l rotection cl#use # lies only to ersons or things identic#lly situ#ted #nd does not b#r # re#son#ble cl#ssific#tion of the sub=ect of legisl#tion, #nd # cl#ssific#tion is re#son#ble $here A13 it is b#sed on subst#nti#l distinctions $hich m#8e re#l differences5 A*3 these #re germ#ne to the ur ose of the l#$5 A73 the cl#ssific#tion # lies not only to resent conditions but #lso to future conditions $hich #re subst#nti#lly identic#l to those of the resent5 AD3 the
33
cl#ssific#tion # lies only to those $ho belong to the s#me cl#ss. A erus#l of the re;uisites inst#ntly sho$s th#t the ;uestioned ordin#nce does not meet them, for it t#/es only centrifug#l sug#r roduced #nd e/ orted by the Ormoc Sug#r %om #ny, "nc. #nd none other. At the time of the t#/ing ordin#nce!s en#ctment, Ormoc Sug#r %om #ny, "nc., it is true, $#s the only sug#r centr#l in the city of Ormoc. Still, the cl#ssific#tion, to be re#son#ble, should be in terms # lic#ble to future conditions #s $ell. )he t#/ing ordin#nce should not be singul#r #nd e/clusive #s to e/clude #ny subse;uently est#blished sug#r centr#l, of the s#me cl#ss #s l#intiff, for the cover#ge of the t#/. As it is no$, even if l#ter # simil#r com #ny is set u , it c#nnot be sub=ect to the t#/ bec#use the ordin#nce e/ ressly oints only to Ormoc %ity Sug#r %om #ny, "nc. #s the entity to be levied u on L!ag$! O- Citi!s O- T)! +)i i44in!s v. Commission On E !"tionsE /$ni"i4a it, O- 6a,'a,( Et". FACTS#
cont#ined # common rovision e/em ting #ll the 16 munici #lities from the P1BB million income re;uirements in 0A 9BB9. On December **, *BB6, the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives # roved the cityhood bills. )he Sen#te #lso # roved the cityhood bills in Febru#ry *BB6, e/ce t th#t of 9#g#, %ebu $hich $#s #ssed on June 6, *BB6. )he cityhood bills l# sed into l#$ A%ityhood '#$s3 on v#rious d#tes from M#rch to July *BB6 $ithout the President4s sign#ture. )he %ityhood '#$s direct the %OM&'&% to hold lebiscites to determine $hether the voters in e#ch res ondent munici #lity # rove of the conversion of their munici #lity into # city. Petitioners filed the resent etitions to decl#re the %ityhood '#$s unconstitution#l for viol#tion of Section 1B, Article + of the %onstitution, #s $ell #s for viol#tion of the e;u#l rotection cl#use. Petitioners #lso l#ment th#t the $holes#le conversion of munici #lities into cities $ill reduce the sh#re of e/isting cities in the "ntern#l 0evenue Allotment bec#use more cities $ill sh#re the s#me #mount of intern#l revenue set #side for #ll cities under Section *.1 of the 'oc#l Jovernment %ode. ISSUES#
During the 11th %ongress, %ongress en#cted into l#$ 77 bills converting 77 munici #lities into cities. ?o$ever, %ongress did not #ct on bills converting *D other munici #lities into cities. During the 1*th %ongress, %ongress en#cted into l#$ 0e ublic Act 9o. 9BB9 $hich too8 effect on June 7B, *BB1. 0A 9BB9 #mended Section D1B of the 'oc#l Jovernment %ode by incre#sing the #nnu#l income re;uirement for conversion of # munici #lity into # city from P*B million to P1BB million. After the effectivity of 0A 9BB9, the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives of the 1*th %ongress #do ted Joint 0esolution 9o. *9, $hich sought to e/em t from the P1BB million income re;uirements in 0A 9BB9 the *D munici #lities $hose cityhood bills $ere not # roved in the 11th %ongress. ?o$ever, the 1*th %ongress ended $ithout the Sen#te # roving Joint 0esolution 9o. *9. During the 17th %ongress, the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives reE #do ted Joint 0esolution 9o. *9 #s Joint 0esolution 9o. 1 #nd for$#rded it to the Sen#te for # rov#l. ?o$ever, the Sen#te #g#in f#iled to # rove the Joint 0esolution. Follo$ing the #dvice of Sen#tor A;uilino Pimentel, 16 munici #lities filed, through their res ective s onsors, individu#l cityhood bills. )he 16 cityhood bills
1. >hether the %ityhood '#$s viol#te Section 1B, Article + of the %onstitution5 #nd *. >hether or not the %ityhood '#$s viol#te the e;u#l rotection cl#use. HELD# 1. )he %ityhood '#$s viol#te Sections 6 #nd 1B, Article + of the %onstitution, #nd #re thus unconstitution#l. *. Les. )here is no subst#nti#l distinction bet$een munici #lities $ith ending cityhood bills in the 11th %ongress #nd munici #lities th#t did not h#ve ending bills. )he mere endency of # cityhood bill in the 11th %ongress is not # m#teri#l difference to distinguish one munici #lity from #nother for the ur ose of the income re;uirement. )he endency of # cityhood bill in the 11th %ongress does not #ffect or determine the level of income of # munici #lity. Munici #lities $ith ending cityhood bills in the 11th %ongress might even h#ve lo$er #nnu#l income th#n munici #lities th#t did not h#ve ending cityhood
34
bills. "n short, the cl#ssific#tion criterion Y mere endency of # cityhood bill in the 11th %ongress Y is not r#tion#lly rel#ted to the ur ose of the l#$ $hich is to revent fisc#lly nonEvi#ble munici #lities from converting into cities. Section 2 -- Searches and Seizures +!o4 ! v. /a*ti =1BF SCRA G@ A1BB1CD FACTS# AccusedE# ell#nt $ent to # for$#rding #gency to send four #c8#ges to # friend in Purich. "niti#lly, the #ccused $#s #s8ed by the ro rietress if the #c8#ges c#n be e/#mined. ?o$ever, he refused. @efore delivering s#id #c8#ges to the @ure#u of %ustoms #nd the @ure#u of Posts, the husb#nd of the ro rietress o ened s#id bo/es for fin#l ins ection. From th#t ins ection, included in the st#nd#rd o er#ting rocedure #nd out of curiosity, he too8 sever#l gr#ms of its contents. ?e brought # letter #nd the s#id s#m le to the 9#tion#l @ure#u of "nvestig#tion. >hen the 9@" $#s informed th#t the rest of the shi ment $#s still in his office, three #gents $ent b#c8 $ith him. "n their resence, the husb#nd tot#lly o ened the #c8#ges. After$#rds,the 9@" too8 custody of s#id #c8#ges. )he contents, #fter e/#min#tion by forensic chemists, $ere found to be m#ri=u#n# flo$ering to s.)he # ell#nt, $hile cl#iming his m#il #t the %entr#l Post Office, $#s invited by the #gents for ;uestioning. '#ter on, the tri#l court found him guilty of viol#tion of the D#ngerous Drugs Act. ISSUES# 1.>hether or not the items #dmitted in the se#rched illeg#lly se#rched #nd seiCed. *.>hether or not custodi#l investig#tion $#s not ro erly # lied. 7.>hether or not the tri#l court did not give credence to the e/ l#n#tion of the # ell#nt on ho$ s#id #c8#ges c#me to his ossession. HELD#
1.9o. Z)he c#se #t b#r #ssumes # eculi#r ch#r#cter since the evidence sought to be e/cluded $#s rim#rily discovered #nd obt#ined by # riv#te erson, #cting in # riv#te c# #city #nd $ithout the intervention #nd #rtici #tion of St#te #uthorities.<nder the circumst#nces, c#n #ccused-# ell#nt v#lidly cl#im th#t his constitution#l right #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCure h#s been viol#ted. St#ted other$ise,m#y #n #ct of # riv#te individu#l, #llegedly in viol#tion of # ell#nt!s constitution#l rights, be invo8ed #g#inst the St#te. "n the #bsence of government#l interference, the liberties gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution c#nnot be invo8ed #g#inst the St#te. "t $#s Mr. Job 0eyes, the ro rietor of the for$#rding #gency, $ho m#de se#rch-ins ection of the #c8#ges. S#id ins ection $#s re#son#ble #nd # st#nd#rd o er#ting rocedure on the #rt of Mr. 0eyes #s # rec#ution#ry me#sure before delivery of #c8#ges to the @ure#u of %ustoms or the @ure#u of Posts. Second, the mere resence of the 9@" #gents did not convert the re#son#ble se#rch effected by 0eyes into # $#rr#ntless se#rch #nd seiCure roscribed by the %onstitution. Merely to observe #nd loo8 #t th#t $hich is in l#in sight is not # se#rch. ?#ving observed th#t $hich is o en, $here no tres #ss h#s been committed in #id thereof, is not se#rch.[ *. 9o. Z)he l#$ enforcers testified th#t #ccused-# ell#nt $#s informed of his constitution#l rights. "t is resumed th#t they h#ve regul#rly erformed their duties ASee. 1Am3, 0ule 1713 #nd their testimonies should be given full f#ith #nd credence, there being no evidence to the contr#ry.[ 7.9o. ZA ell#nt signed the contr#ct #s the o$ner #nd shi er thereof giving more $eight to the resum tion th#t things $hich # erson ossesses, or e/ercises #cts of o$nershi over, #re o$ned by him ASec. 1 W=X, 0ule 1713. At this oint, # ell#nt is therefore esto ed to cl#im other$ise.[ Ston!)i v. Dio;no =20 SCRA F>F A1B?@D FACTS# Stonehill et #l #nd the cor or#tion they form $ere #lleged to h#ve committed #cts in Gviol#tion of %entr#l @#n8 '#$s, )#riff #nd
35
%ustoms '#$s, "ntern#l 0evenue A%ode3 #nd 0evised Pen#l %ode.H @y the strength of this #lleg#tion # se#rch $#rr#nt $#s issued #g#inst their ersons #nd their cor or#tion. )he $#rr#nt rovides #uthority to se#rch the ersons #boveEn#med #nd-or the remises of their offices, $#rehouses #nd-or residences, #nd to seiCe #nd t#8e ossession of the follo$ing erson#l ro erty to $it2 G@oo8s of #ccounts, fin#nci#l records, vouchers, corres ondence, recei ts, ledgers, =ourn#ls, ortfolios, credit =ourn#ls, ty e$riters, #nd other documents #nd-or # ers sho$ing #ll business tr#ns#ctions including disbursements recei ts, b#l#nce sheets #nd rofit #nd loss st#tements #nd @obbins Acig#rette $r# ers3.H )he documents, # ers, #nd things seiCed under the #lleged #uthority of the $#rr#nts in ;uestion m#y be s lit into A*3 m#=or grou s, n#mely2 A#3 those found #nd seiCed in the offices of the #forementioned cor or#tions #nd Ab3 those found seiCed in the residences of etitioners herein. Stonehill #verred th#t the $#rr#nt is illeg#l for2 A13 they do not describe $ith #rticul#rity the documents, boo8s #nd things to be seiCed5 A*3 c#sh money, not mentioned in the $#rr#nts, $ere #ctu#lly seiCed5 A73 the $#rr#nts $ere issued to fish evidence #g#inst the #forementioned etitioners in de ort#tion c#ses filed #g#inst them5 AD3 the se#rches #nd seiCures $ere m#de in #n illeg#l m#nner5 #nd A13 the documents, # ers #nd c#sh money seiCed $ere not delivered to the courts th#t issued the $#rr#nts, to be dis osed of in #ccord#nce $ith l#$. )he rosecution counters, invo8ing the Monc#do doctrine, th#t the defects of s#id $#rr#nts, if #ny, $ere cured by etitioners4 consent5 #nd A73 th#t, in #ny event, the effects seiCed #re #dmissible in evidence #g#inst them. "n short, the crimin#l c#nnot be set free =ust bec#use the government blunders. ISSUE# >hether or not the se#rch $#rr#nt issue is v#lid. HELD#
)he S% ruled in f#vor of Stonehill et #l. )he S% em h#siCed ho$ever th#t Stonehill et #l c#nnot #ss#il the v#lidity of the se#rch $#rr#nt issued #g#inst their cor or#tion for Stonehill #re not the ro er #rty hence h#s no c#use of #ction. "t should be r#ised by the officers or bo#rd members of the cor or#tion. )he constitution rotects the eo le4s right #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rch #nd seiCure. "t rovides5 A13 th#t no $#rr#nt sh#ll issue but u on rob#ble c#use, to be determined by the =udge in the m#nner set forth in s#id rovision5 #nd A*3 th#t the $#rr#nt sh#ll #rticul#rly describe the things to be seiCed. "n the c#se #t b#r, none of these #re met. )he $#rr#nt $#s issued from mere #lleg#tion th#t Stonehill et #l committed # Gviol#tion of %entr#l @#n8 '#$s, )#riff #nd %ustoms '#$s, "ntern#l 0evenue A%ode3 #nd 0evised Pen#l %ode.H "n other $ords, no s ecific offense h#d been #lleged in s#id # lic#tions. )he #verments thereof $ith res ect to the offense committed $ere #bstr#ct. As # conse;uence, it $#s im ossible for the =udges $ho issued the $#rr#nts to h#ve found the e/istence of rob#ble c#use, for the s#me resu oses the introduction of com etent roof th#t the #rty #g#inst $hom it is sought h#s erformed #rticul#r #cts, or committed s ecific omissions, viol#ting # given rovision of our crimin#l l#$s. As # m#tter of f#ct, the # lic#tions involved in this c#se do not #llege #ny s ecific #cts erformed by herein etitioners. "t $ould be # leg#l heresy, of the highest order, to convict #nybody of # Gviol#tion of %entr#l @#n8 '#$s, )#riff #nd %ustoms '#$s, "ntern#l 0evenue A%ode3 #nd 0evised Pen#l %ode,H Q #s #lleged in the #forementioned # lic#tions Q $ithout reference to #ny determin#te rovision of s#id l#$s or codes. )he gr#ve viol#tion of the %onstitution m#de in the # lic#tion for the contested se#rch $#rr#nts $#s com ounded by the descri tion therein m#de of the effects to be se#rched for #nd seiCed, to $it2 G@oo8s of #ccounts, fin#nci#l records, vouchers, =ourn#ls, corres ondence, recei ts, ledgers, ortfolios, credit =ourn#ls, ty e$riters, #nd other documents #nd-or # ers sho$ing #ll business tr#ns#ctions including disbursement recei ts, b#l#nce sheets #nd rel#ted rofit #nd loss st#tements.H )hus, the $#rr#nts #uthoriCed the se#rch for #nd seiCure of records ert#ining to #ll business tr#ns#ctions of Stonehill et #l, reg#rdless of $hether the tr#ns#ctions $ere leg#l or illeg#l. )he $#rr#nts s#nctioned the seiCure of #ll records of Stonehill et #l #nd the
36
#forementioned cor or#tions, $h#tever their n#ture, thus o enly contr#vening the e/ licit comm#nd of the @ill of 0ights Q th#t the things to be seiCed be #rticul#rly described Q #s $ell #s tending to defe#t its m#=or ob=ective2 the elimin#tion of gener#l $#rr#nts. )he Monc#do doctrine is li8e$ise #b#ndoned #nd the right of the #ccused #g#inst # defective se#rch $#rr#nt is em h#siCed. Soliven v. a!asiar "#A$A%LA&LE Silva v. Presidin' Jud'e "#A$A%LA&LE orano v. $ivo "#A$A%LA&LE Ha*v!, v. Santiago Fa"ts# )his is # etition for ?#be#s %or us. Petitioners #re the follo$ing2 Americ#n n#tion#ls Andre$ ?#rvey, 1* #nd Jonh Sherm#n 6*. Dutch %itiCen Adri##n ,#n Den &lshout, 1.. All reside #t P#gs#n=#n '#gun# res ondent %ommissioner Miri#m Defensor S#nti#go issued Mission Orders to the %ommission of "mmigr#tion #nd De ort#tion A%"D3 to # rehended etitioners #t their residences. )he GO er#tion 0e ortH re#d th#t Andre$ ?#rvey $#s found together $ith t$o young boys. 0ich#rd Sherm#n $#s found $ith t$o n#8ed boys inside his room. >hile ,#n Den &lshout in the G#fter Mission 0e ortH re#d th#t t$o children of #ges 1D #nd 16 h#s been under his c#re #nd sub=ects confirmed being liveEin for sometime no$. SeiCed during the etitioner4s # rehension $ere rolls of hoto neg#tives #nd hotos of sus ected child rostitutes sho$n in sc#nd#lous oses #s $ell #s boys #nd girls eng#ged in se/. Posters #nd other liter#ture #dvertising the child rostitutes $ere #lso found. Petitioners $ere #mong the ** sus ected #lien edo hiles. )hey $ere # rehended 16 Febru#ry19.. #fter close surveill#nce for 7
month of the %"D in P#gs#n=#n, '#gun#. 16 of the #rrested #liens o ted for selfEde ort#tion. One rele#sed for l#c8 of evidence, #nother ch#rged not for edo hile but $or8ing $ith 9O ,"SA, the 7 etitioners chose to f#ce de ort#tion roceedings. On D M#rch19.., de ort#tion roceedings $ere instituted #g#inst #liens for being undesir#ble #liens under Sec.69 of 0evised Administr#tive %ode. >#rr#nts of Arrest $ere issued 6M#rch19.. #g#inst etitioners for viol#tion of Sec76, D1 #nd D6 of "mmigr#tion Act #nd sec69 of 0evised Administr#tive %ode. )ri#l by the @o#rd of S eci#l "n;uiry """ commenced the s#me d#te. Petition for b#il $#s filed 11M#rch 19.. but $#s not gr#nted by the %ommissioner of "mmigr#tion. D A ril19.. Petitioners filed # etition for >rit of ?#be#s %or us. )he court he#rd the c#se on or#l #rgument on *B A ril 19... Iss$!s# A13 >hether or 9ot the %ommissioner h#s the o$er to #rrest #nd det#in etitioners ending determin#tion of e/istence of rob#ble c#use. A*3 >hether or 9ot there $#s unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCures by %"D #gents. A73 >hether or 9ot the $rit of ?#be#s %or us m#y be gr#nted to etitioners. H! %# >hile edo hili# is not # crime under the 0evised Pen#l %ode, it viol#tes the decl#red olicy of the st#te to romote #nd rotect the hysic#l, mor#l, s iritu#l #nd soci#l $ell being of the youth. )he #rrest of etitioners $#s b#sed on the rob#ble c#use determined #fter close surveill#nce of 7 months. )he e/istence of rob#ble c#use =ustified the #rrest #nd seiCure of #rticles lin8ed to the offense. )he #rticles $ere seiCed #s #n incident to # l#$ful #rrest5 therefore the #rticles #re #dmissible evidences A0ule 1*6, Section1* of 0ules on %rimin#l Procedure3. )he rule th#t se#rch #nd seiCures must be su orted by # v#lid
37
$#rr#nt of #rrest is not #n #bsolute rule. )here #re #t le#st three e/ce tions to this rule. 1.3 Se#rch is incident#l to the #rrest. *.3 Se#rch in # moving vehicle. 7.3 SeiCure of evidence in l#in vie$. "n vie$ of the foregoing, the se#rch done $#s incident#l to the #rrest. )he filing of the etitioners for b#il is considered #s # $#iver of #ny irregul#rity #ttending their #rrest #nd esto s them from ;uestioning its v#lidity. Furthermore, the de ort#tion ch#rges #nd the he#ring resently conducted by the @o#rd of S eci#l "n;uiry m#de their detention leg#l. "t is # fund#ment#l rule th#t h#be#s cor us $ill not be gr#nted $hen confinement is or h#s become leg#l, #lthough such confinement $#s illeg#l #t the beginning. )he de ort#tion ch#rges instituted by the %ommissioner of "mmigr#tion #re in #ccord#nce $ith Sec76 A#3 of the Phili ine "mmigr#tion Act of 19DB in rel#tion to sec69 of the 0evised Administr#tive code. Section 76 A#3 rovides th#t #liens sh#ll be #rrested #nd de orted u on $#rr#nt of the %ommissioner of "mmigr#tion #nd De ort#tion #fter # determin#tion by the @o#rd of %ommissioners of the e/istence of # ground for de ort#tion #g#inst them. De ort#tion roceedings #re #dministr#tive in ch#r#cter #nd never construed #s # unishment but # reventive me#sure. )herefore, it need not be conducted strictly in #ccord#nce $ith ordin#ry %ourt roceedings. >h#t is essenti#l is th#t there should be # s ecific ch#rge #g#inst the #lien intended to be #rrested #nd de orted. A f#ir he#ring must #lso be conducted $ith #ssist#nce of # counsel if desired. '#stly, the o$er to de ort #liens is #n #ct of the St#te #nd done under the #uthority of the sovereign o$er. "t # olice me#sure #g#inst the undesir#ble #liens $hose continued resence in the country is found to be in=urious to the ublic good #nd tr#n;uility of the eo le. A va*!& v. Co$*t o- Fi*st Instan"!
On June 7, 1976, the chief of of the secret service of the AntiE<sury @o#rd resented to Judge D#vid, residing =udge of %F" of )#y#b#s, #lleging th#t #ccording to reli#ble inform#tion, the etitioner is 8ee ing in his house in "nf#nt#, )#y#b#s documents, recei ts, lists, chits #nd other # ers used by him in connection $ith his #ctivities #s # money lender ch#rging usurious r#tes of interest in viol#tion of the l#$. "n his o#th the chief of the secret service did not s$e#r to the truth of his st#tements u on his 8no$ledge of the f#cts but the inform#tion received by him from # reli#ble erson. < on this ;uestioned #ffid#vit, the =udge issued the se#rch $#rr#nt, ordering the se#rch of the etitioners house #t #ny time of the d#y or night, the seiCure of the boo8s #nd documents #nd the immedi#te delivery of such to him A=udge3. >ith s#id $#rr#nt, sever#l #gents of the AntiE<sury @o#rd entered the etitioner!s store #nd residence #t 6 o!cloc8 of the night #nd seiCed #nd too8 ossession of v#rious #rticles belonging to the etitioner. )he etitioner #s8s th#t the $#rr#nt of issued by the %ourt of First "nst#nce of )#y#b#s, ordering the se#rch of his house #nd the seiCure, #t #nytime of the d#y or night, of cert#in #ccounting boo8s, documents, #nd # ers belonging to him in his residence situ#ted in "nf#nt#, )#y#b#s, #s $ell #s the order of # l#ter d#te, #uthoriCing the #gents of the AntiE<sury bo#rd to ret#in the #rticles seiCed, be decl#red illeg#l #nd set #side, #nd r#ys th#t #ll the #rticles in ;uestion be returned to him. Iss$!s# 1.3 >h#t is the n#ture of se#rchers #nd seiCures #s contem l#ted in the l#$: *.3 >h#t is re;uired of the o#th in the issu#nce of se#rch $#rr#nt: 7.3 >h#t is the ur ose of the dis osition in #ddition to the #ffid#vit:
Fa"ts# D.3 >hether or not the se#rch $#rr#nt could be serve #t night:
38
1.3 >hether or not the seiCure of evidence to use in #n investig#tion is constitution#l: 6.3 >hether or not there $#s # $#iver of constitution#l gu#r#ntees: H! %# A se#rch $#rr#nt is #n order in $riting, issued in the n#me of the Peo le of the Phili ine "sl#nds, signed by # =udge or # =ustice of the e#ce, #nd directed to # e#ce officer, comm#nding him to se#rch for erson#l ro erty #nd bring it before the court Asection 91, Jener#l Orders. 9o. 1., #s #mended by section 6 of Act 9o. *..63. Of #ll the rights of # citiCen, fe$ #re of gre#ter im ort#nce or more essenti#l to his e#ce #nd h# iness th#n the right of erson#l security, #nd th#t involves the e/em tion of his riv#te #ff#irs, boo8s, #nd # ers from the ins ection #nd scrutiny of others AIn re P#cific 0#il$#ys %ommission, 7* Fed., *D15 "nterst#te %ommerce %ommission vs @rimson, 7. '#$. ed., 1BD65 @royd !s <. S., *9 '#$. ed., 6D65 %#roll !s <. S., 69 '#$. ed., 1D7, 1D93. >hile the o$er to se#rch #nd seiCe is necess#ry to the ublic $elf#re, still it must be e/ercised #nd the l#$ enforced $ithout tr#nsgressing the constitution#l rights or citiCen, for the enforcement of no st#tue is of sufficient im ort#nce to =ustify indifference to the b#sis rinci les of government APeo le !s &li#s, 1D6 9. &., D6*3. As the rotection of the citiCen #nd the m#inten#nce of his constitution#l right is one of the highest duties #nd rivileges of the court, these constitution#l gu#r#nties should be given # liber#l construction or # strict construction in f#vor of the individu#l, to revent ste#lthy encro#chment u on, or gr#du#l de reci#tion on, the rights secured by themASt#te !s %uster %ounty, 19. P#c., 76*5 St#te !s McD#niel, *71 P#c., 9615 *76 P#c., 7673. Since the roceeding is # dr#stic one, it is the gener#l rule th#t st#tutes #uthoriCing se#rches #nd seiCure or se#rch $#rr#nts must be strictly construed A0ose !s St. %l#ir, *. Fed., W*dX, 1.95 'eon#rd !s <. S., 6 Fed. W*dX, 7175 Perry !s <. S. 1D Fed. W*dX,..5 %ofer !s St#te, 11. So., 6173. <nre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCures #re # men#ce #g#inst $hich
the constitution#l gu#r#ntee #fford full rotection. )he term (unre#son#ble se#rch #nd seiCure( is not defined in the %onstitution or in Jener#l Orders 9o. 1., #nd it is s#id to h#ve no fi/ed, #bsolute or unch#nge#ble me#ning, #lthough the term h#s been defined in gener#l l#ngu#ge. All illeg#l se#rches #nd seiCure #re unre#son#ble $hile l#$ful ones #re re#son#ble. >h#t constitutes # re#son#ble or unre#son#ble se#rch or seiCure in #ny #rticul#r c#se is urely # =udici#l ;uestion, determin#ble from # consider#tion of the circumst#nces involved, including the ur ose of the se#rch, the resence or #bsence or rob#ble c#use, the m#nner in $hich the se#rch #nd seiCure $#s m#de, the l#ce or thing se#rched, #nd the ch#r#cter of the #rticles rocured AJoE@#rt "m orting %o. !s <. S. 61 '#$. ed., 76D5 Peru !s <. S., D Fed., W*dX, ..15<. S. !s ,#tune, *9* Fed., D965 Angelo !s <. S. 6B '#$, ed., 1D15 '#mbert !s <. S. *.* Fed., D175 <. S. !s @#tem#n, *6. Fed., *715 M#son !s 0ollins, 16 Fed. %#s. W9o. 9*1*X, * @iss., 993. 9either the %onstitution nor Jener#l Orders. 9o. 1. rovides th#t it is of im er#tive necessity to t#8e the de osition of the $itnesses to be resented by the # lic#nt or com l#in#nt in #ddition to the #ffid#vit of the l#tter. )he ur ose of both in re;uiring the resent#tion of de ositions is nothing more th#n to s#tisfy the committing m#gistr#te of the e/istence of rob#ble c#use. )herefore, if the #ffid#vit of the # lic#nt or com l#in#nt is sufficient, the =udge m#y dis ense $ith th#t of other $itnesses. "n#smuch #s the #ffid#vit of the #gent in this c#se $#s insufficient bec#use his 8no$ledge of the f#cts $#s not erson#l but merely he#rs#y, it is the duty of the =udge to re;uire the #ffid#vit of one or more $itnesses for the ur ose of determining the e/istence of rob#ble c#use to $#rr#nt the issu#nce of the se#rch $#rr#nt. >hen the #ffid#vit of the # lic#nt of the com l#int cont#ins sufficient f#cts $ithin his erson#l #nd direct 8no$ledge, it is sufficient if the =udge is s#tisfied th#t there e/ist rob#ble c#use5 $hen the # lic#nt!s 8no$ledge of the f#cts is mere he#rs#y, the #ffid#vit of one or more $itnesses h#ving # erson#l 8no$ledge of the f#ct is necess#ry. >e conclude, therefore, th#t the $#rr#nt issued is li8e$ise illeg#l bec#use it $#s b#sed only on the #ffid#vit of the #gent $ho h#d no erson#l 8no$ledge of the f#cts.
39
Section 1B1 of Jener#l Orders, 9o. 1. #uthoriCes th#t the se#rch be m#de #t night $hen it is ositively #sserted in the #ffid#vits th#t the ro erty is on the erson or in the l#ce ordered to be se#rched. As $e h#ve decl#red the #ffid#vits insufficient #nd the $#rr#nt issued e/clusively u on it illeg#l, our conclusion is th#t the contention is e;u#lly $ell founded #nd th#t the se#rch could not leg#lly be m#de #t night. )he only descri tion of the #rticles given in the #ffid#vit resented to the =udge $#s #s follo$s2 (th#t there #re being 8e t in s#id remises boo8s, documents, recei ts, lists, chits #nd other # ers used by him in connection $ith his #ctivities #s moneyElender, ch#rging # usurious r#te of interest, in viol#tion of the l#$.( )#8ing into consider#tion the n#ture of the #rticle so described, it is cle#r th#t no other more #de;u#te #nd det#iled descri tion could h#ve been given, #rticul#rly bec#use it is difficult to give # #rticul#r descri tion of the contents thereof. )he descri tion so m#de subst#nti#lly com lies $ith the leg#l rovisions bec#use the officer of the l#$ $ho e/ecuted the $#rr#nt $#s thereby l#ced in # osition en#bling him to identify the #rticles, $hich he did. At the he#ring of the incidents of the c#se r#ised before the court it cle#rly # e#red th#t the boo8s #nd documents h#d re#lly been seiCed to en#ble the AntiE<sury @o#rd to conduct #n investig#tion #nd l#ter use #ll or some of the #rticles in ;uestion #s evidence #g#inst the etitioner in the crimin#l c#ses th#t m#y be filed #g#inst him. )he seiCure of boo8s #nd documents by me#ns of # se#rch $#rr#nt, for the ur ose of using them #s evidence in # crimin#l c#se #g#inst the erson in $hose ossession they $ere found, is unconstitution#l bec#use it m#8es the $#rr#nt unre#son#ble, #nd it is e;uiv#lent to # viol#tion of the constitution#l rovision rohibiting the com ulsion of #n #ccused to testify #g#inst himself A<y Sheytin !s ,ill#re#l, D* Phil,, ..65 @r#dy !s <. S., *66 <. S., 6*B5 )em er#ni !s <. S., *99 Fed., 7615 <. S. !s M#dden, *96 Fed., 6695 @oyd !s <. S.,116 <. S., 1165 %#roll !s <. S., *66 <. S., 17*3. )herefore, it # e#ring th#t #t le#st nineteen of the documents in ;uestion $ere seiCed for the ur ose of using them #s evidence #g#inst the etitioner in the crimin#l roceeding or roceedings for viol#tion #g#inst him, $e hold th#t the se#rch $#rr#nt issued is illeg#l
#nd th#t the documents should be returned to him. )he AntiE<sury @o#rd insinu#tes in its #ns$er th#t the etitioner c#nnot no$ ;uestion the v#lidity of the se#rch $#rr#nt or the roceedings h#d subse;uent to the issu#nce thereof, bec#use he h#s $#ived his constitution#l rights in ro osing # com romise $hereby he #greed to #y # fine of P*BB for the ur ose of ev#ding the crimin#l roceeding or roceedings. >e #re of the o inion th#t there $#s no such $#iver, first, bec#use the etitioner h#s em h#tic#lly denied the offer of com romise #nd, second, bec#use if there $#s # com romise it reffered but to the institution of crimin#l roceedings fro viol#tion of the AntiE<sury '#$. )he $#iver $ould h#ve been # good defense for the res ondents h#d the etitioner volunt#rily consented to the se#rch #nd seiCure of the #rticles in ;uestion, but such $#s not the c#se bec#use the etitioner rotested from the beginning #nd st#ted his rotest in $riting in the insufficient inventory furnished him by the #gents. /ata v. 6a,ona Fa"ts# Sori#no M#t# $#s #ccused under Presidenti#l Decree APD3 .1B, #s #mended by PD 17B6, the inform#tion #g#inst him #lleging th#t Sori#no M#t# offered, too8 #nd #rr#nged bets on the J#i Al#i g#me by Gselling illeg#l tic8ets 8no$n #s OM#si#o tic8ets4 $ithout #ny #uthority from the Phili ine J#i Al#i V Amusement %or or#tion or from the government #uthorities concerned.H M#t# cl#imed th#t during the he#ring of the c#se, he discovered th#t no$here from the records of the s#id c#se could be found the se#rch $#rr#nt #nd other ertinent # ers connected to the issu#nce of the s#me, so th#t he h#d to in;uire from the %ity Fisc#l its $here#bouts, #nd to $hich in;uiry Judge Jose hine S. @#yon#, residing Jufe of the %ity %ourt of Ormoc re lied, Git is $ith the courtH. )he Judge then h#nded the records to the Fisc#l $ho #tt#ched them to the records. )his led M#t# to file # motion to ;u#sh #nd #nnul the se#rch $#rr#nt #nd for the return of the #rticles seiCed, citing #nd invo8ing, #mong others, Section D of 0ule 1*6 of the 0evised 0ules of %ourt. )he motion $#s denied by the Judge on 1 M#rch 1969, st#ting th#t the court h#s
40
m#de # thorough investig#tion #nd e/#min#tion under o#th of @ern#rdo <. Joles #nd 0eyn#ldo ). M#yote, members of the "ntelligence Section of 71*nd P% %o.-Police District "" "9P5 th#t in f#ct the court m#de # certific#tion to th#t effect5 #nd th#t the f#ct th#t documents rel#ting to the se#rch $#rr#nt $ere not #tt#ched immedi#tely to the record of the crimin#l c#se is of no moment, considering th#t the rule does not s ecify $hen these documents #re to be #tt#ched to the records. M#t#4s motion for reconsider#tion of the #fores#id order h#ving been denied, he c#me to the Su reme %ourt, $ith the etition for certior#ri, r#ying, #mong others, th#t the %ourt decl#re the se#rch $#rr#nt to be inv#lid for its #lleged f#ilure to com ly $ith the re;uisites of the %onstitution #nd the 0ules of %ourt, #nd th#t #ll the #rticles confisc#ted under such $#rr#nt #s in#dmissible #s evidence in the c#se, or in #ny roceedings on the m#tter. Iss$!# >hether the =udge must before issuing the $#rr#nt erson#lly e/#mine on o#th or #ffirm#tion the com l#in#nt #nd #ny $itnesses he m#y roduce #nd t#8e their de ositions in $riting, #nd #tt#ch them to the record, in #ddition to #ny #ffid#vits resented to him. H! %# <nder the %onstitution Gno se#rch $#rr#nt sh#ll issue but u on rob#ble c#use to be determined by the Judge or such other res onsible officer #s m#y be #uthoriCed by l#$ #fter e/#min#tion under o#th or #ffirm#tion of the com l#in#nt #nd the $itnesses he m#y roduceH. More em h#tic #nd det#iled is the im lementing rule of the constitution#l in=unction, )he 0ules rovide th#t the =udge must before issuing the $#rr#nt erson#lly e/#mine on o#th or #ffirm#tion the com l#in#nt #nd #ny $itnesses he m#y roduce #nd t#8e their de ositions in $riting, #nd #tt#ch them to the record, in #ddition to #ny #ffid#vits resented to him. Mere #ffid#vits of the com l#in#nt #nd his $itnesses #re thus not sufficient. )he e/#mining Judge h#s to t#8e de ositions in $riting of the com l#in#nt #nd the $itnesses he m#y roduce #nd to #tt#ch them to the record. Such $ritten de osition is necess#ry in order th#t the Judge m#y be #ble to
ro erly determine the e/istence or none/istence of the rob#ble c#use, to hold li#ble for er=ury the erson giving it if it $ill be found l#ter th#t his decl#r#tions #re f#lse. >e, therefore, hold th#t the se#rch $#rr#nt is t#inted $ith illeg#lity by the f#ilure of the Judge to conform $ith the essenti#l re;uisites of t#8ing the de ositions in $riting #nd #tt#ching them to the record, rendering the se#rch $#rr#nt inv#lid. +!o4 ! v. D! Rosa*io Fa"ts# Accused $#s ch#rged #nd convicted by the tri#l court of illeg#l ossession of fire#rms #nd illeg#l ossession #nd s#le of drugs, #rticul#rly meth#m het#mine or sh#bu. After the issu#nce of the se#rch $#rr#nt, $hich #uthoriCed the se#rch #nd seiCure of #n undetermined ;u#ntity of meth#m het#mine #nd its #r# hern#li#4s, #n entr# ment $#s l#nned th#t led to the #rrest of del 0os#rio #nd to the seiCure of the sh#bu, its #r# hern#li#4s #nd of # .** c#liber istol $ith 7 live #mmunition. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the seiCure of the fire#rms $#s ro er. H! %# 9o. Sec * #rt. """ of the constitution s ecific#lly rovides th#t # se#rch $#rr#nt must #rticul#rly describe the things to be seiCed. "n herein c#se, the only ob=ects to be seiCed th#t the $#rr#nt determined $#s the meth#m het#mine #nd the #r# hern#li#4s therein. )he seiCure of the fire#rms $#s unconstitution#l. >herefore the decision is reversed #nd the #ccused is #c;uitted. Umi v. Ramos Fa"ts#
41
On 1 Febru#ry 19.., milit#ry #gents $ere dis #tched to the St. Agnes ?os it#l, 0oosevelt Avenue, IueCon %ity, to verify # confidenti#l inform#tion $hich $#s received by their office, #bout # (s #rro$ m#n( A9PA member3 $ho h#d been #dmitted to the s#id hos it#l $ith # gunshot $ound. )h#t the $ounded m#n in the s#id hos it#l $#s #mong the five A13 m#le (s #rro$s( $ho murdered t$o A*3 %# com mobile #trols the d#y before, or on 71 J#nu#ry 19.. #t #bout 1*2BB o!cloc8 noon, before # ro#d hum #long M#c#nining St., @#gong @#rrio, %#looc#n %ity. )he $ounded m#n!s n#me $#s listed by the hos it#l m#n#gement #s (0onnie J#vellon,( t$entyEt$o A**3 ye#rs old of @loc8 1B, 'ot D, South %ity ?omes, @iT#n, '#gun# ho$ever it $#s disclosed l#ter th#t the true n#me of the $ounded m#n $#s 0ol#ndo Dur#l. "n vie$ of this verific#tion, 0ol#ndo Dur#l $#s tr#nsferred to the 0egion#l Medic#l Servicesof the %AP%OM, for security re#sons. >hile confined there#t, he $#s ositively identified by the eye$itnesses #s the one $ho murdered the * %AP%OM mobile #trols. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot 0ol#ndo $#s l#$fully #rrested. H! %# 0ol#ndo Dur#l $#s #rrested for being # member of the 9PA, #n outl#$ed subversive org#niC#tion. Subversion being # continuing offense, the #rrest $ithout $#rr#nt is =ustified #s it c#n be s#id th#t he $#s committing #s offense $hen #rrested. )he crimes rebellion, subversion, cons ir#cy or ro os#l to commit such crimes, #nd crimes or offenses committed in further#nce therefore in connection there$ith constitute direct #ss#ults #g#inst the st#te #nd #re in the n#ture of continuing crimes. +!o4 ! v. S$"*o Fa"ts# P#t. Fulgencio $ent to Arlie 0eg#l#do4s house #t %. Iuim o to monitor #ctivities of &dison S<%0O A#ccused3. Sucro $#s re orted
to be selling m#ri=u#n# #t # ch# el * meters #$#y from 0eg#l#do4s house. Sucro $#s monitored to h#ve t#l8ed #nd e/ch#nged things three times. )hese #ctivities #re re orted through r#dio to P-'t. Ser#s i. A third buyer $#s tr#ns#cting $ith # ell#nt #nd $#s re orted #nd l#ter identified #s 0onnie M#c#b#nte. From th#t moment, P-'t.Ser#s i roceeded to the #re#. >hile the olice officers $ere #t the Louth ?ostel in M##g#m# St. Fulgencio told 't. Ser#s i to interce t. M#c#b#nte $#s interce ted #t M#bini #nd M##g#m# crossing in front of A8l#n Medic#l center. M#c#b#nte s#$ the olice #nd thre$ # te# b#g of m#ri=u#n# on the ground. M#c#b#nte #dmitted buying the m#ri=u#n# from Sucro in front of the ch# el. )he olice te#m interce ted #nd #rrested S<%0O #t the corner of %. Iuim o #nd ,eter#ns. 0ecovered $ere 19 stic8s #nd D te#b#gs of m#ri=u#n# from # c#rt inside the ch# el #nd #nother te#b#g from M#c#b#nte. Iss$!s# A13 >hether or 9ot #rrest $ithout $#rr#nt is l#$ful. A*3 >hether or 9ot evidence from such #rrest is #dmissible. H! %# Se#rch #nd seiCures su orted by # v#lid $#rr#nt of #rrest is not #n #bsolute rule. 0ule 1*6, Sec 1* of 0ules of %rimin#l Procedure rovides th#t # erson l#$fully #rrested m#y be se#rched for d#ngerous $e# ons or #nything, $hich m#y be used #s roff of the commission of #n offense, $ithout # se#rch $#rr#nt.APeo le v. %#stiller3 )he f#ilure of the olice officers to secure # $#rr#nt stems from the f#ct th#t their 8no$ledge re;uired from the surveill#nce $#s insufficient to fulfill re;uirements for its issu#nce. ?o$ever, $#r#ntless se#rch #nd seiCures #re leg#l #s long #s P0O@A@'& %A<S& e/isted. )he olice officers h#ve erson#l 8no$ledge of the #ctu#l commission of the crime from the surveill#nce of the #ctivities of the #ccused. As olice officers $ere the ones conducting the surveill#nce, it is resumed th#t they #re regul#rly in erform#nce of
42
their duties. +!o4 ! v. Ro%*ig$!&a Fa"ts# An informer of the 9#rcotics Division re orted #ctivity on illeg#l drug tr#ffic8ing to the #uthorities #nd # buyEbust o er#tion $#s conducted $here the informer successfully bought 1BB gr#ms of m#ri=u#n# for P1B.BB from the #ccused. )he #uthorities immedi#tely conducted # r#id #nd # rehended the #ccused $hile confisc#ting m#ri=u#n# le#ves #nd syringes. )he r#id ho$ever $#s not #uthoriCed by # se#rch $#rr#nt. Accused no$ contends th#t the court erred in #dmitting the evidence seiCed $ithout #ny se#rch $#rr#nt #nd in viol#tion of his constitution#l rights. Iss$!# >hether or not evidence obt#ined $ithout # v#lid se#rch $#rr#nt m#y be used to rosecute the #ccused. H! %# )he court held th#t # buy bust o er#tion is # form of entr# ment em loyed by e#ce officers to tr# #nd c#tch # m#lef#ctor in fla)rante delicto. A lied to the c#se #t b#r, the term in fla)rante delicto re;uires th#t the sus ected drug de#ler must be c#ught redh#nded in the #ct of selling m#ri=u#n# or #ny rohibited drug to # erson #cting or osing #s # buyer. "n the inst#nt c#se, ho$ever, the rocedure #do ted by the 9A0%OM #gents f#iled to meet this ;u#lific#tion. )he 9#rcom #gents should h#ve secured # v#lid se#rch $#rr#nt rior the r#id since they h#ve #lre#dy been conducting surveill#nce #g#inst the #ccused for ;uite sometime #lre#dy #nd the urgency of their c#use of #ction c#nnot be =ustified in court. ?ence the #ccused $#s #c;uitted. Go v. Co$*t o- A44!a s FACTS# P#trolm#ns <ng#b #nd <m #r, both members of the "9P of the D#v#o Metrodiscom #ssigned $- the "ntelligence )#s8 Force, $ere On July * 1991, &ldon M#gu#n $#s #llegedly shot to de#th by #ccused 0olito Jo due to # tr#ffic #lterc#tion $hen etitioners c#r #nd the victims c#r ne#rly bum ed e#ch other. )he Security Ju#rd of the %r#vings @#8e Sho s#$ the $hole incident #nd oint herein etitioner #s the gunm#n, $hich he ositively identified $hen ;uestioned by the #uthorities. @eing convinced of the sus ects identity, the olice l#unched # m#nhunt o er#tion th#t c#used etitioner to resent himself before the S#n Ju#n Police St#tion to verify the s#id issue5 he $#s then det#ined by the olice. ISSUE# >hether or not herein etitioners #rrest v#lid: RULING# )he reli#nce of both etitioner #nd the Solicitor Jener#l u on <mil v.0#mos is, in the circumst#nces of this c#se, mis l#ced. "n the inst#nt c#se, the offense for $hich etitioner $#s #rrested $#s murder, #n offense $hich $#s obviously commenced #nd com leted #t one definite loc#tion in time #nd s #ce. 9o one h#d retended th#t the f#t#l shooting of M#gu#n $#s # (continuing crime.( ..... none of the (#rresting( officers h#d #ny ( erson#l 8no$ledge( of f#cts indic#ting th#t etitioner $#s the gunm#n $ho h#d shot M#gu#n. )he inform#tion u on $hich the olice #cted h#d been derived from st#tements m#de by #lleged eye$itnesses to the shooting one st#ted th#t etitioner $#s the gunm#n5 #nother $#s #ble to t#8e do$n the #lleged gunm#n!s c#r!s l#te number $hich turned out to be registered in etitioner!s $ife!s n#me. )h#t inform#tion did not, ho$ever, constitute ( erson#l 8no$ledge.( +osa%as v. Co$*t o- A44!a s Fa"ts#
43
conducting # surveill#nce #long M#g#ll#nes, St., D#v#o %ity. >hile they $ere $-in the remises of the 0iC#l Memori#l %olleges, they s otted etitioner c#rrying # (buri( b#g V they noticed him to be #cting sus iciously. )hey # ro#ched the etitioner #nd identified themselves #s members of the "9P. Petitioner #ttem ted to flee but $#s sto ed by the *. )hey then chec8ed the (buri( b#g of the etitioner $here they found 1 c#liber .7. Smith V >esson revolver, $- * rounds of live #mmunition for # .7. c#l. gun, # smo8e gren#de, V * live #mmunition for # .** c#l. gun. Petitioner $#s brought to the olice st#tion for further investig#tion. ?e $#s rosecuted for illeg#l ossession of fire#rms #nd #mmunitions in the 0)% of D#v#o %ity $herein #fter # le# of not guilty, #nd tri#l on the merits, # decision $#s rendered finding etitioner guilty. )he %A #ffirmed the # e#led decision in toto. ?ence, the etition for revie$, the m#in thrust of $-c is th#t there being no l#$ful #rrest or se#rch #nd seiCure, the items $-c $ere confisc#ted from the ossession of the etitioner #re in#dmissible in evidence #g#inst him. )he SolEJen #rgues th#t under Sec. 1*, 0 176 of 0O%, # erson l#$fully #rrested m#y be se#rched for d#ngerous $e# ons or #nything A$-c m#y be3 used #s roof of # commission of #n offense, $-o # S>. ISSUE#
)hey =ust sus ected th#t he $#s hiding something in the buri b#g. )hey did not 8no$ $h#t its contents $ere. )he s#id circumst#nces did not =ustify #n #rrest $-o # $#rr#nt. ?o$ever, there #re m#ny inst#nces $here # $#rr#nt V seiCure c#n be effected $-o necess#rily being receded by #n #rrest, foremost of $-c is the !!sto V se#rch!! $-o # S> #t milit#ry or olice chec8 oints, the constitution#lity of $-c h#s been u held by this %ourt in ,#lmonte v. de ,ill#. As bet. # $#rr#ntless se#rch #nd seiCure AS V S3 conducted #t milit#ry or olice chec8 oints #nd the se#rch thereof in the c#se #t b#r, there is no ;uestion th#t, indeed, the l#tter is more re#son#ble considering th#t, unli8e in the former, it $#s effected on the b#sis of # rob#ble c#use. )he rob#ble c#use is th#t $hen the etitioner #cted sus iciously #nd #ttem ted to flee $- the buri b#g, there $#s # rob#ble c#use th#t he $#s conce#ling something illeg#l in the b#g #nd it $#s the right #nd duty of the olice officers to ins ect the s#me. "t is too much indeed to re;uire the olice officers to se#rch the b#g in the ossession of the etitioner only #fter they sh#ll h#ve obt#ined # S> for the ur ose. Such #n e/ercise m#y rove to be useless, futile #nd much too l#te. +!o4 ! v. /!ngot! FACTS#
>o9 # erson m#y be #rrested m#y be se#rched for d#ngerous $e# ons, etc. HELD# From Sec. 1, 0 117, 0O%, it is cle#r th#t #n #rrest $-o # $#rr#nt m#y be effected by # e#ce officer or riv#te erson, #mong others, $hen in his resence the erson to be #rrested h#s committed, is #ctu#lly committing, or is #ttem ting to commit #n offense, or $hen #n offense h#s in f#ct, =ust been committed, V he h#s erson#l 8no$ledge of the f#cts indic#ting th#t the erson #rrested h#s committed it. At the time the e#ce officers identified themselves #nd # rehended the etitioner #s he #ttem ted to flee, they did not 8no$ th#t he h#d committed, or $#s #ctu#lly committing, the offense.
Ethe >estern Police District received # tele hone c # l l from #n informer th#t there $ere three sus icious Eloo8ing ersons #t the corner of Ju#n 'un# #nd 9orth@#y @oulev#rd in )ondo, M#nil#, shortly before noonof August ., 19.6, # surveill#nce te#m of l#inclothesmen $#s dis #tched to the l#ce. E P#trolmen 0ol#ndo Merc#do #nd Alberto Ju#n, s # i d th#t they s#$ t$o men (loo8ing from side to side,( one of $hom $#s holding his #bdomen. )hey# ro#ched these ersons #nd identified themselves#s olicemen, $hereu on the t$o tried to run #$#ybut $ere un#ble to esc# e bec#use the otherl#$men h#d surrounded them. )he sus ects $ere then se#rched. One of them, $hoturned out to be the #ccusedE# ell#nt, $#s found $ith # .7. c#liber Smith #nd >esson revolver $ith
44
si/l i v e b u l l e t s i n t h e c h # m b e r . ? i s c o m # n i o n , l # t e r i dentified #s 9ic#nor Morellos, h#d # f#n 8nifesecreted in his front right #nts oc8et. )he $e# ons$ere t#8en from them. Mengote #nd Morellos $erethen turned over to olice he#d;u#rters forinvestig#tion by the "ntelligence Division.E " n f o r m # t i o n $ # s f i l e d $ i t h 0 ) % c h # r g i n g # c c u s e d i n viol#tion of ,iol#tion of PD 1.66 illeg#l ossession of fire#rms.E @esides the olice officers, one other $itness resented by the rosecution $#s 0igobertoD # n g # n # n , $ h o i d e n t i f i e d t h e s u b = e c t $ e # o n # s #mong the #rticles stolen from him during therobbery in his house in M#l#bon on June 17, 19.6. ?e ointed to Mengote #s one of the robbers. Iss$!# >-9 there $#s the $#rr#ntless #rrest m#de $ # s leg#l: 9o. Ratio# 0ules of %ourt Sec. 1. Arrest $ithout $#rr#nt $hen l#$ful. A e#ce officer or riv#te erson m#y, $ithout # $#rr#nt, #rrest# erson5A # 3 > h e n , i n h i s r e s e n c e , t h e e r s o n t o b e # r r e s t e d h # s committed, is #ctu#lly committing, or is #ttem ting to commit#n offense5Ab3 >hen #n offense h#s in f#ct =ust been committed, #nd heh#s erson#l 8no$ledge of f#cts indic#ting th#t the erson tobe #rrested h#s committed it5 #ndA c 3 > h e n t h e erson to be #rrested is # risoner $ho h#sesc# ed from # en#l est#blishment or l#ce $here he i s serving fin#l =udgment or tem or#rily confined $hile his c#seis ending, or h#s esc# ed $hile being tr#nsferred from oneconfinement to #nother. E %le#rly circumst#nces of the c#se doesn4t comeunder P#r. Ac3. E
P#r. A#3 re;uires th#t the erson be #rrested A13 #fterhe h#s committed or $hile he is #ctu#lly committingor is #t le#st #ttem ting to commit #n offense, A*3 inthe resence of the #rresting officer. o )hese re;uirements h#ve not beenest#blished in the c#se #t b#r. At the time of the #rrest in ;uestion, the #ccusedE # ell#nt $#s merely (loo8ing from side to side( #nd (holding his #bdomen.( )here $#s# #rently no offense th#t h#d = u s t b e e n committed or $#s being #ctu#lly committedor #t le#st being #ttem ted by Mengote in their resence. E P#r. Ab3 is no less # lic#ble bec#use its n o l e s s stringent re;uirements h#ve #lso not been s#tisfied.)he rosecution h#s not sho$n th#t #t the time of M e n g o t e ! s # r r e s t # n o f f e n s e h # d i n f # c t = u s t b e e n committed #nd th#t the #rresting officers h#d erson#l 8no$ledge of f#cts indic#ting th#t Mengoteh#d committed it. All they h#d $#s he#rs#yinform#tion from the tele hone c#ller, #nd #bout #crime th#t h#d yet to be committed. E )he truth is th#t they did not 8no$ then$h#t offense, if #t #ll, h#d been c o m m i t t e d # n d neither $ere they #$#re of the #rtici #tion thereino f t h e # c c u s e d E # ell#nt. "t $#s only l#ter, # f t e r D#ng#n#n h#d # e#red #t the Police he#d;u#rters,th#t they le#rned of the robbery in his house #nd of Mengote!s su osed involvement therein. +!o4 ! v. A*$ta FACTS# "n the morning of 17 Dec 19.., the l#$ enforcement officers received inform#tion from #n inform#nt n#med G@en=ieH th#t # cert#in GAling 0os#H $ould be le#ving for @#guio %ity on 1D Dec 19.. #nd $ould be b#c8 in the #fternoon of the s#me d#y c#rrying $ith her # l#rge volume of m#ri=u#n#5 At 627B in the evening of 1D Dec 19.., Arut# #lighted from # ,ictory 'iner @us c#rrying # tr#velling b#g even #s
45
the inform#nt ointed her out to the l#$ enforcement officers5 9A0%OM officers # ro#ched her #nd introduced themselves #s 9A0%OM #gents5 >hen #s8ed by 't. Abello #bout the contents of her tr#velling b#g, she g#ve the s#me to him5 >hen they o ened the s#me, they found dried m#ri=u#n# le#ves5 Arut# $#s then brought to the 9A0%OM office for investig#tion. ISSUE# >hether or not the conducted se#rch #nd seiCure is constitution#l. HELD# )he S% ruled in f#vor of Arut# #nd h#s noted th#t some drug tr#ffic8ers #re being freed due to technic#lities. Arut# c#nnot be s#id to be committing # crime. 9either $#s she #bout to commit one nor h#d she =ust committed # crime. Arut# $#s merely crossing the street #nd $#s not #cting in #ny m#nner th#t $ould engender # re#son#ble ground for the 9A0%OM #gents to sus ect #nd conclude th#t she $#s committing # crime. "t $#s only $hen the inform#nt ointed to Arut# #nd identified her to the #gents #s the c#rrier of the m#ri=u#n# th#t she $#s singled out #s the sus ect. )he 9A0%OM #gents $ould not h#ve # rehended Arut# $ere it not for the furtive finger of the inform#nt bec#use, #s cle#rly illustr#ted by the evidence on record, there $#s no re#son $h#tsoever for them to sus ect th#t #ccusedE# ell#nt $#s committing # crime, e/ce t for the ointing finger of the inform#nt. )he S% could neither s#nction nor toler#te #s it is # cle#r viol#tion of the constitution#l gu#r#ntee #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rch #nd seiCure. 9either $#s there #ny sembl#nce of #ny com li#nce $ith the rigid re;uirements of rob#ble c#use #nd $#rr#ntless #rrests. %onse;uently, there $#s no leg#l b#sis for the 9A0%OM #gents to effect # $#rr#ntless se#rch of Arut#4s b#g, there being no rob#ble c#use #nd the #ccusedE# ell#nt not h#ving been l#$fully #rrested. St#ted other$ise, the #rrest being inci iently illeg#l, it logic#lly follo$s th#t the subse;uent se#rch $#s simil#rly illeg#l, it being not incident#l to # l#$ful #rrest. )he constitution#l gu#r#ntee #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rch #nd seiCure must erforce o er#te in f#vor of #ccusedE# ell#nt. As such, the #rticles seiCed could not be used #s evidence #g#inst #ccusedE# ell#nt for these #re Gfruits of #
oisoned treeH #nd, therefore, must be re=ected, ursu#nt to Article """, Sec. 7A*3 of the %onstitution. +!o4 ! v. Aminn$%in Fa"ts# "del Aminnudin, #ccusedE# ell#nt $#s #rrested on June *1, 19.D, shortly #fter disemb#r8ing from the M-, >ilcon 9 #t #bout .27Bin the evening, in "loilo %ity. )he P% officers $ho $ere in f#ct $#iting for him bec#use of # ti from one their informers sim ly #ccosted him, ins ected his b#g #nd finding $h#t loo8ed li8ed m#ri=u#n# le#ves too8 him to their he#d;u#rters for investig#tion. )he t$o bundles of sus ect #rticles $ere confisc#ted from him #nd l#ter t#8en to the 9@" l#bor#tory for e/#min#tion. "t $#s found to cont#in three 8ilos of $h#t $ere l#ter #n#lyCed #s m#ri=u#n# le#ves by #n 9@" forensic e/#miner. An inform#tion for viol#tion of the D#ngerous Drugs Act $#s filed #g#inst him. '#ter, the inform#tion $#s #mended to include F#rid# Ali y ?#ssen, $ho h#d #lso been #rrested $ith him th#t s#me evening #nd li8e$ise investig#ted. @oth $ere #rr#igned #nd le#ded not guilty. Subse;uently, the fisc#l filed # motion to dismiss the ch#rge #g#inst Ali on the b#sis of # s$orn st#tement of the #rresting officers #bsolving her #fter # !thorough investig#tion.( )he motion $#s gr#nted, #nd tri#l roceeded only #g#inst the #ccusedE# ell#nt, $ho $#s eventu#lly convicted . "n his defense, Aminnudin discl#imed them#ri=u#n#, #verring th#t #ll he h#d in his b#g $#s his clothing consisting of # =#c8et, t$o shirts #nd t$o #irs of #nts. ?e #lleged th#t he $#s #rbitr#rily #rrested #nd immedi#tely h#ndcuffed. ?is b#g $#s confisc#ted $ithout # se#rch $#rr#nt. At the P% he#d;u#rters, he $#s m#nh#ndled to force him to #dmit he $#s c#rrying the m#ri=u#n#, the investig#tor hitting him $ith # iece of $ood in the chest #nd #rms even #s he #rried the blo$s $hile he $#s still h#ndcuffed. ?e insisted he did not even 8no$ $h#t m#ri=u#n# loo8ed li8e #nd th#t his business$#s selling $#tches #nd sometimes cig#rettes. ?o$ever the 0)% re=ected his #lleg#tions. S#ying th#t he only h#s t$o $#tches during th#t time #nd th#t he did not sufficiently roved the in=uries #llegedly sust#ined.
46
Iss$!# >hether or not se#rch of defend#nt4s b#g is leg#l. H! %# )he se#rch $#s illeg#l. Defend#nt $#s not c#ught in fl#gr#nte delicto, $hich could #llo$ $#rr#ntless #rrest or se#rch. At the moment of his #rrest, he $#s not committing # crime. 9or $#s he #bout to do so or h#d =ust done so. )o #ll # e#r#nces, he $#s li8e #ny of the other #ssengers innocently disemb#r8ing from the vessel. )he s#idm#ri=u#n# therefore could not be # reci#ted #s evidence #g#inst the defend#nt, #nd furthermore he is #c;uitted of the crime #s ch#rged. +!o4 ! v. /a mst!%t FACTS# Accused is # S$edish n#tion#l #rrested for c#rrying ?#shish, # form of m#ri=u#n# during # 9A0%OM ins ection. ?e $#s tried #nd found guilty in viol#tion of D#ngerous Drugs Act. ?e contends th#t the #rrest $#s illeg#l $ithout the se#rch $#rr#nt. ISSUE# >hether or not the #rrest m#de $#s illeg#l in the #bsence of # se#rch $#rr#nt. HELD# 9A0%OM o er#tion $#s conducted $ith # rob#ble c#use for # $#rr#ntless se#rch u on inform#tion th#t rohibited drugs #re in the ossession of the #ccused #nd he f#iled to immedi#tely resent his #ss ort. A $#rr#ntless #rrest m#y be l#$fully m#de2
A#3 $hen, in his resence, the erson to be #rrested h#s committed is #ctu#lly committing, or is #ttem ting to commit #n offense5 Ab3 >hen #n offense h#s in f#ct =ust been committed, #nd he h#s erson#l 8no$ledge of f#cts indic#ting th#t the erson to be #rrested h#s committed it5 #nd Ac3 >hen the erson to be #rrested is # risoner $ho h#s esc# ed from # en#l est#blishment or l#ce $here he is serving fin#l =udgment or tem or#rily confined $hile his c#se is ending, or h#s esc# ed $hile being tr#nsferred from one confinement to #nother. +!o4 ! v. /$sa Fa"ts# A civili#n informer g#ve the inform#tion th#t M#ri Mus# $#s eng#ged in selling m#ri=u#n# in Suterville, P#mbo#ng# %ity. Sgt. Ani $#s ordered by 9A0%OM le#der )-Sgt. @el#rg#, to conduct # surveill#nce #nd test buy on Mus#. )he civili#n informer guided Ani to Mus#!s house #nd g#ve the descri tion of Mus#. Ani $#s #ble to buy one ne$s # erE$r# ed dried m#ri=u#n# for P1B.BB. )he ne/t d#y, # buyEbust $#s l#nned. Ani $#s to r#ise his right h#nd if he successfully buys m#ri=u#n# from Mus#. As Ani roceeded to the house, the 9A0%OM te#m ositioned themselves #bout 9B to 1BB meters #$#y. From his osition, @el#rg# could see $h#t $#s going on. Mus# c#me out of the house #nd #s8ed Ani $h#t he $#nted. Ani s#id he $#nted more m#ri=u#n# #nd g#ve Mus# the P*B.BB m#r8ed money. Mus# $ent into the house #nd c#me b#c8, giving Ani t$o ne$s # er $r# ers cont#ining dried m#ri=u#n#. Ani o ened #nd ins ected it. ?e r#ised his right h#nd #s # sign#l to the other 9A0%OM #gents, #nd the l#tter moved in #nd #rrested Mus# inside the house. @el#rg# fris8ed Mus# in the living room but did not find the m#r8ed money Ag#ve it to his $ife $ho sli ed #$#y3. )-Sgt. @el#rg# #nd Sgt. 'ego $ent to the 8itchen #nd found # !cello h#ne colored $hite #nd stri e h#nging #t the corner of the 8itchen.! )hey #s8ed Mus# #bout its contents but f#iled to get # res onse. So they
47
o ened it #nd found dried m#ri=u#n# le#ves inside. Mus# $#s then l#ced under #rrest. Iss$!2 >hether or 9ot the seiCure of the l#stic b#g #nd the m#ri=u#n# inside it is unre#son#ble, hence, in#dmissible #s evidence. H! %# Les. "t constituted unre#son#ble se#rch #nd seiCure thus it m#y not be #dmitted #s evidence. )he $#rr#ntless se#rch #nd seiCure, #s #n incident to # sus ect!s l#$ful #rrest, m#y e/tend beyond the erson of the one #rrested to include the remises or surroundings under his immedi#te control. Ob=ects in the ! l#in vie$! of #n officer $ho h#s the right to be in the osition to h#ve th#t vie$ #re sub=ect to seiCure #nd m#y be resented #s evidence. )he ! l#in vie$! doctrine is usu#lly # lied $here # olice officer is not se#rching for evidence #g#inst the #ccused, but nonetheless in#dvertently comes #cross #n incrimin#ting ob=ect. "t $ill not =ustify the seiCure of the ob=ect $here the incrimin#ting n#ture of the ob=ect is not # #rent from the ! l#in vie$! of the ob=ect. "n the c#se #t b#r, the l#stic b#g $#s not in the ! l#in vie$! of the olice. )hey #rrested the #ccused in the living room #nd moved into the 8itchen in se#rch for other evidences $here they found the l#stic b#g. Furthermore, the m#ri=u#n# inside the l#stic b#g $#s not immedi#tely # #rent from the ! l#in vie$! of s#id ob=ect. )herefore, the ! l#in vie$! does not # ly. )he l#stic b#g $#s seiCed illeg#lly #nd c#nnot be resented in evidence ursu#nt to Article """ Section 7 A*3 of the %onstitution. 9a mont! v. D! 9i a Fa"ts# On 1-*B-.6, the 9%0D% $#s #ctiv#ted $- the mission of conducting security o er#tions $-in its #re# or res onsibility #nd eri her#l
#re#s, for the ur ose of est#blishing #n effective territori#l defense, m#int#ining e#ce #nd order, #nd roviding #n #tmos here conducive to the soci#l, economic #nd olitic#l dev!!t of the 9%0. As #rt of its duty to m#it#in e#ce #nd order, the 9%0D% inst#lled chec8 oints in v#rious #rts of ,#lenCuel# #nd MM. Petitioners #ver th#t, bec. of the institution of s#id chec8 oints, the ,#lenCuel# residents #re $orried of being h#r#ssed #nd of their s#rety being l#ced #t the #rbitr#ry, c# ricious #nd $himsic#l dis osition of the milit#ry m#nning the chec8 oints, considering th#t their c#rs #nd vehicles #re being sub=ected to regul#r se#rches #nd chec8Eu s, es eci#lly #t night or #t d#$n, $-o # S> #nd- or court order. )heir #lleged fe#r for their s#fety incre#sed $hen @en=#min P#r on, $#s gunned do$n #llegedly in cold blood by members of the 9%0D% for ignoring #nd- or continuing to s eed off ins ite of $#rning shots fired in the #ir. Iss$!# >hether or not the concerns of the etitioners #re sufficient to decl#re the chec8 oints illeg#l H! %# Petitioner!s concern for their s#fety #nd # rehension #t being h#r#ssed by the milit#ry m#nning the chec8 oints #re not sufficient grounds to decl#re the chec8 oints er se, illeg#l. 9o roof h#s been resented before the %ourt to sho$ th#t, in the course of their routine chec8s, the milit#ry, indeed, committed s ecific viol#tions of etitioners!! rights #g#inst unl#$ful se#rch #nd seiCure of other rights. )he constitution#l right #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCures is # erson#l right invoc#ble only by those $hose rights h#ve been infringed, or thre#tened to be infringed. icrosoft (or). v. "#A$A%LA&LE a*icor) %nc. +Se)t. 1,- 2../0
+!o4 ! v. /a*i'! Lagman an% 7!ng Wa S)$i
48
Fa"ts# On # e#l is the %A Decision #ffirming th#t of the 0)% of Angeles %ity, P#m #ng#, @r#nch 19 convicting Peng ># Shui APeng3 #li#s GAle/ %h#n,H #nd M#ribel '#gm#n AM#ribel3 of viol#tion of 0.A. 6D*1 AD#ngerous Drugs Act3, #s #mended by 0.A. 6619. ,//0 1anuar# E from the surveill#nce conducted by 9@" #gents of # iggery f#rm in Por#c, it $#s g#thered th#t three %hinese n#tion#ls, n#mely Peng ># Shui APeng3, 'i >ien Shien A'i3 #nd Jo=o J#n AJ#n3 occu ied the f#rm, #nd M#ribel fre;uented the l#ce $hile Peng #nd 'iu $ould go over to her rented house in @#lib#go, Angeles %ity. ,//0 2arc% ,3 K in the e#rly morning, t$o 9@" te#ms, #rmed $ith se#rch $#rr#nts, simult#neously r#ided the Por#c f#rm #nd the @#lib#go residence. )he se#rch of the f#rm, covered by Se#rch >#rr#nt 9o. 96E1B*, yielded no erson therein or #ny tellEt#le evidence th#t it $#s being used #s # sh#bu l#bor#tory. Only igs in their ens, #nd t$o A*3 cont#iners or drums the contents of $hich $hen fieldEtested onEtheEs ot by 9@" chemist J#nu#rio @#utist# turned out to be #cetone #nd ethyl, $ere found. )he le#der #nd members of the r#iding te#m thereu on brought their vehicles inside the f#rm #nd closed its g#tes, e/ ecting th#t the sus ected o er#tors $ould #rrive. At #round 1*2BB noon, Peng #rrived #t the f#rm on bo#rd #n 'E7BB Mitsubishi v#n be#ring # blue drum cont#ining li;uid $hich, $hen fieldEtested on the s ot #lso by 9@" %hemist @#utist#, $#s found ositive for sh#bu. Iss$!# >hether or not the se#rch #nd seiCure m#de on the v#n driven by Peng is v#lid. H! %# L&S, the se#rch #nd seiCure m#de on the v#n driven by Peng is v#lid. "t f#lls $ithin the urvie$ of the G l#in vie$H doctrine.
Ob=ects fallin) in plain !ie4 of #n officer $ho h#s # right to be in # osition to h#ve th#t vie$ #re sub=ect to seiCure even $ithout # se#rch $#rr#nt #nd m#y be introduced in evidence. )he ! l#in vie$! doctrine # lies $hen the follo$ing re;uisites concur2 #3 the l#$ enforcement officer in se#rch of the evidence h#s # rior =ustific#tion for #n intrusion or is in # osition from $hich he c#n vie$ # #rticul#r #re#5 b3 the discovery of evidence in l#in vie$ is in#dvertent5 c3 it is immedi#tely # #rent to the officer th#t the item he observes m#y be evidence of # crime, contr#b#nd or other$ise sub=ect to seiCure. )he l#$ enforcement officer must l#$fully m#8e #n initi#l intrusion or ro erly be in # osition from $hich he c#n #rticul#rly vie$ the #re#. "n the course of such l#$ful intrusion, he c#me in#dvertently #cross # iece of evidence incrimin#ting the #ccused. )he ob=ect must be o en to eye #nd h#nd #nd its discovery in#dvertent. Se#rch >#rr#nt 9o. 96E1B* n#med Peng, #.8.#. (Ale/ %h#n,( #s one of the sub=ects thereof. >hen he #rrived in his 'E7BB v#n #t the iggery during the 9@"4s st#8eout, he c#me $ithin the #re# of the se#rch. )he drum #lleged to h#ve cont#ined the meth#m het#mine $#s l#ced in the open bac5 of the v#n, hence, o en to the eye #nd h#nd of the 9@" #gents. )he li;uidEfilled drum $#s thus $ithin the l#in vie$ of the 9@" #gents, hence, # roduct of # leg#l se#rch. S!"*!ta*, O- Nationa D!-!ns! 9. /ana o Fa"ts# @rothers 0#ymond #nd 0eyn#ldo M#n#lo $ere #bducted by milit#ry men belonging to the %AFJ< on the sus icion th#t they $ere members #nd su orters of the 9PA. After 1. months of detention #nd torture, the brothers esc# ed on August 17, *BB6. )en d#ys #fter their esc# e, they filed # Petition for Prohibition, "n=unction, #nd )em or#ry 0estr#ining Order to sto the milit#ry officers #nd #gents from de riving them of their right to liberty #nd other b#sic rights. >hile the s#id c#se $#s ending, the 0ule on the
49
>rit of Am #ro too8 effect on October *D, *BB6. )he M#n#los subse;uently filed # m#nifest#tion #nd omnibus motion to tre#t their e/isting etition #s #m #ro etition. On December *6, *BB6, the %ourt of A e#ls gr#nted the rivilege of the $rit of #m #ro. )he %A ordered the Secret#ry of 9#tion#l Defense #nd the %hief of St#ff of the AFP to furnish the M#n#los #nd the court $ith #ll offici#l #nd unoffici#l investig#tion re orts #s to the M#n#los4 custody, confirm the resent l#ces of offici#l #ssignment of t$o milit#ry offici#ls involved, #nd roduce #ll medic#l re orts #nd records of the M#n#lo brothers $hile under milit#ry custody. )he Secret#ry of 9#tion#l Defense #nd the %hief of St#ff of the AFP # e#led to the S% see8ing to reverse #nd set #side the decision romulg#ted by the %A. Iss$!# >hether or not the contention of the etitioner is correct H! %# "n u holding the %A decision, the Su reme %ourt ruled th#t there is # continuing viol#tion of the M#n#los right to security. /// )he >rit of Am #ro is the most otent remedy #v#il#ble to #ny erson $hose right to life, liberty, #nd security h#s been viol#ted or is thre#tened $ith viol#tion by #n unl#$ful #ct or omission by ublic offici#ls or em loyees #nd by riv#te individu#ls or entities. /// <nderst#nd#bly, since their esc# e, the M#n#los h#ve been under conce#lment #nd rotection by riv#te citiCens bec#use of the thre#t to their life, liberty, #nd security. )he circumst#nces of res ondents4 #bduction, detention, torture #nd esc# e re#son#bly su ort # conclusion th#t there is #n # #rent thre#t th#t they $ill #g#in be #bducted, tortured, #nd this time, even e/ecuted. )hese constitute thre#ts to their liberty, security, #nd life, #ction#ble through # etition for # $rit of #m #ro,H the %ourt e/ l#ined. Section , -- Privac1 of (o22unications and (orres)ondence
3a2irez v. (ourt of A))eals and 4arcia "#A$A%LA&LE 7$ $!ta v. CA Fa"ts# )his is # etition to revie$ the decision of the %ourt of A e#ls, #ffirming the decision of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt of M#nil# A@r#nch +3 $hich ordered etitioner to return documents #nd # ers t#8en by her from riv#te res ondent!s clinic $ithout the l#tter!s 8no$ledge #nd consent. Petitioner %ecili# Puluet# is the $ife of riv#te res ondent Alfredo M#rtin. On M#rch *6, 19.*, etitioner entered the clinic of her husb#nd, # doctor of medicine, #nd in the resence of her mother, # driver #nd riv#te res ondent!s secret#ry, forcibly o ened the dr#$ers #nd c#binet in her husb#nd!s clinic #nd too8 116 documents consisting of riv#te corres ondence bet$een Dr. M#rtin #nd his #lleged #r#mours, greetings c#rds, c#ncelled chec8s, di#ries, Dr. M#rtin!s #ss ort, #nd hotogr# hs. )he documents #nd # ers $ere seiCed for use in evidence in # c#se for leg#l se #r#tion #nd for dis;u#lific#tion from the r#ctice of medicine $hich etitioner h#d filed #g#inst her husb#nd. Iss$!# >hether or not the documents #nd # ers in ;uestion #re in#dmissible in evidence5 H! %# 9o. "ndeed the documents #nd # ers in ;uestion #re in#dmissible in evidence. )he constitution#l in=unction decl#ring (the riv#cy of communic#tion #nd corres ondence Wto beX inviol#ble( is no less # lic#ble sim ly bec#use it is the $ife A$ho thin8s herself #ggrieved by her husb#nd!s infidelity3 $ho is the #rty #g#inst $hom the constitution#l rovision is to be enforced. )he only e/ce tion to the rohibition in the %onstitution is if there is # (l#$ful order Wfrom #X
50
court or $hen ublic s#fety or order re;uires other$ise, #s rescribed by l#$.( Any viol#tion of this rovision renders the evidence obt#ined in#dmissible (for #ny ur ose in #ny roceeding.( )he intim#cies bet$een husb#nd #nd $ife do not =ustify #ny one of them in bre#8ing the dr#$ers #nd c#binets of the other #nd in r#ns#c8ing them for #ny tellt#le evidence of m#rit#l infidelity. A erson, by contr#cting m#rri#ge, does not shed his-her integrity or his right to riv#cy #s #n individu#l #nd the constitution#l rotection is ever #v#il#ble to him or to her. )he l#$ insures #bsolute freedom of communic#tion bet$een the s ouses by m#8ing it rivileged. 9either husb#nd nor $ife m#y testify for or #g#inst the other $ithout the consent of the #ffected s ouse $hile the m#rri#ge subsists. 9either m#y be e/#mined $ithout the consent of the other #s to #ny communic#tion received in confidence by one from the other during the m#rri#ge, s#ve for s ecified e/ce tions. @ut one thing is freedom of communic#tion5 ;uite #nother is # com ulsion for e#ch one to sh#re $h#t one 8no$s $ith the other. And this h#s nothing to do $ith the duty of fidelity th#t e#ch o$es to the other. 9#v#rro v. %ourt of A e#ls A717 S%0A 117 WAugust *6, 1999X3 Section / -- Freedo2 of E*)ression and Asse25l1 and Petition Freedo2 of E*)ression Nationa +*!ss C $' v. Com! !" Fa"ts# Petitioners in these c#ses consist of re resent#tives of the m#ss medi# $hich #re revented from selling or don#ting s #ce #nd time for olitic#l #dvertisements5 t$o A*3 individu#ls $ho #re c#ndid#tes for office Aone for n#tion#l #nd the other for rovinci#l office3 in the coming M#y 199* elections5 #nd t#/ #yers #nd voters $ho cl#im th#t their right to be informed of election "ssue #nd of credenti#ls of the c#ndid#tes is being curt#iled. "t is rinci #lly #rgued by etitioners th#t Section 11 Ab3 of 0e ublic Act 9o. 66D61 inv#des #nd viol#tes the constitution#l gu#r#ntees com rising freedom of e/ ression.
Petitioners m#int#in th#t the rohibition im osed by Section 11 Ab3 #mounts to censorshi , bec#use it selects #nd singles out for su ression #nd re ression $ith crimin#l s#nctions, only ublic#tions of # #rticul#r content, n#mely, medi#Eb#sed election or olitic#l ro #g#nd# during the election eriod of 199*. "t is #sserted th#t the rohibition is in derog#tion of medi#!s role, function #nd duty to rovide #de;u#te ch#nnels of ublic inform#tion #nd ublic o inion relev#nt to election "ssue. Further, etitioners contend th#t Section 11 Ab3 #bridges the freedom of s eech of c#ndid#tes, #nd th#t the su ression of medi#Eb#sed c#m #ign or olitic#l ro #g#nd# e/ce t those # e#ring in the %omelec s #ce of the ne$s # ers #nd on %omelec time of r#dio #nd television bro#dc#sts, $ould bring #bout # subst#nti#l reduction in the ;u#ntity or volume of inform#tion concerning c#ndid#tes #nd "ssue in the election thereby curt#iling #nd limiting the right of voters to inform#tion #nd o inion. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot Section 11 Ab3 of 0e ublic Act 9o. 66D6 constitution#l. H! %# Les. "t seems # modest ro osition th#t the rovision of the @ill of 0ights $hich enshrines freedom of s eech, freedom of e/ ression #nd freedom of the ress h#s to be t#8en in con=unction $ith Article "+ A%3 AD3 $hich m#y be seen to be # s eci#l rovision # lic#ble during # s ecific limited eriod Q ie, (during the election eriod.( "n our o$n society, e;u#lity of o ortunity to roffer oneself for ublic office, $ithout reg#rd to the level of fin#nci#l resources th#t one m#y h#ve #t one!s dis os#l, is cle#rly #n im ort#nt v#lue. One of the b#sic st#te olicies given constitution#l r#n8 by Article "", Section *6 of the %onstitution is the eg#lit#ri#n dem#nd th#t (the St#te sh#ll gu#r#ntee e;u#l #ccess to o ortunities for ublic service #nd rohibit olitic#l dyn#sties #s m#y be defined by l#$.( )he essenti#l ;uestion is $hether or not the #ss#iled legisl#tive or #dministr#tive rovisions constitute # ermissible e/ercise of the o$er of su ervision or regul#tion of the o er#tions of communic#tion #nd inform#tion enter rises during #n election eriod, or $hether such
51
#ct h#s gone beyond ermissible su ervision or regul#tion of medi# o er#tions so #s to constitute unconstitution#l re ression of freedom of s eech #nd freedom of the ress. )he %ourt considers th#t Section 11 Ab3 h#s not gone outside the ermissible bounds of su ervision or regul#tion of medi# o er#tions during election eriods. Section 11 Ab3 is limited in the dur#tion of its # lic#bility #nd enforce#bility. @y virtue of the o er#tion of Article "+ A%3 AD3 of the %onstitution, Section 11 Ab3 is limited in its # lic#bility in time to election eriods. Section 11 Ab3 does not ur ort in #ny $#y to restrict the re orting by ne$s # ers or r#dio or television st#tions of ne$s or ne$sE$orthy events rel#ting to c#ndid#tes, their ;u#lific#tions, olitic#l #rties #nd rogr#ms of government. Moreover, Section 11 Ab3 does not re#ch comment#ries #nd e/ ressions of belief or o inion by re orters or bro#dc#sters or editors or comment#tors or columnists in res ect of c#ndid#tes, their ;u#lific#tions, #nd rogr#ms #nd so forth, so long #t le#st #s such comments, o inions #nd beliefs #re not in f#ct #dvertisements for #rticul#r c#ndid#tes covertly #id for. "n sum, Section 11 Ab3 is not to be re#d #s re#ching #ny re ort or comment#ry other cover#ge th#t, in res onsible medi#, is not #id for by c#ndid#tes for olitic#l office. Section 11 Ab3 #s designed to cover only #id olitic#l #dvertisements of #rticul#r c#ndid#tes. )he limiting im #ct of Section 11 Ab3 u on the right to free s eech of the c#ndid#tes themselves is not unduly re ressive or unre#son#ble. A%iong v. Com! !" Fa"ts# %OM&'&% romulg#ted 0esolution 9o. *7D6 $hich rovides th#t dec#ls #nd stic8ers m#y be osted only in #ny of the #uthoriCed osting #re#s, rohibiting osting in (mobile( l#ces, ublic or riv#te. Petitioner @lo <m #r Adiong, # sen#tori#l c#ndid#te in the M#y 11, 199* elections no$ #ss#ils the 0esolution. "n #ddition, the etitioner believes th#t $ith the b#n on r#dio, television #nd rint olitic#l #dvertisements, he, being # neo hyte in the field of olitics st#nds to suffer gr#ve #nd irre #r#ble in=ury $ith this rohibition.
Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the %OM&'&%!s rohibition unconstitution#l. H! %# )he rohibition unduly infringes on the citiCen!s fund#ment#l right of free s eech. )he referred freedom of e/ ression c#lls #ll the more for the utmost res ect $hen $h#t m#y be curt#iled is the dissemin#tion of inform#tion to m#8e more me#ningful the e;u#lly vit#l right of suffr#ge. )he soEc#lled b#l#ncing of interests Q individu#l freedom on one h#nd #nd subst#nti#l ublic interests on the other Q is m#de even more difficult in election c#m #ign c#ses bec#use the %onstitution #lso gives s ecific #uthority to the %ommission on &lections to su ervise the conduct of free, honest, #nd orderly elections. >hen f#ced $ith border line situ#tions $here freedom to s e#8 by # c#ndid#te or #rty #nd freedom to 8no$ on the #rt of the elector#te #re invo8ed #g#inst #ctions intended for m#int#ining cle#n #nd free elections, the olice, loc#l offici#ls #nd %OM&'&%, should le#n in f#vor of freedom. )he regul#tion of election c#m #ign #ctivity m#y not #ss the test of v#lidity if it is too gener#l in its terms or not limited in time #nd sco e in its # lic#tion, if it restricts one!s e/ ression of belief in # c#ndid#te or one!s o inion of his or her ;u#lific#tions, if it cuts off the flo$ of medi# re orting, #nd if the regul#tory me#sure be#rs no cle#r #nd re#son#ble ne/us $ith the constitution#lly s#nctioned ob=ective. )he osting of dec#ls #nd stic8ers in mobile l#ces li8e c#rs #nd other moving vehicles does not end#nger #ny subst#nti#l government interest. )here is no cle#r ublic interest thre#tened by such #ctivity so #s to =ustify the curt#ilment of the cherished citiCen!s right of free s eech #nd e/ ression. <nder the cle#r #nd resent d#nger rule not only must the d#nger be #tently cle#r #nd ressingly resent but the evil sought to be #voided must be so subst#ntive #s to =ustify # cl#m over one!s mouth or # $riting instrument to be stilled. )he regul#tion stri8es #t the freedom of #n individu#l to e/ ress his reference #nd, by dis l#ying it on his c#r, to convince others to #gree $ith him. A stic8er m#y be furnished by #
52
c#ndid#te but once the c#r o$ner #grees to h#ve it l#ced on his riv#te vehicle, the e/ ression becomes # st#tement by the o$ner, rim#rily his o$n #nd not of #nybody else. )he restriction #s to $here the dec#ls #nd stic8ers should be osted is so bro#d th#t it encom #sses even the citiCen!s riv#te ro erty, $hich in this c#se is # riv#telyEo$ned vehicle. "n conse;uence of this rohibition, #nother c#rdin#l rule rescribed by the %onstitution $ould be viol#ted. Section 1, Article """ of the @ill of 0ights rovides th#t no erson sh#ll be de rived of his ro erty $ithout due rocess of l#$. )he rohibition on osting of dec#ls #nd stic8ers on (mobile( l#ces $hether ublic or riv#te e/ce t in the #uthoriCed #re#s design#ted by the %OM&'&% becomes censorshi . Ig !sia ni. C*isto v. CA Fa"ts# Petitioner h#s # television rogr#m entitled (Ang "glesi# ni %risto( #ired on %h#nnel * every S#turd#y #nd on %h#nnel 17 every Sund#y. )he rogr#m resents #nd ro #g#tes etitioner!s religious beliefs, doctrines #nd r#ctices often times in com #r#tive studies $ith other religions. Petitioner submitted to the res ondent @o#rd of 0evie$ for Moving Pictures #nd )elevision the ,)0 t# es of its ), rogr#m Series 9os. 116, 119, 1*1 #nd 1*.. )he @o#rd cl#ssified the series #s (+( or not for ublic vie$ing on the ground th#t they (offend #nd constitute #n #tt#c8 #g#inst other religions $hich is e/ ressly rohibited by l#$.( On 9ovember *., 199*, it # e#led to the Office of the President the cl#ssific#tion of its ), Series 9o. 1*. $hich #llo$ed it through # letter of former &/ecutive Secret#ry &delmiro A. Am#nte, Sr., #ddressed for ?enriett# S. MendeC reversing the decision of the res ondent @o#rd. According to the letter the e isode in is rotected by the constitution#l gu#r#ntee of free s eech #nd e/ ression #nd no indic#tion th#t the e isode oses #ny cle#r #nd resent d#nger. Petitioner #lso filed %ivil %#se. Petitioner #lleged th#t the res ondent @o#rd #cted $ithout =urisdiction or $ith gr#ve #buse of discretion in re;uiring etitioner to submit the ,)0 t# es of its ), rogr#m #nd in /Er#ting them. "t cited its ), Progr#m Series 9os. 111, 119, 1*1 #nd 1*.. "n their Ans$er,
res ondent @o#rd invo8ed its o$er under PD 9o. 19.61 in rel#tion to Article *B1 of the 0evised Pen#l %ode. )he "glesi# ni %risto insists on the liter#l tr#nsl#tion of the bible #nd s#ys th#t our A%#tholic3 vener#tion of the ,irgin M#ry is not to be condoned bec#use no$here it is found in the bible. )he bo#rd contended th#t it outr#ges %#tholic #nd Protest#nt!s beliefs. 0)% ruled in f#vor of etitioners. %A ho$ever reversed it hence this etition. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the (#ng iglesi# ni cristo( rogr#m is not constitution#lly rotected #s # form of religious e/ercise #nd e/ ression. H! %# Les. Any #ct th#t restr#ins s eech is #ccom #nied $ith resum tion of inv#lidity. "t is the burden of the res ondent @o#rd to overthro$ this resum tion. "f it f#ils to disch#rge this burden, its #ct of censorshi $ill be struc8 do$n. )his is true in this c#se. SoEc#lled (#tt#c8s( #re mere criticisms of some of the dee ly held dogm#s #nd tenets of other religions. 0)%!s ruling cle#rly su resses etitioner!s freedom of s eech #nd interferes $ith its right to free e/ercise of religion. G#tt#c8H is different from GoffendH #ny r#ce or religion. )he res ondent @o#rd m#y dis#gree $ith the criticisms of other religions by etitioner but th#t gives it no e/cuse to interdict such criticisms, ho$ever, uncle#n they m#y be. <nder our constitution#l scheme, it is not the t#s8 of the St#te to f#vor #ny religion by rotecting it #g#inst #n #tt#c8 by #nother religion. 0eligious dogm#s #nd beliefs #re often #t $#r #nd to reserve e#ce #mong their follo$ers, es eci#lly the f#n#tics, the est#blishment cl#use of freedom of religion rohibits the St#te from le#ning to$#rds #ny religion. 0es ondent bo#rd c#nnot censor the s eech of etitioner "glesi# ni %risto sim ly bec#use it #tt#c8s other religions, even if s#id religion h# ens to be the most numerous church in our country. )he b#sis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought #nd it is best served by encour#ging the m#r8et l#ce of dueling ide#s. "t is only $here it is un#void#bly necess#ry to revent #n immedi#te #nd gr#ve d#nger to the security #nd $elf#re of the community th#t infringement of religious freedom
53
m#y be =ustified, #nd only to the sm#llest e/tent necess#ry to #void the d#nger. )here is no sho$ing $h#tsoever of the ty e of h#rm the t# es $ill bring #bout es eci#lly the gr#vity #nd imminence of the thre#tened h#rm. Prior restr#int on s eech, including religious s eech, c#nnot be =ustified by hy othetic#l fe#rs but only by the sho$ing of # subst#ntive #nd imminent evil. "t is in# ro ri#te to # ly the cle#r #nd resent d#nger test to the c#se #t b#r bec#use the issue involves the content of s eech #nd not the time, l#ce or m#nner of s eech. Allegedly, unless the s eech is first #llo$ed, its im #ct c#nnot be me#sured, #nd the c#us#l connection bet$een the s eech #nd the evil # rehended c#nnot be est#blished. )he determin#tion of the ;uestion #s to $hether or not such vilific#tion, e/#gger#tion or f#bric#tion f#lls $ithin or lies outside the bound#ries of rotected s eech or e/ ression is # =udici#l function $hich c#nnot be #rrog#ted by #n #dministr#tive body such #s # @o#rd of %ensors.( A system of rior restr#int m#y only be v#lidly #dministered by =udges #nd not left to #dministr#tive #gencies. /i*iam Co !g! Fo$n%ation( In". vs. CA Fa"ts2 )he members of the editori#l bo#rd of the Miri#m %ollege Found#tion4s school # er $ere sub=ected to disci lin#ry s#nction by the %ollege Disci line %ommittee #fter letters of com l#int $ere filed before the @o#rd follo$ing the ublic#tion of the school # er th#t cont#ins obscene, vulg#r, #nd se/u#lly e/ licit contents. Prior to the disci lin#ry s#nction to the defend#nts they $ere re;uired to submit # $ritten st#tement to #ns$er the com l#ints #g#inst them to the Disci line %ommittee but the defend#nts, inste#d of doing so $rote to the %ommittee to tr#nsfer the c#se to the D&%S $hich they #lleged to h#ve the =urisdiction over the issue. Pushing through $ith the investig#tion e/ #rte the %ommittee found the defend#nts guilty #nd im osed u on them disci lin#ry s#nctions. Defend#nts filed before the court for rohibition $ith relimin#ry in=unction on s#id decision of the %ommittee ;uestioning the =urisdiction of s#id Disci line @o#rd over the defend#nts. Iss$!#
>O9 the Disci line @o#rd of Miri#m %ollege h#s =urisdiction over the defend#nts. H! %# )he court resolved the issue before it by loo8ing through the o$er of D&%S #nd the Disci lin#ry %ommittee in im osing s#nctions u on the defend#nts. Section 1 A*3, Article +", of the %onstitution gu#r#ntees #ll institutions of higher le#rning #c#demic freedom. )his institution#l #c#demic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its #ims #nd ob=ectives, #nd ho$ best to #tt#in them free from outside coercion or interference s#ve ossibly $hen the overriding ublic $elf#re c#lls for some restr#int. Such duty gives the institution the right to disci line its students #nd inculc#te u on them good v#lues, ide#ls #nd #ttitude. )he right of students to free s eech in school is not #l$#ys #bsolute. )he court u held the right of students for the freedom of e/ ression but it does not rule out disci lin#ry #ctions of the school on the conduct of their students. Further, Sec. 6 of the of the %#m us Journ#lism Act rovides th#t the school c#nnot sus end or e/ el # student solely on the b#sis of the #rticles they $rite &+%&P) $hen such #rticle m#teri#lly disru ts cl#ss $or8 of involve subst#nti#l disorder or inv#sion of the rights of others. )herefore the court ruled th#t the o$er of the school to investig#te is #n #d=unct of its o$er to sus end or e/ el. "t is # necess#ry coroll#ry to the enforcement of rules #nd regul#tions #nd the m#inten#nce of # s#fe #nd orderly educ#tion#l environment conducive to le#rning. )h#t o$er, li8e the o$er to sus end or e/ el, is #n inherent #rt of the #c#demic freedom of institutions of higher le#rning gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution. )he court held th#t Miri#m %ollege h#s the #uthority to he#r #nd decide the c#ses filed #g#inst res ondent students. US v. 6$stos Fa"ts# "n the l#tter #rt of 1911, numerous citiCens of the Province of P#m #ng# #ssembled, #nd re #red #nd signed # etition to the
54
&/ecutive Secret#ryA rivileged communic#tion3 through the l#$ office of %rossfield #nd O!@rien, #nd five individu#ls signed #ffid#vits, ch#rging 0om#n Puns#l#n, =ustice of the e#ce of M#c#bebe #nd M#s#ntol, P#m #ng#, $ith m#lfe#s#nce in office #nd #s8ing for his remov#l. )he s ecific ch#rges #g#inst the =ustice of the e#ce include the solicit#tion of money from ersons $ho h#ve ending c#ses before the =udge. 9o$, Puns#l#n #lleged th#t #ccused ublished # $riting $hich $#s f#lse, sc#nd#lous, m#licious, def#m#tory, #nd libelous #g#inst him. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot #ccused is entitled to constitution#l rotection by virtue of his right to free s eech #nd free ress. H! %# Les. )he gu#r#nties of # free s eech #nd # free ress include the right to criticiCe =udici#l conduct. )he #dministr#tion of the l#$ is # m#tter of vit#l ublic concern. >hether the l#$ is $isely or b#dly enforced is, therefore, # fit sub=ect for ro er comment. "f the eo le c#nnot criticiCe # =ustice of the e#ce or # =udge the s#me #s #ny other ublic officer, ublic o inion $ill be effectively su ressed. "t is # duty $hich every one o$es to society or to the St#te to #ssist in the investig#tion of #ny #lleged misconduct. "t is further the duty of #ll $ho 8no$ of #ny offici#l dereliction on the #rt of # m#gistr#te or the $rongful #ct of #ny ublic officer to bring the f#cts to the notice of those $hose duty it is to in;uire into #nd unish them. )he right to #ssemble #nd etition is the necess#ry conse;uence of re ublic#n institutions #nd the com lement of the #rt of free s eech. Assembly me#ns # right on the #rt of citiCens to meet e#ce#bly for consult#tion in res ect to ublic #ff#irs. Petition me#ns th#t #ny erson or grou of ersons c#n # ly, $ithout fe#r of en#lty, to the # ro ri#te br#nch or office of the government for # redress of griev#nces. )he ersons #ssembling #nd etitioning must, of course, #ssume res onsibility for the ch#rges m#de. All ersons h#ve #n interest in the ure #nd efficient #dministr#tion of =ustice #nd of ublic #ff#irs.
Public olicy, the $elf#re of society, #nd the orderly #dministr#tion of government h#ve dem#nded rotection for ublic o inion. )he inevit#ble #nd incontest#ble result h#s been the develo ment #nd #do tion of the doctrine of rivilege. All ersons h#ve #n interest in the ure #nd efficient #dministr#tion of =ustice #nd of ublic #ff#irs. )he duty under $hich # #rty is rivileged is sufficient if it is soci#l or mor#l in its n#ture #nd this erson in good f#ith believes he is #cting in ursu#nce thereof #lthough in f#ct he is mist#8en. Although the ch#rges #re rob#bly not true #s to the =ustice of the e#ce, they $ere believed to be true by the etitioners. Jood f#ith surrounded their #ction. Prob#ble c#use for them to thin8 th#t m#lfe#s#nce or misfe#s#nce in office e/isted is # #rent. )he ends #nd the motives of these citiCensQ to secure the remov#l from office of # erson thought to be ven#l Q $ere =ustifi#ble. "n no $#y did they #buse the rivilege. "n the usu#l c#se m#lice c#n be resumed from def#m#tory $ords. Privilege destroys th#t resum tion. A rivileged communic#tion should not be sub=ected to microsco ic e/#min#tion to discover grounds of m#lice or f#lsity. A,!* +*o%$"tions +T3 Lt%. v. Ca4$ ong Fa"ts# Petitioner Mc&lroy #n Austr#li#n film m#8er, #nd his movie roduction com #ny, Ayer Productions, envisioned, sometime in 19.6, for commerci#l vie$ing #nd for Phili ine #nd intern#tion#l rele#se, the historic e#ceful struggle of the Fili inos #t &DSA. )he ro osed motion icture entitled ()he Four D#y 0evolution( $#s endorsed by the M)0%@ #s #nd other government #gencies consulted. 0#mos #lso signified his # rov#l of the intended film roduction. "t is designed to be vie$ed in # si/Ehour miniEseries television l#y, resented in # (docuEdr#m#( style, cre#ting four fiction#l ch#r#cters inter$oven $ith re#l events, #nd utiliCing #ctu#l document#ry foot#ge #s b#c8ground. D#vid >illi#mson is Austr#li#!s le#ding l#y$right
55
#nd Professor Mc%oy A<niversity of 9e$ South >#les3 is #n Americ#n histori#n h#ve develo ed # scri t. &nrile decl#red th#t he $ill not # rove the use, # ro ri#tion, re roduction #nd-or e/hibition of his n#me, or icture, or th#t of #ny member of his f#mily in #ny cinem# or television roduction, film or other medium for #dvertising or commerci#l e/ loit#tion. etitioners #cceded to this dem#nd #nd the n#me of &nrile $#s deleted from the movie scri t, #nd etitioners roceeded to film the ro=ected motion icture. ?o$ever, # com l#int $#s filed by &nrile invo8ing his right to riv#cy. 0)% ordered for the desist#nce of the movie roduction #nd m#8ing of #ny reference to l#intiff or his f#mily #nd from cre#ting #ny fictitious ch#r#cter in lieu of l#intiff $hich nevertheless is b#sed on, or be#rs subst#nti#l or m#r8ed resembl#nce to &nrile. ?ence the # e#l. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot freedom of e/ ression $#s viol#ted. H! %# Les. Freedom of s eech #nd of e/ ression includes the freedom to film #nd roduce motion ictures #nd e/hibit such motion ictures in the#ters or to diffuse them through television. Furthermore the circumst#nce th#t the roduction of motion icture films is # commerci#l #ctivity e/ ected to yield monet#ry rofit, is not # dis;u#lific#tion for #v#iling of freedom of s eech #nd of e/ ression. )he ro=ected motion icture $#s #s yet uncom leted #nd hence not e/hibited to #ny #udience. 9either riv#te res ondent nor the res ondent tri#l Judge 8ne$ $h#t the com leted film $ould recisely loo8 li8e. )here $#s, in other $ords, no (cle#r #nd resent d#nger( of #ny viol#tion of #ny right to riv#cy. Sub=ect m#tter is one of ublic interest #nd concern. )he sub=ect thus rel#tes to # highly critic#l st#ge in the history of the country. At #ll relev#nt times, during $hich the momentous events, cle#rly of ublic concern, th#t etitioners ro ose to film $ere t#8ing l#ce,
&nrile $#s # ( ublic figure2( Such ublic figures $ere held to h#ve lost, to some e/tent #t le#st, their right to riv#cy. )he line of e;uilibrium in the s ecific conte/t of the inst#nt c#se bet$een the constitution#l freedom of s eech #nd of e/ ression #nd the right of riv#cy, m#y be m#r8ed out in terms of # re;uirement th#t the ro osed motion icture must be f#irly truthful #nd historic#l in its resent#tion of events. R!,!s v. 6agatsing Fa"ts# Petitioner sought # ermit from the %ity of M#nil# to hold # e#ceful m#rch #nd r#lly on October *6, 19.7 from *2BB to 12BB in the #fternoon, st#rting from the 'unet# to the g#tes of the <nited St#tes &mb#ssy. Once there, #nd in #n o en s #ce of ublic ro erty, # short rogr#m $ould be held. )he m#rch $ould be #ttended by the loc#l #nd foreign #rtici #nts of such conference. )h#t $ould be follo$ed by the h#nding over of # etition b#sed on the resolution #do ted #t the closing session of the AntiE@#ses %o#lition. )here $#s li8e$ise #n #ssur#nce in the etition th#t in the e/ercise of the constitution#l rights to free s eech #nd #ssembly, #ll the necess#ry ste s $ould be t#8en by it (to ensure # e#ceful m#rch #nd r#lly. ?o$ever the re;uest $#s denied. 0eference $#s m#de to ersistent intelligence re orts #ffirming the l#ns of subversive-crimin#l elements to infiltr#te or disru t #ny #ssembly or congreg#tions $here # l#rge number of eo le is e/ ected to #ttend. 0es ondent suggested th#t # ermit m#y be issued if it is to be held #t the 0iC#l %oliseum or #ny other enclosed #re# $here the s#fety of the #rtici #nts themselves #nd the gener#l ublic m#y be ensured. An or#l #rgument $#s he#rd #nd the m#nd#tory in=unction $#s gr#nted on the ground th#t there $#s no sho$ing of the e/istence of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger of # subst#ntive evil th#t could =ustify the deni#l of # ermit. ?o$ever Justice A;uino dissented th#t the r#lly is viol#tive of Ordin#nce 9o. 6*91 of the %ity of M#nil# rohibiting the holding of r#llies $ithin # r#dius of five hundred A1BB3 feet from #ny foreign mission or ch#ncery #nd for other ur oses. ?ence the %ourt resolves.
56
Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the freedom of e/ ression #nd the right to e#ce#bly #ssemble viol#ted. H! %# Les. )he invoc#tion of the right to freedom of e#ce#ble #ssembly c#rries $ith it the im lic#tion th#t the right to free s eech h#s li8e$ise been disreg#rded. "t is settled l#$ th#t #s to ublic l#ces, es eci#lly so #s to #r8s #nd streets, there is freedom of #ccess. 9or is their use de endent on $ho is the # lic#nt for the ermit, $hether #n individu#l or # grou . )here c#n be no leg#l ob=ection, #bsent the e/istence of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger of # subst#ntive evil, on the choice of 'unet# #s the l#ce $here the e#ce r#lly $ould st#rt. )ime immemori#l 'unet# h#s been used for ur oses of #ssembly, communic#ting thoughts bet$een citiCens, #nd discussing ublic ;uestions. Such use of the ublic l#ces h#s from #ncient times, been # #rt of the rivileges, immunities, rights, #nd liberties of citiCens. >ith reg#rd to the ordin#nce, there $#s no sho$ing th#t there $#s viol#tion #nd even if it could be sho$n th#t such # condition is s#tisfied it does not follo$ th#t res ondent could leg#lly #ct the $#y he did. )he v#lidity of his deni#l of the ermit sought could still be ch#llenged. A summ#ry of the # lic#tion for ermit for r#lly2 )he # lic#nts for # ermit to hold #n #ssembly should inform the licensing #uthority of the d#te, the ublic l#ce $here #nd the time $hen it $ill t#8e l#ce. "f it $ere # riv#te l#ce, only the consent of the o$ner or the one entitled to its leg#l ossession is re;uired. Such # lic#tion should be filed $ell #he#d in time to en#ble the ublic offici#l concerned to # r#ise $hether there m#y be v#lid ob=ections to the gr#nt of the ermit or to its gr#nt but #t #nother ublic l#ce. "t is #n indis ens#ble condition to such refus#l or modific#tion th#t the cle#r
#nd resent d#nger test be the st#nd#rd for the decision re#ched. 9otice is given to # lic#nts for the deni#l. Gon&a !s vs. .a a2 .atig'a; FACTS# Petitioner $#s the roducer of the movie S# it s# P#t#lim $hich the @o#rd of 0evie$ for Motion Pictures #nd )elevisions #llo$ed on condition th#t cert#in deletions $ere m#de #nd th#t it $#s sho$n on #dults only. )he etitioner brought #n #ction, cl#iming viol#tion of their freedom of e/ ression. Iss$!# >hether or not the right to freedom of e/ ression $#s viol#ted in the c#se #t b#r HELD# Motion ictures #re im ort#nt both #s # method for the communic#tion of ide#s #nd the e/ ression of the #rtistic im ulse. )he o$er of the @o#rd is limited to the cl#ssific#tion of films. For freedom of e/ ression is the rule #nd restrictions the e/ce tion. )he o$er to im ose rior restr#int is not to be resumed, r#ther the resum tion is #g#inst its v#lidity. %ensorshi is #llo$#ble only under the cle#rest roof of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger of # subst#ntive evil to ublic s#fety, ublic mor#ls, ublic he#lth or #ny other legitim#te ublic interest. )he @o#rd committed #n #buse of discretion in sub=ecting etitioner to difficulty #nd tr#v#il before the movie $#s cl#ssified #s (For #dults only( $ithout deletion. ?o$ever there is not enough votes to consider the #buse of discretion gr#ve #s it e/ l#ined th#t there $ere re#sons for its #ction bec#use of the scenes sho$ing $omen erotic#lly d#ncing n#8ed #nd 8issing #nd c#ressing e#ch other li8e lesbi#ns. C)av!& v. Gon&a !s an% NTC Fa"ts2
57
)he c#se origin#tes from events th#t occurred # ye#r #fter the *BBD n#tion#l #nd loc#l elections. On June 1, *BB1, Press Secret#ry "gn#cio @unye told re orters th#t the o osition $#s l#nning to rele#se #n #udiot# e of # mobile hone convers#tion #llegedly bet$een the President of the Phili ines, Jlori# M#c# #g#l Arroyo, #nd # highEr#n8ing offici#l of the %ommission on &lections A%OM&'&%3 $hich $#s #udiot# ed #llegedly through $ireEt# ing. On June ., *BB1, res ondent De #rtment of Justice ADOJ3 Secret#ry 0#ul JonC#les $#rned re orters th#t those $ho h#d co ies of the com #ct disc A%D3 #nd those bro#dc#sting or ublishing its contents could be held li#ble under the AntiE>iret# ing Act.. "n #nother ress briefing, Secret#ry JonC#les ordered the 9#tion#l @ure#u of "nvestig#tion A9@"3 to go #fter medi# org#niC#tions (found to h#ve c#used the s re#d, the l#ying #nd the rinting of the contents of # t# e( of #n #lleged $iret# ed convers#tion involving the President #bout fi/ing votes in the *BBD n#tion#l elections. Iss$!# "s the $#rning to medi# in not #iring the Ghello J#rciH t# es # c#se of rior restr#int: R$ ing# Les. )he %ourt holds th#t it is not decisive th#t the ress st#tements m#de by res ondents $ere not reduced in or follo$ed u $ith form#l orders or circul#rs. "t is sufficient th#t the ress st#tements $ere m#de by res ondents $hile in the e/ercise of their offici#l functions. Any #ct done, such #s # s eech uttered, for #nd on beh#lf of the government in #n offici#l c# #city is covered by the rule on rior restr#int. )he conce t of #n (#ct( does not limit itself to #cts #lre#dy converted to # form#l order or offici#l circul#r. Other$ise, the non form#liC#tion of #n #ct into #n offici#l order or circul#r $ill result in the e#sy circumvention of the rohibition on rior restr#int. )he ress st#tements #t b#r #re #cts th#t should be struc8 do$n #s they constitute im ermissible forms of rior restr#ints on the right to free s eech #nd ress. Asse25l1 and Petition
+*imi"ias v. F$goso Fa"ts# An #ction $#s instituted by the etitioner for the refus#l of the res ondent to issue # ermit to them to hold # ublic meeting in Pl#C# Mir#nd# for redress of griev#nces to the government. )he re#son #lleged by the res ondent in his defense for refusing the ermit is, (th#t there is # re#son#ble ground to believe, b#sing u on revious utter#nces #nd u on the f#ct th#t #ssions, s eci#lly on the #rt of the losing grou s, rem#ins bitter #nd high, th#t simil#r s eeches $ill be delivered tending to undermine the f#ith #nd confidence of the eo le in their government, #nd in the duly constituted #uthorities, $hich might thre#ten bre#ches of the e#ce #nd # disru tion of ublic order.( Jiving em h#sis #s $ell to the deleg#ted olice o$er to loc#l government. St#ting #s $ell 0evised Ordin#nces of 19*6 rohibiting #s #n offense #g#inst ublic e#ce, #nd en#liCes #s # misdeme#nor, (#ny #ct, in #ny ublic l#ce, meeting, or rocession, tending to disturb the e#ce or e/cite # riot5 or collect $ith other ersons in # body or cro$d for #ny unl#$ful ur ose5 or disturb or dis;uiet #ny congreg#tion eng#ged in #ny l#$ful #ssembly.( "ncluded herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Pl#ce.1 Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the freedom of s eech $#s viol#ted. H! %# Les. De#ling $ith the ordin#nce, s ecific#lly, Sec. 1119, s#id section rovides for t$o constructions2 A13 the M#yor of the %ity of M#nil# is vested $ith unregul#ted discretion to gr#nt or refuse, to gr#nt ermit for the holding of # l#$ful #ssembly or meeting, #r#de, or rocession in the streets #nd other ublic l#ces of the %ity of M#nil#5 A*3 )he right of the M#yor is sub=ect to re#son#ble discretion to determine or s ecify the streets or ublic l#ces to be used $ith the vie$ to revent confusion by overl# ing, to secure convenient use of the streets #nd ublic l#ces by others, #nd to rovide
58
#de;u#te #nd ro er olicing to minimiCe the ris8 of disorder. )he court f#vored the second construction. First construction t#nt#mount to #uthoriCing the M#yor to rohibit the use of the streets. <nder our democr#tic system of government no such unlimited o$er m#y be v#lidly gr#nted to #ny officer of the government, e/ce t erh# s in c#ses of n#tion#l emergency. )he M#yor!s first defense is unten#ble. Fe#r of serious in=ury c#nnot #lone =ustify su ression of free s eech #nd #ssembly. "t is the function of s eech to free men from the bond#ge of irr#tion#l fe#rs. )o =ustify su ression of free s eech there must be re#son#ble ground to fe#r th#t serious evil $ill result if free s eech is r#cticed. )here must be re#son#ble ground to believe th#t the d#nger # rehended is imminent. )here must be re#son#ble ground to believe th#t the evil to be revented is # serious one . )he f#ct th#t s eech is li8ely to result in some violence or in destruction of ro erty is not enough to =ustify its su ression. )here must be the rob#bility of serious in=ury to the st#te. R!,!s v. 6agatsing Fa"ts# Petitioner sought # ermit from the %ity of M#nil# to hold # e#ceful m#rch #nd r#lly on October *6, 19.7 from *2BB to 12BB in the #fternoon, st#rting from the 'unet# to the g#tes of the <nited St#tes &mb#ssy. Once there, #nd in #n o en s #ce of ublic ro erty, # short rogr#m $ould be held. )he m#rch $ould be #ttended by the loc#l #nd foreign #rtici #nts of such conference. )h#t $ould be follo$ed by the h#nding over of # etition b#sed on the resolution #do ted #t the closing session of the AntiE@#ses %o#lition. )here $#s li8e$ise #n #ssur#nce in the etition th#t in the e/ercise of the constitution#l rights to free s eech #nd #ssembly, #ll the necess#ry ste s $ould be t#8en by it (to ensure # e#ceful m#rch #nd r#lly. ?o$ever the re;uest $#s denied. 0eference $#s m#de to ersistent intelligence re orts #ffirming the l#ns of subversive-crimin#l elements to infiltr#te or disru t #ny #ssembly or congreg#tions $here # l#rge number of eo le is e/ ected to #ttend. 0es ondent suggested th#t # ermit m#y be issued if it is to be held #t the 0iC#l
%oliseum or #ny other enclosed #re# $here the s#fety of the #rtici #nts themselves #nd the gener#l ublic m#y be ensured. An or#l #rgument $#s he#rd #nd the m#nd#tory in=unction $#s gr#nted on the ground th#t there $#s no sho$ing of the e/istence of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger of # subst#ntive evil th#t could =ustify the deni#l of # ermit. ?o$ever Justice A;uino dissented th#t the r#lly is viol#tive of Ordin#nce 9o. 6*91 of the %ity of M#nil# rohibiting the holding of r#llies $ithin # r#dius of five hundred A1BB3 feet from #ny foreign mission or ch#ncery #nd for other ur oses. ?ence the %ourt resolves. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the freedom of e/ ression #nd the right to e#ce#bly #ssemble viol#ted. H! %# Les. )he invoc#tion of the right to freedom of e#ce#ble #ssembly c#rries $ith it the im lic#tion th#t the right to free s eech h#s li8e$ise been disreg#rded. "t is settled l#$ th#t #s to ublic l#ces, es eci#lly so #s to #r8s #nd streets, there is freedom of #ccess. 9or is their use de endent on $ho is the # lic#nt for the ermit, $hether #n individu#l or # grou . )here c#n be no leg#l ob=ection, #bsent the e/istence of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger of # subst#ntive evil, on the choice of 'unet# #s the l#ce $here the e#ce r#lly $ould st#rt. )ime immemori#l 'unet# h#s been used for ur oses of #ssembly, communic#ting thoughts bet$een citiCens, #nd discussing ublic ;uestions. Such use of the ublic l#ces h#s from #ncient times, been # #rt of the rivileges, immunities, rights, #nd liberties of citiCens. >ith reg#rd to the ordin#nce, there $#s no sho$ing th#t there $#s viol#tion #nd even if it could be sho$n th#t such # condition is s#tisfied it does not follo$ th#t res ondent could leg#lly #ct the $#y he did. )he v#lidity of his deni#l of the ermit sought could still be ch#llenged.
59
A summ#ry of the # lic#tion for ermit for r#lly2 )he # lic#nts for # ermit to hold #n #ssembly should inform the licensing #uthority of the d#te, the ublic l#ce $here #nd the time $hen it $ill t#8e l#ce. "f it $ere # riv#te l#ce, only the consent of the o$ner or the one entitled to its leg#l ossession is re;uired. Such # lic#tion should be filed $ell #he#d in time to en#ble the ublic offici#l concerned to # r#ise $hether there m#y be v#lid ob=ections to the gr#nt of the ermit or to its gr#nt but #t #nother ublic l#ce. "t is #n indis ens#ble condition to such refus#l or modific#tion th#t the cle#r #nd resent d#nger test be the st#nd#rd for the decision re#ched. 9otice is given to # lic#nts for the deni#l. /a a'anan v. Ram!nto Fa"ts# Petitioners $ere officers of the Su reme Student %ouncil of res ondent <niversity. )hey sought #nd $ere gr#nted by the school #uthorities # ermit to hold # meeting from .2BB AM to 1*2BB PM, on August *6, 19.*. Pursu#nt to such ermit, #long $ith other students, they held # gener#l #ssembly #t the ,eterin#ry Medicine #nd Anim#l Science b#s8etb#ll court A,MAS3, the l#ce indic#ted in such ermit, not in the b#s8etb#ll court #s therein st#ted but #t the second floor lobby. At such g#thering they m#nifested in vehement #nd vigorous l#ngu#ge their o osition to the ro osed merger of the "nstitute of Anim#l Science $ith the "nstitute of Agriculture. )he s#me d#y, they m#rched to$#rd the 'ife Science @uilding #nd continued their r#lly. "t $#s outside the #re# covered by their ermit. &ven they r#llied beyond the eriod #llo$ed. )hey $ere #s8ed to e/ l#in on the s#me d#y $hy they should not be held li#ble for holding #n illeg#l #ssembly. )hen on Se tember 9, 19.*, they $ere informed th#t they $ere under reventive sus ension for their f#ilure to e/ l#in the holding of #n illeg#l #ssembly. )he v#lidity thereof $#s ch#llenged by etitioners both before the %ourt of First "nst#nce of 0iC#l #g#inst riv#te res ondents #nd before the Ministry of &duc#tion, %ulture, #nd S orts. 0es ondent 0#mento found etitioners guilty of the ch#rge of illeg#l #ssembly $hich $#s ch#r#cteriCed by the viol#tion of the ermit gr#nted resulting in the disturb#nce of cl#sses #nd or#l def#m#tion. )he en#lty $#s sus ension for one #c#demic ye#r.
?ence this etition. Iss$!# >hether on the f#cts #s disclosed resulting in the disci lin#ry #ction #nd the en#lty im osed, there $#s #n infringement of the right to e#ce#ble #ssembly #nd its cogn#te right of free s eech. H! %# Les. Student le#ders #re li8ely to be #ssertive #nd dogm#tic. )hey $ould be ineffective if during # r#lly they s e#8 in the gu#rded #nd =udicious l#ngu#ge of the #c#deme. @ut $ith the #ctivity t#8ing l#ce in the school remises #nd during the d#ytime, no cle#r #nd resent d#nger of ublic disorder is discernible. )his is $ithout re=udice to the t#8ing of disci lin#ry #ction for conduct, (m#teri#lly disru ts cl#ss$or8 or involves subst#nti#l disorder or inv#sion of the rights of others.( )he rights to e#ce#ble #ssembly #nd free s eech #re gu#r#nteed students of educ#tion#l institutions. 9ecess#rily, their e/ercise to discuss m#tters #ffecting their $elf#re or involving ublic interest is not to be sub=ected to revious restr#int or subse;uent unishment unless there be # sho$ing of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger to # subst#ntive evil th#t the st#te, h#s # right to resent. As # coroll#ry, the utmost lee$#y #nd sco e is #ccorded the content of the l#c#rds dis l#yed or utter#nces m#de. )he e#ce#ble ch#r#cter of #n #ssembly could be lost, ho$ever, by #n #dvoc#cy of disorder under the n#me of dissent, $h#tever griev#nces th#t m#y be #ired being susce tible to correction through the $#ys of the l#$. "f the #ssembly is to be held in school remises, ermit must be sought from its school #uthorities, $ho #re devoid of the o$er to deny such re;uest #rbitr#rily or unre#son#bly. "n gr#nting such ermit, there m#y be conditions #s to the time #nd l#ce of the #ssembly to #void disru tion of cl#sses or sto #ge of $or8 of the nonE#c#demic ersonnel. &ven if, ho$ever, there be viol#tions of its terms, the en#lty incurred should not be dis ro ortion#te to the offense. L$&vimin%a %! a C*$& vs. CA( !t a .
60
Fa"ts# Petitioners #re ublic school te#chers from v#rious schools in Metro M#nil# $ho $ere simult#neously ch#rged, reventively sus ended, #nd eventu#lly dismissed in October 199B by the Secret#ry of the De #rtment of &duc#tion, %ulture #nd S orts AD&%S3 in connection $ith the #dministr#tive com l#ints filed before its office by their res ective rinci #ls for #rtici #ting in # m#ss #ction-stri8e #nd subse;uently defying the returnEtoE$or8 order by D&%S constituting gr#ve misconduct., gross neglect of duty, gross viol#tion of %ivil Service '#$, 0ules #nd 0egul#tions #nd re#son#ble office regul#tions, refus#l to erform offici#l duty, gross insubordin#tion conduct re=udici#l to the best interest of the service #nd #bsence $ithout offici#l le#ve AA>O'3, in viol#tion of Presidenti#l Decree .B6, other$ise 8no$n #s the %ivil Service Decree of the Phili ines. Petitioners contend they #re merely #rtici #ting in # e#ceful #ssembly to etition the government for redress of their griev#nces in the e/ercise of their constitution#l right #nd insist their #ssembly does not constitutes #s # stri8e #s there is no #ctu#l disru tion of cl#sses. Iss$!# >hether or not the etitioners4 e/ercise of their right to freedom to #ssembly #nd etition $ere v#lid. H! %# )he court held th#t revious =uris rudence l#id do$n # rule th#t ublic te#chers in the e/ercise of their right to ventil#te their griev#nces by etitioning the government for redress should be done $ithin re#son#ble limits so #s not to re=udice the ublic $elf#re. )he conduct of m#ss rotests during school d#ys $hile #b#ndoning cl#sses is highly re=udici#l to the best interest of ublic service. )he court stresses th#t te#chers #re en#liCed not bec#use they e/ercised their right to e#ce#bly #ssemble but bec#use of the m#nner by $hich such right $#s e/ercised, i.e., going on un#uthoriCed #nd unil#ter#l #bsences thus disru ting cl#sses in v#rious schools in Metro M#nil# $hich roduced #dverse effects
u on the students for $hose educ#tion the te#chers $ere res onsible. +6/ Em4 o,!!s Asso"iation v. +6/ Fa"ts# )he etitioner Phili ine @looming Mills &m loyees Org#niC#tion AP@M&O3 is # legitim#te l#bor union com osed of the em loyees of the res ondent Phili ine @looming Mills %o., "nc., #nd etitioners. @en=#min P#gcu #nd 0odulfo Munsod #re officers #nd members of the etitioner <nion. Petitioners cl#im th#t on M#rch 1, 1969, they decided to st#ge # m#ss demonstr#tion #t M#l#c#T#ng on M#rch D, 1969, in rotest #g#inst #lleged #buses of the P#sig olice. P@M&O thru P#gcu confirmed the l#nned demonstr#tion #nd st#ted th#t the demonstr#tion or r#lly c#nnot be c#ncelled bec#use it h#s #lre#dy been #greed u on in the meeting. P#gcu e/ l#ined further th#t the demonstr#tion h#s nothing to do $ith the %om #ny bec#use the union h#s no ;u#rrel or dis ute $ith M#n#gement. )he M#n#gement, thru Atty. %S de 'eon, %om #ny ersonnel m#n#ger, informed P@M&O th#t the demonstr#tion is #n in#lien#ble right of the union gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution but em h#siCed th#t #ny demonstr#tion for th#t m#tter should not unduly re=udice the norm#l o er#tion of the %om #ny. >or8ers $ho $ithout revious le#ve of #bsence # roved by the %om #ny, #rticul#rly , the officers resent $ho #re the org#niCers of the demonstr#tion, $ho sh#ll f#il to re ort for $or8 the follo$ing morning sh#ll be dismissed, bec#use such f#ilure is # viol#tion of the e/isting %@A #nd, therefore, $ould be #mounting to #n illeg#l stri8e. @ec#use the etitioners #nd their members numbering #bout DBB roceeded $ith the demonstr#tion des ite the le#s of the res ondent %om #ny th#t the first shift $or8ers should not be re;uired to #rtici #te in the demonstr#tion #nd th#t the $or8ers in the second #nd third shifts should be utiliCed for the demonstr#tion from 6 AM to * PM on M#rch D, 1969, filed # ch#rge #g#inst etitioners #nd other em loyees $ho com osed the first shift, for # viol#tion of 0e ublic Act 9o. .61A"ndustri#l Pe#ce Act3, #nd of the %@A roviding for !9o Stri8e #nd 9o 'oc8out.! Petitioners $ere held guilty in by %"0 for b#rg#ining in b#d f#ith, hence this # e#l.
61
Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the etitioners right to freedom of s eech #nd to e#ce#ble #ssemble viol#ted. H! %# Les. A constitution#l or v#lid infringement of hum#n rights re;uires # more stringent criterion, n#mely e/istence of # gr#ve #nd immedi#te d#nger of # subst#ntive evil $hich the St#te h#s the right to revent. )his is not resent in the c#se. "t $#s to the interest herein riv#te res ondent firm to r#lly to the defense of, #nd t#8e u the cudgels for, its em loyees, so th#t they c#n re ort to $or8 free from h#r#ssment, ve/#tion or eril #nd #s conse;uence erform more efficiently their res ective t#s8s enh#nce its roductivity #s $ell #s rofits. ?erein res ondent em loyer did not even offer to intercede for its em loyees $ith the loc#l olice. "n see8ing s#nctu#ry behind their freedom of e/ ression $ell #s their right of #ssembly #nd of etition #g#inst #lleged ersecution of loc#l offici#ldom, the em loyees #nd l#borers of herein riv#te res ondent firm $ere fighting for their very surviv#l, utiliCing only the $e# ons #fforded them by the %onstitution Q the untr#mmelled en=oyment of their b#sic hum#n rights. )he retension of their em loyer th#t it $ould suffer loss or d#m#ge by re#son of the #bsence of its em loyees from 6 o!cloc8 in the morning to * o!cloc8 in the #fternoon, is # le# for the reserv#tion merely of their ro erty rights. )he em loyees! #thetic situ#tion $#s # st#r8 re#lity Q #bused, h#r#ssment #nd ersecuted #s they believed they $ere by the e#ce officers of the munici #lity. As #bove intim#ted, the condition in $hich the em loyees found themselves visE#Evis the loc#l olice of P#sig, $#s # m#tter th#t vit#lly #ffected their right to individu#l e/istence #s $ell #s th#t of their f#milies. M#teri#l loss c#n be re #ired or #de;u#tely com ens#ted. )he deb#sement of the hum#n being bro8en in mor#le #nd brut#liCed in s iritEc#n never be fully ev#lu#ted in monet#ry terms. As heretofore st#ted, the rim#cy of hum#n rights Q freedom of e/ ression, of e#ceful #ssembly #nd of etition for redress of griev#nces Q over ro erty rights h#s been sust#ined. )o reg#rd the demonstr#tion #g#inst olice officers, not #g#inst the
em loyer, #s evidence of b#d f#ith in collective b#rg#ining #nd hence # viol#tion of the collective b#rg#ining #greement #nd # c#use for the dismiss#l from em loyment of the demonstr#ting em loyees, stretches unduly the com #ss of the collective b#rg#ining #greement, is (# otent me#ns of inhibiting s eech( #nd therefore inflicts # mor#l #s $ell #s mort#l $ound on the constitution#l gu#r#ntees of free e/ ression, of e#ceful #ssembly #nd of etition. %ircul#tion is one of the #s ects of freedom of e/ ression. "f demonstr#tors #re reduced by oneEthird, then by th#t much the circul#tion of the "ssue r#ised by the demonstr#tion is diminished. )he more the #rtici #nts, the more ersons c#n be # rised of the ur ose of the r#lly. Moreover, the #bsence of oneEthird of their members $ill be reg#rded #s # subst#nti#l indic#tion of disunity in their r#n8s $hich $ill enerv#te their osition #nd #bet continued #lleged olice ersecution. &A6A#- 7A3APA8A#- 7 P v. Er2ita "#A$A%LA&LE Section 9 -- Freedo2 of 3eli'ion Ag i4a, v. R$i& Fa"ts# Petitioner see8s the issu#nce of # $rit of rohibition #g#inst res ondent Director of Posts from issuing #nd selling ost#ge st#m s commemor#tive of the 77rd "ntern#tion#l &uch#ristic %ongress. Petitioner contends th#t such #ct is # viol#tion of the %onstitution#l rovision st#ting th#t no ublic funds sh#ll be # ro ri#ted or used in the benefit of #ny church, system of religion, etc. )his rovision is # result of the rinci le of the se #r#tion of church #nd st#te, for the ur ose of #voiding the occ#sion $herein the st#te $ill use the church, or vice vers#, #s # $e# on to further their ends #nd #ims. 0es ondent contends th#t such issu#nce is in #ccord#nce to Act 9o. DB1*, roviding for the # ro ri#tion funds to res ondent for the roduction #nd issu#nce of ost#ge st#m s #s $ould be #dv#nt#geous to the government.
62
Iss$!# >hether or 9ot there $#s # viol#tion of the freedom to religion. H! %# >h#t is gu#r#nteed by our %onstitution is religious freedom #nd not mere religious toler#tion. "t is ho$ever not #n inhibition of rofound reverence for religion #nd is not # deni#l of its influence in hum#n #ff#irs. 0eligion #s # rofession of f#ith to #n #ctive o$er th#t binds #nd elev#tes m#n to his %re#tor is recogniCed. And in so f#r #s it instills into the minds the urest rinci les of mor#lity, its influence is dee ly felt #nd highly # reci#ted. )he hr#se in Act 9o. DB1* G#dv#nt#geous to the governmentH does not #uthoriCe viol#tion of the %onstitution. )he issu#nce of the st#m s $#s not ins ired by #ny feeling to f#vor # #rticul#r church or religious denomin#tion. )hey $ere not sold for the benefit of the 0om#n %#tholic %hurch. )he ost#ge st#m s, inste#d of sho$ing # %#tholic ch#lice #s origin#lly l#nned, cont#ins # m# of the Phili ines #nd the loc#tion of M#nil#, $ith the $ords GSe#t +++""" "ntern#tion#l &uch#ristic %ongress.H )he focus of the st#m s $#s not the &uch#ristic %ongress but the city of M#nil#, being the se#t of th#t congress. )his $#s to Gto #dvertise the Phili ines #nd #ttr#ct more tourists,H the offici#ls merely too8 #dv#nt#ge of #n event considered of intern#tion#l im ort#nce. Although such issu#nce #nd s#le m#y be inse #r#bly lin8ed $ith the 0om#n %#tholic %hurch, #ny benefit #nd ro #g#nd# incident#lly resulting from it $#s no the #im or ur ose of the Jovernment. Am!*i"an 6i' ! So"i!t, v. Cit, o- /ani a Fa"ts# 9e$ Lor8!s &duc#tion '#$ re;uires loc#l ublic school #uthorities to lend te/tboo8s free of ch#rge to #ll students in gr#de 6 to 1*, including those in riv#te schools. )he @o#rd of &duc#tion contended th#t s#id st#tute $#s inv#lid #nd viol#tive of the St#te #nd Feder#l %onstitutions. An order b#rring the %ommissioner of
&duc#tion AAllen3 from removing # ell#nt!s members from office for f#ilure to com ly $ith the re;uirement #nd #n order reventing the use of st#te funds for the urch#se of te/tboo8s to be lent to #rochi#l schools $ere sought for. )he tri#l court held the st#tute unconstitution#l. )he A ell#te Division reversed the decision #nd dismissed the com l#int since the # ell#nt h#ve no st#nding. )he 9e$ Lor8 %ourt of A e#ls, ruled th#t the # ell#nts h#ve st#nding but the l#$ is not unconstitution#l. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the s#id ordin#nces #re constitution#l #nd v#lid Acontention2 it restr#ins the free e/ercise #nd en=oyment of the religious rofession #nd $orshi of # ell#nt3. H! %# Section 1, subsection A63 of Article """ of the %onstitution, rovides th#t2 A63 9o l#$ sh#ll be m#de res ecting #n est#blishment of religion, or rohibiting the free e/ercise thereof, #nd the free e/ercise #nd en=oyment of religious rofession #nd $orshi , $ithout discrimin#tion or reference, sh#ll forever be #llo$ed. 9o religion test sh#ll be re;uired for the e/ercise of civil or olitic#l rights. )he rovision #fore;uoted is # constitution#l gu#r#nty of the free e/ercise #nd en=oyment of religious rofession #nd $orshi , $hich c#rries $ith it the right to dissemin#te religious inform#tion. "t m#y be true th#t in the c#se #t b#r the rice #s8ed for the bibles #nd other religious #m hlets $#s in some inst#nces # little bit higher th#n the #ctu#l cost of the s#me but this c#nnot me#n th#t # ell#nt $#s eng#ged in the business or occu #tion of selling s#id (merch#ndise( for rofit. For this re#son. )he %ourt believe th#t the rovisions of %ity of M#nil# Ordin#nce 9o. *1*9, #s #mended, c#nnot be # lied to # ell#nt, for in doing so it $ould im #ir its free e/ercise #nd en=oyment of its religious rofession #nd $orshi #s $ell #s its rights of dissemin#tion of religious beliefs.
63
>ith res ect to Ordin#nce 9o. 7BBB, #s #mended, the %ourt do not find th#t it im oses #ny ch#rge u on the en=oyment of # right gr#nted by the %onstitution, nor t#/ the e/ercise of religious r#ctices. "t seems cle#r, therefore, th#t Ordin#nce 9o. 7BBB c#nnot be considered unconstitution#l, ho$ever in# lic#ble to s#id business, tr#de or occu #tion of the l#intiff. As to Ordin#nce 9o. *1*9 of the %ity of M#nil#, #s #mended, is #lso not # lic#ble, so defend#nt is o$erless to license or t#/ the business of l#intiff Society. Ig !sia ni. C*isto v. CA Fa"ts# Petitioner h#s # television rogr#m entitled (Ang "glesi# ni %risto( #ired on %h#nnel * every S#turd#y #nd on %h#nnel 17 every Sund#y. )he rogr#m resents #nd ro #g#tes etitioner!s religious beliefs, doctrines #nd r#ctices often times in com #r#tive studies $ith other religions. Petitioner submitted to the res ondent @o#rd of 0evie$ for Moving Pictures #nd )elevision the ,)0 t# es of its ), rogr#m Series 9os. 116, 119, 1*1 #nd 1*.. )he @o#rd cl#ssified the series #s (+( or not for ublic vie$ing on the ground th#t they (offend #nd constitute #n #tt#c8 #g#inst other religions $hich is e/ ressly rohibited by l#$.( On 9ovember *., 199*, it # e#led to the Office of the President the cl#ssific#tion of its ), Series 9o. 1*. $hich #llo$ed it through # letter of former &/ecutive Secret#ry &delmiro A. Am#nte, Sr., #ddressed for ?enriett# S. MendeC reversing the decision of the res ondent @o#rd. According to the letter the e isode in is rotected by the constitution#l gu#r#ntee of free s eech #nd e/ ression #nd no indic#tion th#t the e isode oses #ny cle#r #nd resent d#nger. Petitioner #lso filed %ivil %#se. Petitioner #lleged th#t the res ondent @o#rd #cted $ithout =urisdiction or $ith gr#ve #buse of discretion in re;uiring etitioner to submit the ,)0 t# es of its ), rogr#m #nd in /Er#ting them. "t cited its ), Progr#m Series 9os. 111, 119, 1*1 #nd 1*.. "n their Ans$er, res ondent @o#rd invo8ed its o$er under PD 9o. 19.61 in rel#tion to Article *B1 of the 0evised Pen#l %ode. )he "glesi# ni %risto insists on the liter#l tr#nsl#tion of the bible #nd s#ys th#t our A%#tholic3
vener#tion of the ,irgin M#ry is not to be condoned bec#use no$here it is found in the bible. )he bo#rd contended th#t it outr#ges %#tholic #nd Protest#nt!s beliefs. 0)% ruled in f#vor of etitioners. %A ho$ever reversed it hence this etition. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the (#ng iglesi# ni cristo( rogr#m is not constitution#lly rotected #s # form of religious e/ercise #nd e/ ression. H! %# Les. Any #ct th#t restr#ins s eech is #ccom #nied $ith resum tion of inv#lidity. "t is the burden of the res ondent @o#rd to overthro$ this resum tion. "f it f#ils to disch#rge this burden, its #ct of censorshi $ill be struc8 do$n. )his is true in this c#se. SoEc#lled (#tt#c8s( #re mere criticisms of some of the dee ly held dogm#s #nd tenets of other religions. 0)%!s ruling cle#rly su resses etitioner!s freedom of s eech #nd interferes $ith its right to free e/ercise of religion. G#tt#c8H is different from GoffendH #ny r#ce or religion. )he res ondent @o#rd m#y dis#gree $ith the criticisms of other religions by etitioner but th#t gives it no e/cuse to interdict such criticisms, ho$ever, uncle#n they m#y be. <nder our constitution#l scheme, it is not the t#s8 of the St#te to f#vor #ny religion by rotecting it #g#inst #n #tt#c8 by #nother religion. 0eligious dogm#s #nd beliefs #re often #t $#r #nd to reserve e#ce #mong their follo$ers, es eci#lly the f#n#tics, the est#blishment cl#use of freedom of religion rohibits the St#te from le#ning to$#rds #ny religion. 0es ondent bo#rd c#nnot censor the s eech of etitioner "glesi# ni %risto sim ly bec#use it #tt#c8s other religions, even if s#id religion h# ens to be the most numerous church in our country. )he b#sis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought #nd it is best served by encour#ging the m#r8et l#ce of dueling ide#s. "t is only $here it is un#void#bly necess#ry to revent #n immedi#te #nd gr#ve d#nger to the security #nd $elf#re of the community th#t infringement of religious freedom m#y be =ustified, #nd only to the sm#llest e/tent necess#ry to #void the d#nger. )here is no sho$ing $h#tsoever of the ty e of h#rm the t# es $ill bring #bout es eci#lly the gr#vity #nd imminence of the
64
thre#tened h#rm. Prior restr#int on s eech, including religious s eech, c#nnot be =ustified by hy othetic#l fe#rs but only by the sho$ing of # subst#ntive #nd imminent evil. "t is in# ro ri#te to # ly the cle#r #nd resent d#nger test to the c#se #t b#r bec#use the issue involves the content of s eech #nd not the time, l#ce or m#nner of s eech. Allegedly, unless the s eech is first #llo$ed, its im #ct c#nnot be me#sured, #nd the c#us#l connection bet$een the s eech #nd the evil # rehended c#nnot be est#blished. )he determin#tion of the ;uestion #s to $hether or not such vilific#tion, e/#gger#tion or f#bric#tion f#lls $ithin or lies outside the bound#ries of rotected s eech or e/ ression is # =udici#l function $hich c#nnot be #rrog#ted by #n #dministr#tive body such #s # @o#rd of %ensors.( A system of rior restr#int m#y only be v#lidly #dministered by =udges #nd not left to #dministr#tive #gencies. So*iano 9. Lag$a*%ia Fa"ts2 On August 1B, *BBD, #t #round 1B2BB .m., etitioner, #s host of the rogr#m Ang D#ting D##n, #ired on <9), 76, m#de obscene rem#r8s #g#inst "9%. )$o d#ys #fter, before the M)0%@, se #r#te but #lmost identic#l #ffid#vitEcom l#ints $ere lodged by Jessie '. J#l# on #nd seven other riv#te res ondents, #ll members of the "glesi# ni %risto A"9%3, #g#inst etitioner in connection $ith the #bove bro#dc#st. 0es ondent Mich#el M. S#ndov#l, $ho felt directly #lluded to in etitioner4s rem#r8, $#s then # minister of "9% #nd # regul#r host of the ), rogr#m Ang )#m#ng D##n. Iss$!# Are Sori#no4s st#tements during the televised GAng D#ting D##nH #rt of the religious discourse #nd $ithin the rotection of Section 1, Art.""": H! %# 9o. <nder the circumst#nces obt#ining in this c#se, therefore, #nd considering the #dverse effect of etitioner4s utter#nces on the
vie$ers4 fund#ment#l rights #s $ell #s etitioner4s cle#r viol#tion of his duty #s # ublic trustee, the M)0%@ ro erly sus ended him from # e#ring in Ang D#ting D##n for three months. Furthermore, it c#nnot be ro erly #sserted th#t etitioner4s sus ension $#s #n undue curt#ilment of his right to free s eech either #s # rior restr#int or #s # subse;uent unishment. Aside from the re#sons given #bove Are the #r#mountcy of vie$ers rights, the ublic trusteeshi ch#r#cter of # bro#dc#ster4s role #nd the o$er of the St#te to regul#te bro#dc#st medi#3, # re;uirement th#t indecent l#ngu#ge be #voided h#s its rim#ry effect on the form, r#ther th#n the content, of serious communic#tion. )here #re fe$, if #ny, thoughts th#t c#nnot be e/ ressed by the use of less offensive l#ngu#ge. Section : -- Li5ert1 of A5ode and of 8ravel /a*"os v. /ang a4$s Fa"ts# )his c#se involves # etition of m#nd#mus #nd rohibition #s8ing the court to order the res ondents Secret#ry of Foreign Aff#irs, etc. )o issue # tr#vel documents to former Pres. M#rcos #nd the immedi#te members of his f#mily #nd to en=oin the im lement#tion of the President!s decision to b#r their return to the Phili ines. Petitioners #ssert th#t the right of the M#rcoses to return in the Phili ines is gu#r#nteed by the @ill of 0ights, s ecific#lly Sections 1 #nd 6. )hey contended th#t Pres. A;uino is $ithout o$er to im #ir the liberty of #bode of the M#rcoses bec#use only # court m#y do so $ithin the limits rescribed by l#$. 9or the President im #ir their right to tr#vel bec#use no l#$ h#s #uthoriCed her to do so. )hey further #ssert th#t under intern#tion#l l#$, their right to return to the Phili ines is gu#r#nteed #rticul#rly by the <nivers#l Decl#r#tion of ?um#n 0ights #nd the "ntern#tion#l %oven#nt on %ivil #nd Politic#l 0ights, $hich h#s been r#tified by the Phili ines. Iss$!#
65
>hether or not, in the e/ercise of the o$ers gr#nted by the constitution, the President AA;uino3 m#y rohibit the M#rcoses from returning to the Phili ines. H! %#
)he return of the M#rcoses oses # serious thre#t #nd therefore rohibiting their return to the Phili ines, the inst#nt etition is hereby D"SM"SS&D. Si v!*io v. Co$*t o- A44!a s
("t must be em h#siCed th#t the individu#l right involved is not the right to tr#vel from the Phili ines to other countries or $ithin the Phili ines. )hese #re $h#t the right to tr#vel $ould norm#lly connote. &ssenti#lly, the right involved in this c#se #t b#r is the right to return to one!s country, # distinct right under intern#tion#l l#$, inde endent from #lthough rel#ted to the right to tr#vel. )hus, the <nivers#l Decl#r#tion of ?um#n 0ights #nd the "ntern#tion#l %oven#nt on %ivil #nd Politic#l 0ights tre#t the right to freedom of movement #nd #bode $ithin the territory of # st#te, the right to le#ve the country, #nd the right to enter one!s country #s se #r#te #nd distinct rights. >h#t the Decl#r#tion s e#8s of is the (right to freedom of movement #nd residence $ithin the borders of e#ch st#te(. On the other h#nd, the %oven#nt gu#r#ntees the right to liberty of movement #nd freedom to choose his residence #nd the right to be free to le#ve #ny country, including his o$n. Such rights m#y only be restricted by l#$s rotecting the n#tion#l security, ublic order, ublic he#lth or mor#ls or the se #r#te rights of others. ?o$ever, right to enter one!s country c#nnot be #rbitr#rily de rived. "t $ould be therefore in# ro ri#te to construe the limit#tions to the right to return to ones country in the s#me conte/t #s those ert#ining to the liberty of #bode #nd the right to tr#vel. )he @ill of rights tre#ts only the liberty of #bode #nd the right to tr#vel, but it is # $ell considered vie$ th#t the right to return m#y be considered, #s # gener#lly #cce ted rinci le of "ntern#tion#l '#$ #nd under our %onstitution #s #rt of the l#$ of the l#nd. )he court held th#t President did not #ct #rbitr#rily or $ith gr#ve #buse of discretion in determining th#t the return of the Former Pres. M#rcos #nd his f#mily oses # serious thre#t to n#tion#l interest #nd $elf#re. President A;uino h#s determined th#t the dest#biliC#tion c#used by the return of the M#rcoses $ould $i e #$#y the g#ins #chieved during the #st fe$ ye#rs #fter the M#rcos regime.
Fa"ts# Petitioner $#s ch#rged $ith viol#tion of Section * AD3 of the revised securities #ct. 0es ondent filed to c#ncel the #ss ort of the etitioner #nd to issue # hold de #rture order. )he 0)% ordered the DFA to c#ncel etitioner!s #ss ort, b#sed on the finding th#t the etitioner h#s not been #rr#igned #nd there $#s evidence to sho$ th#t the #ccused h#s left the country $ith out the 8no$ledge #nd the ermission of the court. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the right to tr#vel m#y be im #ired by order of the court. H! %# )he b#il bond osted by etitioner h#s been c#ncelled #nd $#rr#nt of #rrest h#s been issued by re#son th#t he f#iled to # e#r #t his #rr#ignments. )here is # v#lid restriction on the right to tr#vel, it is im osed th#t the #ccused must m#8e himself #v#il#ble $henever the court re;uires his resence. A erson f#cing crimin#l ch#rges m#y be restr#ined by the %ourt from le#ving the country or, if #bro#d, com elled to return A%onstitution#l '#$, %ruC, "s#g#ni A., 19.6 &dition, . 17.3. So it is #lso th#t (An #ccused rele#sed on b#il m#y be reE#rrested $ithout the necessity of # $#rr#nt if he #ttem ts to de #rt from the Phili ines $ithout rior ermission of the %ourt $here the c#se is ending Aibid., Sec. *B W*nd #r. X3. Article """, Section 6 of the 19.6 %onstitution should be inter reted to me#n th#t $hile the liberty of tr#vel m#y be im #ired even $ithout
66
%ourt Order, the # ro ri#te e/ecutive officers or #dministr#tive #uthorities #re not #rmed $ith #rbitr#ry discretion to im ose limit#tions. )hey c#n im ose limits only on the b#sis of (n#tion#l security, ublic s#fety, or ublic he#lth( #nd (#s m#y be rovided by l#$,( # limitive hr#se $hich did not # e#r in the 1967 te/t A)he %onstitution, @ern#s, Jo#;uin J.,SJ, ,ol. ", First &dition, 19.6, . *673. A #rently, the hr#seology in the 19.6 %onstitution $#s # re#ction to the b#n on intern#tion#l tr#vel im osed under the revious regime $hen there $#s # )r#vel Processing %enter, $hich issued certific#tes of eligibility to tr#vel u on # lic#tion of #n interested #rty ASee S#long# vs. ?ermoso V )r#vel Processing %enter, 9o. 176**, *1 A ril 19.B, 96 S%0A 1*13. ?olding #n #ccused in # crimin#l c#se $ithin the re#ch of the %ourts by reventing his de #rture from the Phili ines must be considered #s # v#lid restriction on his right to tr#vel so th#t he m#y be de#lt $ith in #ccord#nce $ith l#$. )he offended #rty in #ny crimin#l roceeding is the Peo le of the Phili ines. "t is to their best interest th#t crimin#l rosecutions should run their course #nd roceed to fin#lity $ithout undue del#y, $ith #n #ccused holding himself #men#ble #t #ll times to %ourt Orders #nd rocesses
he h#s no other l#in, s eedy #nd #de;u#te remedy to #c;uire the inform#tion, etitioner r#ys for the issu#nce of the e/tr#ordin#ry $rit of m#nd#mus to com el the res ondent %S% to disclose s#id inform#tion. )he res ondent %S% t#8es issue on the erson#lity of the etitioner to bring the suit. "t is #sserted th#t the etition is bereft of #ny #lleg#tion of 'eg#s i!s #ctu#l interest in the civil service eligibilities of Sibongh#noy #nd Ag#s. Iss$!# >hether or not the etitioner h#s leg#l st#nding to bring the suit H! %# )he etitioner h#s firmly #nchored his c#se u on the right of the eo le to inform#tion on m#tters of ublic concern, $hich, by its very n#ture, is # ublic right. "t h#s been held in the c#se of )#n#d# vs. )uver#, 176 S%0A *6, th#t $hen the ;uestion is one of ublic right #nd the ob=ect of the m#nd#mus is to rocure the enforcement of # ublic duty, the eo le #re reg#rded #s the re#l #rty in interest, #nd the erson #t $hose instig#tion the roceedings #re instituted need not sho$ th#t he h#s #ny leg#l or s eci#l interest in the result, it being sufficient to sho$ th#t he is # citiCen #nd #s such interested in the e/ecution of the l#$s. "t becomes # #rent th#t $hen # m#nd#mus roceeding involves the #ssertion of # ublic right, the re;uirement of erson#l interest is s#tisfied by the mere f#ct th#t the etitioner is # citiCen, #nd therefore, #rt of the gener#l ublic $hich ossesses the right. )he etitioner, being # citiCen $ho #s such, is clothed $ith erson#lity to see8 redress for the #lleged obstruction of the e/ercise of the ublic right. $al2onte v. &el2onte- Jr. "#A$A%LA&LE
Section ; -- 3i'ht to %nfor2ation L!gas4i v. Civi S!*vi"! Commission Fa"ts# )he res ondent %S% h#d denied etitioner ,#lentin 'eg#s i!s re;uest for inform#tion on the civil service eligibilities of Juli#n Sibongh#noy #nd M#ri#no Ag#s $ho $ere em loyed #s s#nit#ri#ns in the ?e#lth De #rtment of %ebu %ity. Sibongh#noy #nd Ag#s h#d #llegedly re resented themselves #s civil service eligibles $ho #ssed the civil service e/#min#tions for s#nit#ri#ns. %l#iming th#t his right to be informed of the eligibilities of Sibongh#noy #nd Ag#s is gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution, #nd th#t
67
E")!ga*a, v. S!"*!ta*, o- 1$sti"! Fa"ts# On J#nu#ry D, 1999, the S% issued # )0O st#ying the e/ecution of etitioner 'eo &cheg#r#y scheduled on th#t s#me d#y. )he ublic res ondent Justice Secret#ry #ss#iled the issu#nce of the )0O #rguing th#t the #ction of the S% not only viol#ted the rule on fin#lity of =udgment but #lso encro#ched on the o$er of the e/ecutive to gr#nt re rieve. Iss$!# >hether or not the S%, #fter the decision in the c#se becomes fin#l #nd e/ecutory, still h#s =urisdiction over the c#se H! %# )he fin#lity of =udgment does not me#n th#t the S% h#s lost #ll its o$ers or the c#se. @y the fin#lity of the =udgment, $h#t the S% loses is its =urisdiction to #mend, modify or #lter the s#me. &ven #fter the =udgment h#s become fin#l, the S% ret#ins its =urisdiction to e/ecute #nd enforce it. )he o$er to control the e/ecution of the S%!s decision is #n essenti#l #s ect of its =urisdiction. "t c#nnot be the sub=ect of subst#nti#l subtr#ction for the %onstitution vests the entirety of =udici#l o$er in one S% #nd in such lo$er courts #s m#y be est#blished by l#$. )he im ort#nt #rt of # litig#tion, $hether civil or crimin#l, is the rocess of e/ecution of decisions $here su ervening events m#y ch#nge the circumst#nce of the #rties #nd com el courts to intervene #nd #d=ust the rights of the litig#nts to revent unf#irness. "t is bec#use of these unforeseen, su ervening contingencies th#t courts h#ve been conceded the inherent #nd necess#ry o$er of control of its rocesses #nd orders to m#8e them comform to l#$ #nd =ustice. )he %ourt #lso re=ected ublic res ondent!s contention th#t by gr#nting the )0O, the %ourt h#s in effect gr#nted re rieve $hich is
#n e/ecutive function under Sec. 19, Art. ,"" of the %onstitution. "n truth, #n #ccused $ho h#s been convicted by fin#l =udgment still ossesses coll#ter#l rights #nd these rights c#n be cl#imed in the # ro ri#te courts. For inst#nce, # de#th convict $ho becomes ins#ne #fter his fin#l conviction c#nnot be e/ecuted $hile in # st#te of ins#nity. )he sus ension of such # de#th sentence is indis ut#bly #n e/ercise of =udici#l o$er. "t is not # usur #tion of the residenti#l o$er of re rieve though its effects #re the s#me #s the tem or#ry sus ension of the e/ecution of the de#th convict. "n the s#me vein, it c#nnot be denied th#t %ongress c#n #t #ny time #mend the De#th Pen#lty '#$ by reducing the en#lty of de#th to life im risonment. )he effect of such #n #mendment is li8e th#t of commut#tion of sentence. @ut the e/ercise of %ongress of its len#ry o$er to #mend l#$s c#nnot be considered #s # viol#tion of the o$er of the President to commute fin#l sentences of conviction. )he o$ers of the &/ecutive, the 'egisl#tive #nd the Judici#ry to s#ve the life of # de#th convict do not e/clude e#ch other for the sim le re#son th#t there is no higher right th#n the right to life. )o contend th#t only the &/ecutive c#n rotect the right to life of #n #ccused #fter his fin#l conviction is to viol#te the rinci le of coEe;u#l #nd coordin#te o$ers of the 7 br#nches of the government. C)av!& v. +CGG FACTS# Petitioner #s8s this %ourt to define the n#ture #nd the e/tent of the eo le4s constitution#l right to inform#tion on m#tters of ublic concern. Petitioner, invo8ing his constitution#l right to inform#tion #nd the correl#tive duty of the st#te to disclose ublicly #ll its tr#ns#ctions involving the n#tion#l interest, dem#nds th#t res ondents m#8e ublic #ny #nd #ll negoti#tions #nd #greements ert#ining to P%JJ4s t#s8 of recovering the M#rcoses4 illEgotten $e#lth. ISSUE#
68
Are the negoti#tions le#ding to # settlement on illEgotten $e#lth of the M#rcoses $ithin the sco e of the constitution#l gu#r#ntee of #ccess to inform#tion: HELD# Les. %onsidering the intent of the fr#mers of the %onstitution, it is incumbent u on the P%JJ #nd its officers, #s $ell #s other government re resent#tives, to disclose sufficient ublic inform#tion on #ny ro osed settlement they h#ve decided to t#8e u $ith the ostensible o$ners #nd holders of illEgotten $e#lth. Such inform#tion, though, must ert#in to definite ro ositions of the government, not necess#rily to intr#E#gency or interE#gency recommend#tions or communic#tions during the st#ge $hen common #ssertions #re still in the rocess of being formul#ted or #re in the Ge/ lor#toryH st#ge. )here is # need, of course, to observe the s#me restrictions on disclosure of inform#tion in gener#l EE such #s on m#tters involving n#tion#l security, di lom#tic or foreign rel#tions, intelligence #nd other cl#ssified inform#tion. Rom$ o L. N!*i 9. S!nat! Committ!! On A""o$nta'i it, O- +$' i" O--i"!*s An% Inv!stigations FACTS#
she instructed him not to #cce t the bribe. ?o$ever $hen he $#s robed further on PJMA4s #nd etitioner4s discussions rel#ting to the 9@9 Pro=ect, etitioner refused to #ns$er, invo8ing e/ec rivilege. )he ;uestions th#t he refused to #ns$er $ere2 1. $hether or not PJMA follo$ed u the 9@9 Pro=ect. *. $hether or not PJMA directed him to rioritiCe it. 7. $hether or not PJMA directed him to # rove it. )he etitioner did not # e#r before the res ondent committees u on orders of the President invo8ing e/ec rivilege. ?e e/ l#ined th#t the ;uestions #s8ed of him #re covered by e/ec rivilege. ?e $#s cited in contem t of res ondent committees #nd #n order for his #rrest #nd detention until such time th#t he $ould # e#r #nd give his testimony. ISSUES# >hether 9eri c#n invo8e e/ecutive rivilege5 >hether the invoc#tion of e/ecutive rivilege viol#te Sec. *., Art. "" #nd Sec. 6, Art. """5 #nd >hether the %ommittees gr#vely #bused their discretion by holding 9eri in contem t. RULING#
On A ril *1, *BB6, the DO)% entered into # contr#ct $ith P)& for the su ly of e;ui ment #nd services for the 9@9 Pro=ect in the #mount of ne#rly Ph 6@ #nd $#s to be fin#nced by the 0e ublic of %hin#. Sever#l 0esolutions reg#rding the investig#tion #nd im lic#tions on n#tion#l security #nd governmentE/toEgovernment contr#cts reg#rding the 9@9 Pro=ect $ere introduced in Sen#te. 0es ondent %ommittees initi#ted the investig#tion by sending invit#tions to cert#in erson#lities #nd c#binet offici#ls involved in the 9@9 Pro=ect. On Se tember *6, *BB6, 9eri5 # e#red before the res ondent committees #nd testified for #bout 11 hours on the m#tters concerning the 9#tion#l @ro#db#nd Pro=ect, # ro=ect #$#rded to # %hinese com #ny P)&. )he Petitioner therein disclosed th#t $hen he $#s offered by Ab#los # bribe of *BB million esos to # rove the ro=ect, he informed PJMA of the #ttem t #nd
)he communic#tions elicited by the three ;uestions #re covered by e/ecutive rivilege. Des ite the revoc#tion of &.O. D6D, there is # recogniCed cl#im of e/ecutive rivilege. )he rivilege is s#id to be # necess#ry gu#r#ntee of residenti#l #dvisors to rovide Gthe President #nd those $ho #ssist him $ith freedom to e/ lore #ltern#tives in the rocess of sh# ing olicies #nd m#8ing decisions #nd to do so in # $#y m#ny $ould be un$illing to e/ ress e/ce t riv#tely.H Furthermore, the cl#im $#s ro erly invo8ed by the letter rovided by &/ecutive Secret#ry &rmit# st#ting the recise #nd cert#in re#son th#t the s#id inform#tion m#y im #ir the country4s di lom#tic #s $ell #s economic rel#tions $ith the 0e ublic of %hin#. )he etitioner $#s #ble to # e#r in #t le#st one of the d#ys $here he $#s summoned #nd e/ ressly m#nifested his $illingness to
69
#ns$er more ;uestions from the Sen#tors, $ith the e/ce tion only of those covered by his cl#im of e/ecutive rivilege. )he right to ublic inform#tion #nd full ublic disclosure of tr#ns#ctions, li8e #ny other right, is sub=ect to limit#tion. )hese include those th#t #re cl#ssified by the body of =uris rudence #s highly confidenti#l. )he inform#tion sub=ect to this c#se belongs to such 8ind. )he %ommittees viol#ted Sec. *1, Art. ," of the %onstitution for h#ving f#iled to ublish its 0ules of Procedure. "n;uiries #re re;uired to be in #ccord#nce $ith the Gduly ublished rules of rocedure.H >ithout these, the #id of legisl#tion #re rocedur#lly infirm. Section < -- 3i'ht to For2 Associations So"ia S!"$*it, S,st!m Em4 o,!!s Asso. v. CA Fa"ts# On June 11, 19.6, the SSS filed $ith the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt of IueCon %ity # com l#int for d#m#ges $ith # r#yer for # $rit of relimin#ry in=unction #g#inst etitioners, #lleging th#t on June 9, 19.6, the officers #nd members of SSS&A st#ged #n illeg#l stri8e #nd b#ric#ded the entr#nces to the SSS @uilding, reventing nonE stri8ing em loyees from re orting for $or8 #nd SSS members from tr#ns#cting business $ith the SSS5 th#t the stri8e $#s re orted to the Public Sector '#bor E M#n#gement %ouncil, $hich ordered the stri8ers to return to $or85 th#t the stri8ers refused to return to $or85 #nd th#t the SSS suffered d#m#ges #s # result of the stri8e. )he com l#int r#yed th#t # $rit of relimin#ry in=unction be issued to en=oin the stri8e #nd th#t the stri8ers be ordered to return to $or85 th#t the defend#nts A etitioners herein3 be ordered to #y d#m#ges5 #nd th#t the stri8e be decl#red illeg#l. "t # e#rs th#t the SSS&A $ent on stri8e #fter the SSS f#iled to #ct on the union!s dem#nds, $hich included2 im lement#tion of the rovisions of the old SSSESSS&A collective b#rg#ining #greement A%@A3 on chec8Eoff of union dues5 #yment of #ccrued overtime #y, night differenti#l #y #nd holid#y #y5 conversion of tem or#ry or contr#ctu#l em loyees $ith si/ A63 months or more of service into regul#r #nd erm#nent em loyees #nd their entitlement to the s#me
s#l#ries, #llo$#nces #nd benefits given to other regul#r em loyees of the SSS5 #nd #yment of the children!s #llo$#nce of P7B.BB, #nd #fter the SSS deducted cert#in #mounts from the s#l#ries of the em loyees #nd #llegedly committed #cts of discrimin#tion #nd unf#ir l#bor r#ctices. Iss$!# >hether or not em loyees of the Soci#l Security System ASSS3 h#ve the right to stri8e. H! %# )he 19.6 %onstitution, in the Article on Soci#l Justice #nd ?um#n 0ights, rovides th#t the St#te (sh#ll gu#r#ntee the rights of #ll $or8ers to selfEorg#niC#tion, collective b#rg#ining #nd negoti#tions, #nd e#ceful concerted #ctivities, including the right to stri8e in #ccord#nce $ith l#$( WArt. +""", Sec. 71X. 0esort to the intent of the fr#mers of the org#nic l#$ becomes hel ful in underst#nding the me#ning of these rovisions. A re#ding of the roceedings of the %onstitution#l %ommission th#t dr#fted the 19.6 %onstitution $ould sho$ th#t in recogniCing the right of government em loyees to org#niCe, the commissioners intended to limit the right to the form#tion of unions or #ssoci#tions only, $ithout including the right to stri8e. %onsidering th#t under the 19.6 %onstitution (the civil service embr#ces #ll br#nches, subdivisions, instrument#lities, #nd #gencies of the Jovernment, including governmentEo$ned or controlled cor or#tions $ith origin#l ch#rters( WArt. "+A@3, Sec. .*Al3 see #lso Sec. 1 of &.O. 9o. 1.B $here the em loyees in the civil service #re denomin#ted #s (government em loyees(X #nd th#t the SSS is one such governmentEcontrolled cor or#tion $ith #n origin#l ch#rter, h#ving been cre#ted under 0.A. 9o. 1161, its em loyees #re #rt of the civil service W9AS&%O v. 9'0%, J.0. 9os. 69.6B V 6B*91, 9ovember *D,19..X #nd #re covered by the %ivil Service %ommission!s memor#ndum rohibiting stri8es. )his being the c#se, the stri8e st#ged by the em loyees of the SSS $#s illeg#l.
70
9i"to*iano v. E i&a %! Ro4! Wo*;!*s Union Fa"ts# Pl#intiff is # member of the &liC#lde 0o e >or8ers <nion $ho l#ter resigned from his #ffili#tion to the s#id union by re#son of the rohibition of his religion for its members to become #ffili#ted $ith #ny l#bor org#niC#tion. )he union h#s subsisting closed sho #greement in their collective b#rg#ining #greement $ith their em loyer th#t #ll erm#nent em loyees of the com #ny must be # member of the union #nd l#ter $#s #mended by 0e ublic Act 9o. 771B $ith the rovision st#ting (but such #greement sh#ll not cover members of #ny religious sects $hich rohibit #ffili#tion of their members in #ny such l#bor org#niC#tion(.. @y his resign#tion, the union $rote # letter to the com #ny to se #r#te the l#intiff from the service #fter $hich he $#s informed by the com #ny th#t unless he m#8es # s#tisf#ctory #rr#ngement $ith the union he $ill be dismissed from the service. )he union contends th#t 0A 771B im #irs oblig#tion of contr#ct sti ul#ted in their %@A #nd discrimin#torily f#vors religious sects in roviding e/em tion to be #ffili#ted $ith #ny l#bor unions. Iss$!# >O9 0A 771B im #irs the right to form #ssoci#tion. H! %#
sho #greements $ith the em loyers5 th#t in s ite of #ny closed sho #greement, members of s#id religious sects c#nnot be refused em loyment or dismissed from their =obs on the sole ground th#t they #re not members of the collective b#rg#ining union. )hus this e/ce tion does not infringe u on the constitution#l rovision on freedom of #ssoci#tion but inste#d reinforces it. In R!# E%i on =>H SCRA GGH A1B@>CD Fa"ts# )he res ondent M#rci#l A. &dillon is # duly licensed r#cticing #ttorney in the Phili ines. )he "@P @o#rd of Jovernors recommended to the %ourt the remov#l of the n#me of the res ondent from its 0oll of Attorneys for Gstubborn refus#l to #y his membershi duesH to the "@P since the l#tter4s constitution not$ithst#nding due notice. &dilion contends th#t the rovision roviding for the "@P dues constitute #n inv#sion of his constitution#l rights in the sense th#t he is being com elled, #s # reEcondition to m#int#ining his st#tus #s # l#$yer in good st#nding, to be # member of the "@P #nd to #y the corres onding dues, #nd th#t #s # conse;uence of this com elled fin#nci#l su ort of the s#id org#niC#tion to $hich he is #dmittedly erson#lly #nt#gonistic, he is being de rived of the rights to liberty #nd ro erty gu#r#nteed to him by the %onstitution. ?ence, the res ondent concludes, the #bove rovisions of the %ourt 0ule #nd of the "@P @yE'#$s #re void #nd of no leg#l force #nd effect. Iss$!#
)he court held th#t $h#t the %onstitution #nd the "ndustri#l Pe#ce Act recogniCe #nd gu#r#ntee is the (right( to form or =oin #ssoci#tions $hich involves t$o bro#d notions, n#mely2 first, liberty or freedom, i.e., the #bsence of leg#l restr#int, $hereby #n em loyee m#y #ct for himself $ithout being revented by l#$5 #nd second, o$er, $hereby #n em loyee m#y =oin or refr#in from =oining #n #ssoci#tion. )herefore the right to =oin # union includes the right to #bst#in from =oining #ny union. )he e/ce tions rovided by the #ss#iled 0e ublic Act is th#t members of s#id religious sects c#nnot be com elled or coerced to =oin l#bor unions even $hen s#id unions h#ve closed
>hether or not the #yment of "@P dues suffers constitution#l infirmity: H! %# 9o. All legisl#tion directing the integr#tion of the @#r h#ve been uniformly #nd univers#lly sust#ined #s # v#lid e/ercise of the olice o$er over #n im ort#nt rofession. )he r#ctice of l#$ is not # vested right but # rivilege, # rivilege
71
moreover clothed $ith ublic interest bec#use # l#$yer o$es subst#nti#l duties not only to his client, but #lso to his brethren in the rofession, to the courts, #nd to the n#tion, #nd t#8es #rt in one of the most im ort#nt functions of the St#te Q the #dministr#tion of =ustice Q #s #n officer of the court. >hen the res ondent &dillon entered u on the leg#l rofession, his r#ctice of l#$ #nd his e/ercise of the s#id rofession, $hich #ffect the society #t l#rge, $ere A#nd #re3 sub=ect to the o$er of the body olitic to re;uire him to conform to such regul#tions #s might be est#blished by the ro er #uthorities for the common good, even to the e/tent of interfering $ith some of his liberties. "f he did not $ish to submit himself to such re#son#ble interference #nd regul#tion, he should not h#ve clothed the ublic $ith #n interest in his concerns. )o com el # l#$yer to be # member of the "ntegr#ted @#r is not viol#tive of his constitution#l freedom to #ssoci#te. 6 @#r integr#tion does not com el the l#$yer to #ssoci#te $ith #nyone. ?e is free to #ttend or not #ttend the meetings of his "ntegr#ted @#r %h# ter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections #s he chooses. )he only com ulsion to $hich he is sub=ected is the #yment of #nnu#l dues. )he Su reme %ourt, in order to further the St#te4s legitim#te interest in elev#ting the ;u#lity of rofession#l leg#l services, m#y re;uire th#t the cost of im roving the rofession in this f#shion be sh#red by the sub=ects #nd benefici#ries of the regul#tory rogr#m Q the l#$yers. Such com ulsion is =ustified #s #n e/ercise of the olice o$er of the St#te. >hy: )he right to r#ctise l#$ before the courts of this country should be #nd is # m#tter sub=ect to regul#tion #nd in;uiry. And, if the o$er to im ose the fee #s # regul#tory me#sure is recogniCe, then # en#lty designed to enforce its #yment, $hich en#lty m#y be #voided #ltogether by #yment, is not void #s unre#son#ble or #rbitr#ry. Section 1. -- #on-%2)air2ent (lause
Pl#intiff is eng#ged in re#l est#te business, develo ing #nd selling lots to the ublic, #rticul#rly the ?igh$#y ?ills Subdivision #long &DSA. On M#rch D, 191*, l#intiff, #s vendor, #nd Augusto P#dill# #nd 9#tivid#d Angeles, #s vendees, entered into se #r#te #greements of s#le on inst#llments over t$o #rcels of l#nd of the Subdivision. On July 19, 196*, the s#id vendees tr#nsferred their rights #nd interests over the #fores#id lots in f#vor of one &mm# %h#veC. < on com letion of #yment of the urch#se rice, the l#intiff e/ecuted the corres onding deeds of s#le in f#vor of &mm# %h#veC. @oth the #greements Aof s#le on inst#llment3 #nd the deeds of s#le cont#ined the sti ul#tions or restrictions th#t2 1. )he #rcel of l#nd sh#ll be used e/clusively for residenti#l ur oses, #nd she sh#ll not be entitled to t#8e or remove soil, stones or gr#vel from it or #ny other lots belonging to the Seller. *. All buildings #nd other im rovements Ae/ce t the fence3 $hich m#y be constructed #t #ny time in s#id lot must be, A#3 of strong m#teri#ls #nd ro erly #inted, Ab3 rovided $ith modern s#nit#ry inst#ll#tions connected either to the ublic se$er or to #n # roved se tic t#n8, #nd Ac3 sh#ll not be #t # dist#nce of less th#n t$o A*3 meters from its bound#ry lines. &ventu#lly s#id lots $ere bought by defend#nt. 'ot 1 directly from %h#veC #nd 'ot 6 from 0e ublic Flour Mills by deed of e/ch#nge, $ith s#me restrictions. Pl#intiff cl#ims th#t restriction is for the be#utific#tion of the subdivision. Defend#nt cl#imed of the commerci#liC#tion of $estern #rt of &DSA. Defend#nt beg#n constructing # commerci#l b#n8 building. Pl#intiff dem#nd to sto it, $hich forced him to file # c#se, $hich $#s l#ter dismissed, u holding olice o$er. Motion for recon $#s denied, hence the # e#l. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot nonEim #irment cl#use viol#ted.
O*tigas I Co. v. F!ati 6an; A9D S%0A 177 W1969X3 H! %# Fa"ts# 9o. 0esolution is # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. &DSA, # m#in tr#ffic #rtery $hich runs through sever#l cities #nd munici #lities in
72
the Metro M#nil# #re#, su orts #n endless stre#m of tr#ffic #nd the resulting #ctivity, noise #nd ollution #re h#rdly conducive to the he#lth, s#fety or $elf#re of the residents in its route. ?e#lth, s#fety, e#ce, good order #nd gener#l $elf#re of the eo le in the loc#lity #re =ustific#tions for this. "t should be stressed, th#t $hile nonE im #irment of contr#cts is constitution#lly gu#r#nteed, the rule is not #bsolute, since it h#s to be reconciled $ith the legitim#te e/ercise of olice o$er. Lo&ano vs. /a*tin!& FACTS# Petitioners, ch#rged $ith @#t#s P#mb#ns# @il#ng ** A@P ** for short3, o ul#rly 8no$n #s the @ouncing %hec8 '#$, #ss#il the l#$!s constitution#lity. @P ** unishes # erson ($ho m#8es or dr#$s #nd issues #ny chec8 on #ccount or for v#lue, 8no$ing #t the time of issue th#t he does not h#ve sufficient funds in or credit $ith the dr#$ee b#n8 for the #yment of s#id chec8 in full u on resentment, $hich chec8 is subse;uently dishonored by the dr#$ee b#n8 for insufficiency of funds or credit or $ould h#ve been dishonored for the s#me re#son h#d not the dr#$er, $ithout #ny v#lid re#son, ordered the b#n8 to sto #yment.( )he en#lty rescribed for the offense is im risonment of not less th#n 7B d#ys nor more th#n one ye#r or # fine or not less th#n the #mount of the chec8 nor more th#n double s#id #mount, but in no c#se to e/ceed P*BB,BBB.BB, or both such fine #nd im risonment #t the discretion of the court. )he st#tute li8e$ise im oses the s#me en#lty on (#ny erson $ho, h#ving sufficient funds in or credit $ith the dr#$ee b#n8 $hen he m#8es or dr#$s #nd issues # chec8, sh#ll f#il to 8ee sufficient funds or to m#int#in # credit to cover the full #mount of the chec8 if resented $ithin # eriod of ninety A9B3 d#ys from the d#te # e#ring thereon, for $hich re#son it is dishonored by the dr#$ee b#n8. An essenti#l element of the offense is (8no$ledge( on the #rt of the m#8er or dr#$er of the chec8 of the insufficiency of his funds in or
credit $ith the b#n8 to cover the chec8 u on its resentment. Since this involves # st#te of mind difficult to est#blish, the st#tute itself cre#tes # rim# f#cie resum tion of such 8no$ledge $here #yment of the chec8 (is refused by the dr#$ee bec#use of insufficient funds in or credit $ith such b#n8 $hen resented $ithin ninety A9B3 d#ys from the d#te of the chec8. )o mitig#te the h#rshness of the l#$ in its # lic#tion, the st#tute rovides th#t such resum tion sh#ll not #rise if $ithin five A13 b#n8ing d#ys from recei t of the notice of dishonor, the m#8er or dr#$er m#8es #rr#ngements for #yment of the chec8 by the b#n8 or #ys the holder the #mount of the chec8. Another rovision of the st#tute, #lso in the n#ture of # rule of evidence, rovides th#t the introduction in evidence of the un #id #nd dishonored chec8 $ith the dr#$ee b#n8!s refus#l to #y (st#m ed or $ritten thereon or #tt#ched thereto, giving the re#son therefor, (sh#ll constitute rim#f#cie roof of (the m#8ing or issu#nce of s#id chec8, #nd the due resentment to the dr#$ee for #yment #nd the dishonor thereof ... for the re#son $ritten, st#m ed or #tt#ched by the dr#$ee on such dishonored chec8.( )he resum tions being merely rim# f#cie, it is o en to the #ccused of course to resent roof to the contr#ry to overcome the s#id resum tions. ISSUE# >-9 @P ** im #irs the freedom to contr#ct RULING# 9o. Article """, Section 1B of the %onstitution rovides th#t2 (9o l#$ im #iring the oblig#tion of contr#cts sh#ll be #ssed.( ?o$ever, the freedom of contr#ct $hich is constitution#lly rotected is freedom to enter into (l#$ful( contr#cts. %ontr#cts $hich contr#vene ublic olicy #re not l#$ful. %hec8s c#n not be c#tegoriCed #s mere contr#cts. "t is # commerci#l instrument $hich, in this modem d#y #nd #ge, h#s become # convenient substitute for money5 it forms #rt of the b#n8ing system #nd therefore not entirely free from the regul#tory o$er of the st#te.
73
Section 12 -- (ustodial %nvesti'ation Gam'oa v. C*$& Fa"ts# Petitioner $#s #rrested for v#gr#ncy $ithout # $#rr#nt. During # lineE u of 1 det#inees including etitioner, he $#s identified by # com l#in#nt to be # com #nion in # robbery, there#fter he $#s ch#rged. Petitioner filed # Motion to Ac;uit on the ground th#t the conduct of the lineEu , $ithout notice #nd in the #bsence of his counsel viol#ted his constitution#l rights to counsel #nd to due rocess. )he court denied s#id motion. ?e#ring $#s set, hence the etition. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot etitioner4s right to counsel #nd due rocess viol#ted. H! %# 9o. )he olice lineEu $#s not #rt of the custodi#l in;uest, hence, etitioner $#s not yet entitled, #t such st#ge, to counsel. ?e h#d not been held yet to #ns$er for # crimin#l offense. )he moment there is # move or even #n urge of s#id investig#tors to elicit #dmissions or confessions or even l#in inform#tion $hich m#y # e#r innocent or innocuous #t the time, from s#id sus ect, he should then #nd there be #ssisted by counsel, unless he $#ives the right, but the $#iver sh#ll be m#de in $riting #nd in the resence of counsel. On the right to due rocess, etitioner $#s not, in #ny $#y, de rived of this subst#ntive #nd constitution#l right, #s he $#s duly re resented by # counsel. ?e $#s #ccorded #ll the o ortunities to be he#rd #nd to resent evidence to subst#nti#te his defense5 only th#t he chose not to, #nd inste#d o ted to file # Motion to Ac;uit #fter the rosecution h#d rested its c#se. >h#t due rocess #bhors is the #bsolute l#c8 of o ortunity to be he#rd.
+!o4 ! v. 1$%g! A,son Fa"ts# Feli e 0#mos $#s # tic8et freight cler8 of the Phili ine Airlines, #ssigned #t its @#guio %ity st#tion. "t $#s #lleged th#t he $#s involved in irregul#rities in the s#les of l#ne tic8ets, the PA' m#n#gement notified him of #n investig#tion to be conducted. )h#t investig#tion $#s scheduled in #ccord#nce $ith PA'!s %ode of %onduct#nd Disci line, #nd the %ollective @#rg#ining Agreement signed by it $ith the Phili ine Airlines &m loyees! Associ#tion APA'&A3 to $hich 0#mos ert#ined. A letter $#s sent by 0#mos st#ting his $illingness to settle the #mount of P66,BBB. )he findings of the Audit te#m $ere given to him, #nd he refuted th#t he misused roceeds of tic8ets #lso st#ting th#t he $#s revented from settling s#id #mounts. ?e roffered # com romise ho$ever this did not ensue. )$o months #fter # crime of est#f# $#s ch#rged #g#inst 0#mos. 0#mos le#ded not guilty. &vidence by the rosecution cont#ined 0#mos4 $ritten #dmission #nd st#tement, to $hich defend#nts #rgued th#t the confession $#s t#8en $ithout the #ccused being re resented by # l#$yer. 0es ondent Judge did not #dmit those st#ting th#t #ccused $#s not reminded of his constitution#l rights to rem#in silent #nd to h#ve counsel. A motion for reconsider#tion filed by the rosecutors $#s denied. ?ence this # e#l. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the res ondent Judge correct in m#8ing in#dmissible #s evidence the #dmission #nd st#tement of #ccused. H! %# 9o. Section *B of the 19.6 constitution rovides th#t the right #g#inst selfEincrimin#tion Aonly to $itnesses other th#n #ccused, unless $h#t is #s8ed is rel#ting to # different crime ch#rgedE not resent in c#se #t b#r3.
74
)his is #ccorded to every erson $ho gives evidence, $hether volunt#rily or under com ulsion of sub oen#, in #ny civil, crimin#l, or#dministr#tive roceeding. )he right is not to (be com elled to be # $itness #g#inst himself.H "t rescribes #n (o tion of refus#l to #ns$er incrimin#ting ;uestions #nd not # rohibition of in;uiry.( the right c#n be cl#imed only $hen the s ecific ;uestion, incrimin#tory in ch#r#cter, is #ctu#lly ut to the $itness. "t c#nnot be cl#imed #t #ny other time. "t does not give # $itness the right to disreg#rd # sub oen#, to decline to # e#r before the court #t the time # ointed, or to refuse to testify #ltogether. "t is # right th#t # $itness 8no$s or should 8no$. ?e must cl#im it #nd could be $#ived. 0ights in custodi#l interrog#tion #s l#id do$n in mir#nd# v. AriCon#2 the rights of the #ccused include2 13 he sh#ll h#ve the right to rem#in silent #nd to counsel, #nd to be informed of such right. *3 nor force, violence, thre#t, intimid#tion, or #ny other me#ns $hich viti#tes the free $ill sh#ll be used #g#inst him. 73 #ny confession obt#ined in viol#tion of these rights sh#ll be in#dmissible in evidence. )he individu#l m#y 8no$ingly #nd intelligently $#ive these rights #nd #gree to #ns$er or m#8e # st#tement. @ut unless #nd until such rights #nd $#ivers #re demonstr#ted by the rosecution #t the tri#l, no evidence obt#ined #s # result of interrog#tion c#n be used #g#inst him. +!o4 ! v. /a)ina, Fa"ts# Accused $#s convicted for r# e #nd homicide of # 1* ye#r old girl. ?e #ss#iled the court decisions contending th#t his conviction $#s b#sed on circumst#nti#l evidence th#t f#ils to rove his guilt beyond re#son#ble doubt #nd th#t #n e/tr#=udici#l confession $#s t#8en from him in viol#tion of his constitution#l rights on custodi#l interrog#tion.
Iss$!# >hether or not the court erred in convicting the #ccused merely on ground of circumst#nti#l evidence #nd not beyond re#son#ble ground #nd >O9 his rights to l#$ful custodi#l investig#tion $#s viol#ted. H! %# )he court held th#t #bsence of direct roof does not necess#rily #bsolve him from #ny li#bility bec#use under the 0ules on evidence #nd ursu#nt to settled =uris rudence, conviction m#y be h#d on circumst#nti#l evidence rovided th#t the follo$ing re;uisites concur2 A13 there is more th#n one circumst#nce5 A*3. the f#cts from $hich the inferences #re derived #re roven5 #nd A73. the combin#tion of #ll the circumst#nces is such #s to roduce # conviction beyond re#son#ble doubt. )he circumst#nti#l evidence to be sufficient to su ort conviction must be consistent $ith e#ch other $hich $ere roven in the c#se.)he e/tr#=udici#l confession t#8en from the #ccused $#s $ithin the re;uirement of Mir#nd# rights #nd $ithin l#$ful me#ns $here his confession $#s t#8en in the resence of his l#$yer. +!o4 ! v. /a8$!%a Fa"ts# @ritish ?or#ce >illi#m @#r8er Aconsult#nt of >@3 $#s sl#in inside his house in )ub#, @enguet $hile his Fili ino $ife, )eresit#MendoC# $#s b#dly b#ttered $ith le#d i es on the occ#sion of # robbery. )$o household hel ers of the victims identified S#lv#m#nte A# former houseboy of the victims3 #nd M#;ued# #s the robbers. Mi8e )#b#y#n #nd his friend #lso s#$ the t$o #ccused # 8ilometer #$#y from the house of the victims th#t s#me morning, $hen the t$o #ccused #s8ed them for directions. M#;ued# $#s then #rrested in Juiny#ng#n, IueCon. ?e $#s t#8en to %#l#u#g, IueCon $here he signed # Sinum ##ng S#l#ys#y $herein he n#rr#ted his #rtici #tion in the crime. According to
75
SPO7 Molleno, he informed M#;ued# of his constitution#l rights before he signed suchdocument. After$#rds he $#s brought to the @enguet Provinci#l J#il. >hile he $#s under detention, M#;ued# filed # Motion to Jr#nt @#il. ?e st#ted therein th#t (he is $illing #nd volunteering to be # St#te $itness in the #bove entitled c#se, it # e#ring th#t he is the le#st guilty #mong the #ccused in this c#se.( M#;ued# #lso #dmitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery to Prosecutor P#r#te #nd to S#lvos#. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the tri#l court $#s correct in holding th#t the Sinum ##n S#l#ys#y is #dmissible #s evidence. H! %# 9o. )he Sinum ##ng S#l#ys#y is in#dmissible bec#use it $#s in cle#r viol#tion of the constitution#l rights of the #ccused. First, he $#s not informed of his right to rem#in silent #nd his right to counsel. Second, he c#nnot be com elled to be # $itness #g#inst himself. At the time of the confession, the #ccused $#s #lre#dy f#cing ch#rges in court. ?e no longer h#d the right to rem#in silent #nd to counsel but he h#d the right to refuse to be # $itness #nd not to h#ve #ny re=udice $h#tsoever result to him by such refus#l. And yet, des ite his 8no$ing fully $ell th#t # c#se h#d #lre#dy been filed in court, he still confessed $hen he did not h#ve to do so. )he contention of the tri#l court th#t the #ccused is not entitled to such rights #nymore bec#use the inform#tion h#s been filed #nd # $#rr#nt of #rrest h#s been issued #lre#dy, is unten#ble. )he e/ercise of the rights to rem#in silent #nd to counsel #nd to be informed thereof under Section 1*A13 of the @ill of 0ights #re not confined to th#t eriod rior to the filing of # crimin#l com l#int or inform#tion but #re #v#il#ble #t th#t st#ge $hen # erson is (under investig#tion for the commission of #n offense.( Pursu#nt to Section 1*A73 of the @ill of 0ights therefore, such e/tr#E =udici#l #dmission is in#dmissible #s evidence.
As to the #dmissions m#de by M#;ued# to Prosecutor P#r#te #nd 0#y De#n S#lvos#, the tri#l court #dmitted their testimony thereon only to rove the tenor of their convers#tion but not to rove the truth of the #dmission bec#use such testimony $#s ob=ected to #s he#rs#y. M#;ued# volunt#rily #nd freely m#de them to Prosecutor P#r#te not in the course of #n investig#tion, but in connection $ith M#;ued#!s le# to be utiliCed #s # st#te $itness5 #nd #s to the other #dmission AS#lvos#3, it $#s given to # riv#te erson therefore #dmissible. 9ote2 # distinction bet$een # confession #nd #dmission h#s been m#de by the S%2 Admission of # #rty. Q )he #ct, decl#r#tion or omission of #rty #s to # relev#nt f#ct m#y be given in evidence #g#inst him. %onfession. Q )he decl#r#tion of #n #ccused #c8no$ledging his guilt of the offense ch#rged, or of #ny offense necess#rily included therein, m#y be given in evidence #g#inst him. +!o4 ! v. D!ni!ga A*11 S%0A 6*6, 676 W1991X3 Fa"ts# )he #ccusedE# ell#nts $ere convicted of r# e #nd homicide. )he rosecution $#s b#sed solely on the #lleged e/tr#=udici#l confessions t#8en by the olice officers $ithout the resence of # counsel during custodi#l investig#tion. "t $#s #lso not#ble th#t the rosecution did not resent #ny $itness to the #ctu#l commission of the crime #nd the b#sis of the lo$er court4s conviction to the #ccused $#s b#sed on their #lleged e/tr#=udici#l confessions. Iss$!# >hether or not the lo$er court erred in convicting the # b#sed on their e/tr#=udici#l confession. H! %# ell#nts
76
)he court held th#t under rules l#id do$n by the %onstitution #nd e/isting l#$ #nd =uris rudence, # confession to be #dmissible must s#tisfy #ll of four fund#ment#l re;uirements2 13 the confession must be volunt#ry *3 the confession must be m#de $ith the #ssist#nce of com etent #nd inde endent counsel5 73 the confession must be e/ ress #nd D3 the confession must be in $riting. )he court noted th#t the #ssist#nce of # counsel rovided for the #ccused $#s in#de;u#te to meet the st#nd#rd re;uirements of the constitution for custodi#l investig#tion. "t seems th#t the l#$yers $ere not #round throughout the custodi#l investig#tion. %iting Peo le vs J#v#r, the court reiter#ted th#t #ny st#tement obt#ined in viol#tion of the constitution#l rovision, or in #rt, sh#ll be in#dmissible in evidence. GE!en if t%e confession spea5s t%e trut%, if it 4as made 4it%out t%e assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible in e!idence re)ardless of t%e absence of coercion or e!en if it %ad been !oluntaril# )i!en.H )hus, bec#use of these defects in observing the ro er rocedur#l re;uirements of the constitution on custodi#l investig#tion the #ccusedE# ell#nts $ere #c;uitted. +!o4 ! v. 6an%$ a Fa"ts# Si/ #rmed men b#rged into the com ound of Polo %oconut Pl#nt#tion in )#n=#y, 9egros Orient#l. )he #rmed men $ere identified by Security Ju#rd, including #ccused. S#lv# #nd P#str#no, security gu#rds $ere hogtied #nd #ccused roceeded to the Atty. J#r#y,counsel of l#nt#tion. )hey r#ns#c8ed the l#ce #nd too8 $ith them money #nd other v#lu#bles. Atty. J#r#y $#s 8illed. AccusedE # ell#nt is ch#rged $ith robbery $ith homicide #long $ith 7 others $ho $ere #c;uitted for insufficiency of evidence. A ell#nt $#s convicted. During investig#tion he $#s investig#ted #nd m#de #n e/tr#=udici#l confession during the interrog#tion in the #bsence of # counsel. "t $#s * $ee8s l#ter th#t he $#s rovided $ith one in the erson of Atty. Pern#, # munici #lity #ttorney $here he $#s m#de to sign # s$orn st#tement #dmitting the shooting of the victim. 9o$, # ell#nt #rgues th#t the e/tr#=udici#l confessions he #nd
#ccused Dion#n#o e/ecuted suffer from constitution#l infirmities, hence, in#dmissible in evidence considering th#t they $ere e/tr#cted under duress #nd intimid#tion, #nd $ere merely countersigned l#ter by the munici #l #ttorney $ho, by the n#ture of his osition, $#s not entirely #n inde endent counsel nor counsel of their choice. %onse;uently, $ithout the e/tr#=udici#l confessions, the rosecution is left $ithout sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime ch#rged. Iss$!# >hether or not the #ccused $#s #ccorded $ith due rocess of custodi#l investig#tion. H! %# 9o, the right of the #ccused for due rocess $#s cle#rly viol#ted since the #uthorities f#iled to rovide him counsel during the interrog#tion #nd he $#s not informed of his right to rem#in silent #nd right to # counsel.>hen #ccusedE# ell#nt @#ndul# #nd #ccused Dion#n#o $ere investig#ted immedi#tely #fter their #rrest, they h#d no counsel resent. "f #t #ll, counsel c#me in only # d#y #fter the custodi#l investig#tion $ith res ect to #ccused Dion#n#o, #nd t$o $ee8s l#ter $ith res ect to # ell#nt @#ndul#. And, counsel $ho su osedly #ssisted both #ccused $#s Atty. 0uben Pern#, the Munici #l Attorney of )#n=#y. On to of this, there #re tellt#le signs th#t violence $#s used #g#inst the #ccused. %ert#inly, these #re bl#t#nt viol#tions of the %onstitution $hich m#nd#tes in Sec. 1*, Art. """. "rregul#rities resent include2 1. )he investig#tors did not inform the #ccused of their right to rem#in silent #nd to h#ve com etent #nd inde endent counsel, refer#bly of their o$n choice, even before #ttem ting to elicit st#tements th#t $ould incrimin#te them. *. "nvestig#tors continuously disreg#rd the re e#ted re;uests of the #ccused for medic#l #ssist#nce. 0e#son for Accused Sedigo4s (bl#c8 eye( $hich even P#t. @#lde=er# #dmitted is not est#blished, #s $ell #s @#ndul#4s fr#ctured rib.
77
7. %ounsel must be inde endent. ?e c#nnot be # s eci#l counsel, ublic or riv#te rosecutor, counsel of the olice, or # munici #l #ttorney $hose interest is #dmittedly #dverse to the #ccused. Furthermore, the counsel to be rovided to the #ccused should be one $ho is im #rti#l, inde endent #nd of his o$n choice. "f the #ccused c#nnot #fford to h#ve his o$n counsel then he $ill be rovided by the #uthorities $ith one. Providing the #ccused $ith munici #lity #ttorney #s counsel $ould be re=udici#l bec#use of conflict of interest involved in the erform#nce of duty of s#id counsel. )he court held the evidence in#dmissible to court for f#ilure to meet the re;uisites of due rocess for conducting custodi#l investig#tion. +!o4 ! v. L$"!*o Fa"ts# Ale=#ndro 'ucero, @ienvenido &ch#veC, @#lbino &ch#veC, Peter Doe, 0ich#rd Doe #nd John Doe $ere ch#rged $ith the crime of robbery $ith homicide. )he rosecution2 AccusedE# ell#nt A#lighted from # gr#yEreddish c#r3, #rmed $ith h#ndgun, bloc8ed the $#y of the s#id com l#in#nt $ho $#s on bo#rd # Mercedes @enC #ssing #long 0o#d 1D, Mind#n#o Avenue, P#gE #s#, I%, rob #nd c#rry #$#y c#sh money5 one gold nec8l#ce $ith cross end#nt, 6 8#r#t5 one gold 0ole/ $#tch5 one 7 8#r#t gold ring5 one * 8#r#t gold ring, domino style5 one solid gold br#celet5 #ll $orth P767,6BB.BB, belonging to D0. D&M&)0"O P. MAD0"D. Accused shot 'O0&9PO @&09A'&S y A'&0"A, # driver of the s#id offended #rty, thus inflicting u on him mort#l $ounds, $hich resulted to the inst#nt#neous de#th of A'&0"A. Only the #ccused &ch#veC brothers #nd Ale=#ndro 'ucero $ere # rehended. >hen 'ucero told him th#t he h#d no l#$yer, in due time, Atty. Diosd#do Per#lt# conferred $ith 'ucero. ?e # rised 'ucero of his constitution#l rights. ?e observed no re#ction from 'ucero. 9onetheless, Atty. Per#lt# g#thered the im ression th#t 'ucero understood his #dvice.>hen the investig#tor
st#rted #s8ing the relimin#ry ;uestions, Atty. Per#lt# left to #ttend the $#8e of his friend. )he ne/t morning, 'ucero $#s #ccom #nied by %"S #gents to Atty. Per#lt#!s house. )he e/tr#=udici#l st#tement of 'ucero $#s resented to Atty. Per#lt#. "t $#s #lre#dy signed by 'ucero. )he three #ccused denied com licity in the crime ch#rged. A ell#nt 'ucero!s defense is #libi. ?e testified th#t he $#s #t his house in %#looc#n %ity. ?e s#id he $#s sur rised $hen sever#l unidentified men #ccosted him $hile he $#s $#l8ing to$#rds his house. )hey ch#sed him, h#ndcuffed #nd blindfolded him #nd ushed him into # =ee . ?e $#s blindfolded the $hole night #nd did not 8no$ $here he $#s t#8en. )he men turned out to be olice officers. )he ne/t d#y, he le#rned he $#s in %#m %r#me. ?e cl#imed th#t he $#s tortured. ?e $#s not informed of the offense for $hich he $#s being investig#ted. 9either did they reve#l the identity of the com l#in#nt. 'ucero denied 8no$ing Dr. M#drid, the &ch#veC brothers #nd the other #ccused in this c#se. ?e s#id he only met Dr. M#drid #t the %"S Office during the olice lineEu . ?e $#s m#de to lineEu four AD3 times before Dr. M#drid fin#lly identified him on the fourth time. 'ucero #lso cl#imed he signed the e/tr#=udici#l confession under duress. ?e denied eng#ging the services of Atty, Per#lt#. ?e li8e$ise confirmed th#t Atty. Per#lt# $#s not resent during his #ctu#l custodi#l interrog#tion. After tri#l, the court # ;uo #c;uitted the &ch#veC brothers for insufficient evidence. )he tri#l court, ho$ever, convicted #ccused 'ucero J<"')L #s rinci #l by direct #rtici #tion of 0obbery $ith ?omicide #nd sentenced to suffer #n im risonment term of 0&%'<S"O9 P&0P&)<A. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the lo$er court erred in convicting #ccusedE # ell#nt. H! %# A ell#nt!s conviction c#nnot be b#sed on his e/tr#=udici#l confession. %onstitution re;uires th#t # erson under investig#tion for the
78
commission of # crime should be rovided $ith counsel. )he %ourt h#ve constitution#liCed the right to counsel bec#use of hostility #g#inst the use of duress #nd other undue influence in e/tr#cting confessions from # sus ect. Force #nd fr#ud t#rnish confessions c#n render them in#dmissible. )he records sho$ th#t Atty. Per#lt#, $ho $#s not the counsel of choice of # ell#nt. Atty. Per#lt# himself #dmitted he received no re#ction from # ell#nt #lthough his im ression $#s th#t # ell#nt understood him. More so, it $#s during his #bsence th#t # ell#nt g#ve #n uncounselled confession. %onstitution re;uires the right to counsel, it did not me#n #ny 8ind of counsel but effective #nd vigil#nt counsel. )he circumst#nces cle#rly demonstr#te th#t # ell#nt received no effective counseling from Atty. Per#lt#. >hereof, Decision convicting # ell#nt Ale=#ndro 'ucero y %ortel is hereby reversed. +!o4 ! v. Ag$stin Fa"ts2 Iui#To, the gunm#n $ho 8illed the victims, confessed during the investig#tion conducted by @#guio %ity Fisc#l &rdolfo @#l#=#di# in his office th#t he $#s the triggerm#n. ?e im lic#ted Abeno=#, Jr., $ho eng#ged him to 8ill Dr. @#y;uen for # fee, %#rtel, $ho rovided the #rm#lite, #nd # cert#in (Jimmy.( During the investig#tion, >ilfredo Iui#To $#s #ssisted by Atty. 0eyn#ldo %#=ucom. Stenogr# hic notes of the roceedings during the investig#tion #s tr#nscribed $ith the s$orn st#tement of Iui#To $#s signed, $ith the #ssist#nce of Atty. %#=ucom, #nd s$ore to before %ity Fisc#l @#l#=#di#. )he follo$ing d#y, Agustin $#s # rehended, #nd $#s investig#ted #nd $#s #fforded the rivileges li8e th#t of Iui#To. Agustin4s defense inter ose th#t he $#s forced to #dmit involvement #t gun oint #tSennon 0o#d. ?e further decl#red th#t #lthough he $#s given # l#$yer, %#=ucom A# l#$ #rtner of the riv#te rosecutor3, he nevertheless, #s8ed for his uncle Atty. Oliver )#bin, #nd th#t Atty. %#=ucom intervie$ed him from only t$o minutes in &nglish #nd )#g#log but not in "loc#no, the di#lect he underst#nds. )he romise
th#t he $ould be disch#rged #s # $itness did not ush through since Iui#To esc# ed. ?o$ever the 0)% convicted him, since cons ir#cy $#s est#blished, hence this # e#l. Iss$!# >hether or not #ccusedE# ell#nt4s e/tr#=udici#l st#tements #re #dmissible #s evidence to $#rr#nt conviction. H! %# 9o. )he st#tement of the #ccused is in#dmissible #s evidence in court. Des ite #s8ing for his uncle to re resent him he $#s rovided $ith #n im #rti#l counsel $ho is #n #ssoci#te of the riv#te rosecutor. "t #lso # e#rs th#t some of the tr#nscri ts of the notes of the roceeding th#t sho$ the e/tr#=udici#l st#tement m#de by the #ccused $ere not signed by him. @y m#8ing his st#tements the #ccused volunt#rily $#ived his right to rem#in silent but th#t $#s not ut in $riting either. "t $ould be in viol#tion of the m#nd#te of custodi#l investig#tion to #dmit the st#tement of the #ccused $hen the rocess undert#8en is one bereft of meeting the st#nd#rd re;uirements of the due rocess th#t should be #ccorded to the #ccused in custodi#l investig#tion, hence he should be #c;uitted. +!o4 ! v. +in a" Fa"ts# )he #ccused $#s convicted for t$o se #r#te crimin#l c#ses for robbery #nd robbery $ith homicide. ?e #ss#iled his conviction on the contention th#t the court erred in #dmitting his e/tr#=udici#l confession #s evidence $hich $#s t#8en by force, violence, torture, #nd intimid#tion $ithout h#ving # r#ised of his constitution#l rights #nd $ithout the #ssist#nce of counsel. Iss$!# >hether or not due rocess $#s observed during the custodi#l investig#tion of the #ccused.
79
H! %# )he court find it meritorious to decl#re th#t the constitution#l rights of the #ccused $#s viol#ted in the f#ilure of the #uthorities in m#8ing the #ccused underst#nd the n#ture of the ch#rges #g#inst him $ithout # r#ising him of his constitution#l right to h#ve # counsel during custodi#l investig#tion. Moreover the rosecution merely resented the e/tr#=udici#l confession of the #ccused $hich is in#dmissible #s evidence #nd the other evidences rovided therein #re merely circumst#nti#l #nd sub=ect for rebutt#l. )he court #c;uitted the #ccused. +!o4 ! v. 6o anos A*11 S%0A *6* W199*X3 Fa"ts# Osc#r P#gd#li#n $#s murdered in M#rble Su ly, @#l#gt#s @ul#c#n. According to P#t. 0ol#ndo Alc#nt#r# #nd Fr#ncisco D#y#o, dece#sed $#s $ith t$o com #nions on the revious night, one of $hom the #ccused $ho h#d # drin8ing s ree $ith the dece#sed. >hen they # rehended the #ccused they found the fire#rm of the dece#sed on the ch#ir $here the #ccused $#s #llegedly se#ted. )hey bo#rded #ccused #long $ith M#gtib#y, other #ccused on the olice vehicle #nd brought them to the olice st#tion. >hile in the vehicle @ol#nos #dmitted th#t he 8illed the dece#sed. 0)% convicted him hence the # e#l. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot #ccusedE# to counsel. H! %# Les. @eing #lre#dy under custodi#l investig#tion $hile on bo#rd the olice #trol =ee on the $#y to the Police St#tion $here form#l investig#tion m#y h#ve been conducted, # ell#nt should h#ve been ell#nt de rived of his constitution#l right
informed of his %onstitution#l rights under Article """, Section 1* of the19.6 %onstitution, more #rticul#rly #r. 1 #nd #r. 7. A13 An# person under in!esti)ation for t%e commission of an offense s%all %a!e t%e ri)%t to remain silent and to %a!e competent and independent preferabl# of %is o4n c%oice If t%e person cannot afford t%e ser!ice of counsel, %e must be pro!ided 4it% one T%ese ri)%ts cannot be 4ai!ed e"cept in 4ritin) and in t%e presence of counsel A73 An# confession or admission obtained in !iolation of t%is or t%e precedin) section s%all be inadmissible in e!idence a)ainst %im +!o4 ! v. An%an FACTS2 "nst#nt etition for revie$ on certior#ri see8ing to reverse the Decision1 #nd the 0esolution of the %ourt of A e#ls entitled (Peo le of the Phili ines, l#intiffE# ellee, versus Anici# 0#mosE And#n #nd Potenci#n# 9ieto, #ccused, Anici# 0#mos And#n, #ccusedE# ell#nt.( On Febru#ry D, 1991, Anici# 0#mosEAnd#n, herein etitioner, #nd Potenci#n# 9ieto # ro#ched &liC#beth &. %#lderon #nd offered to buy the l#tter4s 1.Ec#r#t he#rtEsh# ed di#mond ring. &liC#beth #greed to sell her ring. "n turn, Potenci#n# tendered her three A73 ostd#ted chec8s. "n#smuch #s the three chec8s APD@ %hec8 9os. 1D1671.., 1D1671.9, #nd 1D16719B3 $ere #ll #y#ble to c#sh, &liC#beth re;uired etitioner to endorse them. )he l#tter com lied. >hen &liC#beth de osited the chec8s u on m#turity $ith the dr#$ee b#n8, they bounced for the re#son (Account %losed.( She then sent Potenci#n# # dem#nd letter to #y, but she refused. On July 1B, 1996, &liC#beth filed $ith the Office of the Provinci#l Prosecutor of @ul#c#n # %om l#int for &st#f# #g#inst etitioner #nd Potenci#n#. Finding # rob#ble c#use for &st#f# #g#inst them, the Provinci#l Prosecutor filed the corres onding "nform#tion for &st#f# $ith the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt A0)%3, @r#nch ., M#lolos, @ul#c#n. Subse;uently, etitioner $#s #rrested but Potenci#n# h#s rem#ined
80
#t l#rge. >hen #rr#igned, etitioner entered # le# of not guilty to the ch#rge. During the he#ring, etitioner denied buying # di#mond ring from &liC#beth, m#int#ining th#t she signed the recei t #nd the chec8s merely #s # $itness to the tr#ns#ction bet$een &liC#beth #nd Potenci#n#. )hus, she could not be held li#ble for the bounced chec8s she did not issue. After he#ring, the tri#l court rendered its Decision finding etitioner guilty #s ch#rged #nd im osing u on her #n indetermin#te rison term of si/ A63 ye#rs #nd one A13 d#y of ri si on m#yor, #s minimum, to fourteen A1D3 ye#rs, eight A.3 months #nd one A13 d#y of reclusion tem or#l, #s m#/imum, #nd to indemnify &liC#beth &. %#lderon in the #mount of P67,BBB.BB re resenting the urch#se rice of the di#mond ring. )he tri#l court held th#t $hile it $#s Potenci#n# $ho issued the chec8s, nonetheless, it $#s etitioner $ho induced &liC#beth to #cce t them #nd $ho endorsed the s#me. Accordingly, etitioner c#nnot esc# e li#bility. On # e#l, the %ourt of A e#ls rendered its Decision #ffirming $ith modific#tion the 0)% Decision. )he m#/imum en#lty im osed $#s incre#sed to seventeen A163 ye#rs, four AD3 months #nd one A13 d#y of reclusion tem or#l #nd the indemnity $#s reduced to P*7,BBB.BB considering the 0)%4s finding th#t2 %om l#in#nt, ho$ever, $#s #ble to resent in %ourt only Pl#nters Develo ment @#n8 A%hec83 9o. 1D1671.., d#ted June 7B, 1991, in the #mount of P*7,BBB.BB #nd the f#ct of its being dishonored. )he other t$o chec8s $ere neither resented nor the f#ct of being dishonored roven. 'i8e$ise, the t$o chec8s $ere not mentioned in the dem#nd letter m#r8ed #s &/hibit O%.4 Although, therefore, it is cle#r from the records, in f#ct #dmitted by the #ccused, th#t the tot#l #mount of P*7,BBB.BB #s urch#se rice of the di#mond ring h#s not been #id, the #ccused should only be held li#ble for the dishonor of the chec8 #boveE st#ted #s the dishonor of the t$o other chec8s $#s
not roven in %ourt. Petitioner filed # motion for reconsider#tion, but this $#s denied by the A ell#te %ourt. ?ence # etition to the Su reme %ourt. ISSUE# >hether or not the #ccused is guilty under Art.711 HELD# )he elements of the offense #s defined #nd en#liCed by Article 711, #r#gr# h *Ad3 of the 0evised Pen#l %ode, #s #mended, #re2 A13 ostd#ting or issu#nce of # chec8 in #yment of #n oblig#tion contr#cted #t the time the chec8 $#s issued5 A*3 l#c8 of or insufficiency of funds to cover the chec85 #nd A73 the #yee $#s not informed by the offender #nd the #yee did not 8no$ th#t the offender h#d no funds or insufficient funds. All these elements #re resent in this c#se. )he rosecution roved th#t the chec8s $ere issued in #yment of # simult#neous oblig#tion, i.e., the chec8s $ere issued in #yment for the ring. )he chec8s bounced $hen &liC#beth de osited them for the re#son (Account %losed.( )here is no sho$ing $h#tsoever th#t before etitioner h#nded #nd endorsed the chec8s to &liC#beth, she too8 ste s to #scert#in th#t Potenci#n# h#s sufficient funds in her #ccount. < on being informed th#t the chec8s bounced, she f#iled to give #n #de;u#te e/ l#n#tion $hy Potenci#n#4s #ccount $#s closed. "n &ch#us v. %ourt of A e#ls, $e ruled th#t (the f#ct th#t the ostd#ted chec8s\$ere not covered by sufficient funds, $hen they fell due, in the #bsence of #ny e/ l#n#tion or =ustific#tion by etitioner, s#tisfied the element of deceit in the crime of est#f#, #s defined in #r#gr# h * of Article 711 of the 0evised Pen#l %ode.( +!o4 ! v. /a"am Fa"ts#
81
Prosecution4s version2 On Aug 1.,19.6, &du#rdo M#c#m, Antonio %edro, &ugenio %#$il#n Jr., D#nilo 0o;ue #nd &rnesto 0o;ue $ent to the house of @enito M#c#m Auncle of &du#rdo M#c#m3 loc#ted #t D7 Ferm# 0o#d I%. < on the #rriv#l of the #ccused, @enito invited the former to h#ve lunch. @enito #s8ed his m#id S#lv#cion &nrer# to c#ll the com #nions of &du#rdo $ho $ere $#iting in # tricycle outside the house. A. %edro, &. %#$il#n #nd D. 0o;ue entered the house $hile &. 0o;ue rem#ined in the tricycle. After #ll the #ccused h#d t#8en their lunch, &du#rdo M#c#m gr#bbed the clutch b#g of @enito M#c#m #nd ulled out his uncle4s gun then decl#red # holdEu . )hey tied u the $ife A'etici# M#c#m3, children, m#id AS#lv#cion3 #nd 9ilo Alc#nt#r# #nd brought them to the room u st#irs. After # $hile 'etici# $#s brought to the b#throom #nd #fter she scre#med she $#s st#bbed #nd 8illed by A. %edro. @enito, 9ilo #nd S#lv#cion $#s #lso st#bbed but survived. )he tot#l v#lue of the items t#8en $#s P176, 6BB.BB. Defense4s version2 D#nilo 0o;ue st#ted th#t he being # tricycle driver drove the D #ccused to @enito4s house for # fee of P1B.BB. "nste#d of #ying him, he $#s given # c#lling c#rd by &du#rdo M#c#m so th#t he c#n be #id the follo$ing d#y. < on #rriving, he $ent $ith the #ccused inside the house to h#ve lunch. )here#fter he $#shed the dishes #nd s$e t the floor. >hen &ugenio %#$il#n ulled # gun #nd #nnounced the holdEu , he $#s #s8ed to g#ther some things #nd $hich he #bided out of fe#r. >hile utting the s#id thins inside the c#r of @enito Avictim3 he he#rd the #ccused s#ying G8#il#ng#n #t#yin #ng mg# t#ong y#n d#hil 8il#l# #8o ng mg# y#nH. < on he#ring such hr#se he esc# ed #nd $ent home using his tricycle. ?e #lso testified th#t his brother &rnesto 0o;ue h#s =ust #rrived from the rovince #nd in no $#y c#n be involved in the c#se #t b#r. On the follo$ing d#y, together $ith his brother, they $ent to the f#ctory of the Pesto Juice Ao$ned by the f#ther of &du#rdo M#c#m3 for him to get his #yment A1B.BB3 . ?e #nd his brother $#s suddenly # rehended by the security gu#rds #nd brought to the olice he#d;u#rters in I.%. )hey $ere #lso forced to #dmit cert#in things. After $hich, he together $ith #ll the #ccused, in h#ndcuffs #nd bore
contusions on their f#ces c#used by blo$s inflicted in their f#ces during investig#tion, $#s brought to the I% Jener#l ?os it#l before e#ch surviving victims #nd m#de to lineEu for identific#tion. &ugenio %#$il#n $#s #lso ch#rged $ith AntiEfencing '#$ but $#s #c;uitted in the s#id c#se. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot their right to counsel h#s been viol#ted. >O9 the #rrest $#s v#lid. >O9 the evidence from the lineEu is #dmissible. H! %# "t is # ro ri#te to e/tend the counsel gu#r#ntee to critic#l st#ges of rosecution even before tri#l. A olice lineEu is considered # Gcritic#lH st#ge of the roceedings. Any identific#tion of #n uncounseled #ccused m#de in # olice lineEu is in#dmissible. ?O>&,&0, the rosecution did not resent evidence reg#rding # ell#nt4s identific#tion #t the lineEu . )he $itnesses identified the #ccused #g#in in o en court. Also, #ccused did not ob=ect to the inE court identific#tion #s being t#inted by illeg#l lineEu . )he #rrest of the # ell#nts $#s $ithout # $#rr#nt. ?O>&,&0, they #re esto ed from ;uestioning the leg#lity of such #rrest bec#use they h#ve not moved to ;u#sh the s#id inform#tion #nd therefore volunt#rily submitted themselves to the =urisdiction of the tri#l court by entering # le# of not guilty #nd #rtici #ting in tri#l. )he court believed the version of the rosecution. &rnesto 0o;ue, $hile rem#ining outside the house served #s # loo8ed out. >herefore, decision of lo$er court is Affirmed. D#nilo 0o;ue #nd &rnesto 0o;ue is guilty of the crime of robbery $ith homicide #s coE cons ir#tors of the other #ccused to suffer reclusion er etu#. )hings t#8en2 * toygun, #irgun riffle, %O* refiller, ),, bet#m#/ t# es, bet#m#/ re$inder, S#msonite #tt#che c#se, ty e$riter, chessbo#rd, )OLO)A %ro$n %#r Pl#te 9o. %ASE996, #ssorted =e$elry. .** gun #nd money.
82
+!o4 ! v. H!*son Tan , 9!*&o Fa"ts# )ricycle driver Freddie S##vedr# $ent to see his $ife, Delf#, # to inform her th#t he $ill drive 'ito Amido #nd # ell#nt ?erson )#n to @#r#ng#y M#lig#y#. "t $#s the l#st time th#t Freddie $#s seen #live. ?is body $#s l#ter found s r#$led on # diversion ro#d $ith fourteen st#b $ounds. Subse;uently, 't. S#ntos, % l. 9umeri#no Aguil#r #nd P#t. 0ol#ndo Al#ndy invited # ell#nt in connection $ith the inst#nt c#se #nd $ith res ect to t$o other robbery c#ses re orted in 'ucen# %ity. During their convers#tion, # ell#nt #llegedly g#ve #n e/ licit #ccount of $h#t #ctu#lly tr#ns ired in the c#se #t b#r. ?e n#rr#ted th#t he #nd coE#ccused Amido $ere res onsible for the loss of the motorcycle #nd the conse;uent de#th of S##vedr#. Moreover, he #verred th#t they sold the motorcycle to # cert#in D#nny )eves of @#rrio Summit, Muntinlu #. >ith the hel of # ell#nt #s # guide, the 'ucen# P9P immedi#tely dis #tched # te#m to retrieve the s#me. )#n #nd Amido $ere ch#rged $ith the crime of high$#y robbery $ith murder. 't. %#rlos, on crossEe/#min#tion, testified th#t $hen he invited # ell#nt to their he#d;u#rters, he h#d no $#rr#nt for his #rrest. "n the course thereof, he informed the l#tter th#t he $#s # sus ect, not only in the inst#nt c#se, but #lso in t$o other robbery c#ses #llegedly committed in 'ucen# %ity. "n the belief th#t they $ere merely conversing inside the olice st#tion, he #dmitted th#t he did not inform # ell#nt of his constitution#l rights to rem#in silent #nd to the #ssist#nce of counsel5 nor did he reduce the su osed confession to $riting. "n # decision d#ted A ril *1, 199D, the tri#l court convicted # ell#nt. Iss$!# >hether or not the confession of the # ell#nt, given before # olice investig#tor u on invit#tion #nd $ithout the benefit of counsel, is #dmissible in evidence #g#inst him.
H! %# 9o."t is $ellEsettled th#t the %onstitution #bhors #n uncounselled confession or #dmission #nd $h#tever inform#tion is derived therefrom sh#ll be reg#rded #s in#dmissible in evidence #g#inst the confess#nt. 0.A. 9o. 6D7. reenforced the constitution#l m#nd#te rotecting the rights of ersons under custodi#l investig#tion, # ertinent rovision of $hich re#ds2 As used in this Act, (custodi#l investig#tion( sh#ll include the r#ctice of issuing #n (invit#tion( to # erson $ho is investig#ted in connection $ith #n offense he is sus ected to h#ve committed, $ithout re=udice to the li#bility of the (inviting( officer for #ny viol#tion of l#$. %ustodi#l investig#tion involves #ny ;uestioning initi#ted by l#$ enforcement #uthorities #fter # erson is t#8en into custody or other$ise de rived of his freedom of #ction in #ny signific#nt m#nner. )he rules on custodi#l investig#tion begin to o er#te #s soon #s the investig#tion ce#ses to be # gener#l in;uiry into #n unsolved crime #nd begins to focus # #rticul#r sus ect, the sus ect is t#8en into custody, #nd the olice c#rries out # rocess of interrog#tions th#t tends itself to eliciting incrimin#ting st#tements th#t the rule begins to o er#te. Furthermore, not only does the fund#ment#l l#$ im ose, #s # re;uisite function of the investig#ting officer, the duty to e/ l#in those rights to the #ccused but #lso th#t there must corres ondingly be # me#ningful communic#tion to #nd underst#nding thereof by the #ccused. A mere erfunctory re#ding by the const#ble of such rights to the #ccused $ould thus not suffice. <nder the %onstitution #nd e/isting l#$ #nd =uris rudence, # confession to be #dmissible must s#tisfy the follo$ing re;uirements2 A13 it must be volunt#ry5 A*3 it must be m#de $ith the #ssist#nce of com etent #nd inde endent counsel5 A73 it must be e/ ress5 #nd AD3 it must be in $riting. >hile the %onstitution s#nctions the $#iver of the right to counsel, it must, ho$ever, be (volunt#ry, 8no$ing #nd intelligent, #nd must be
83
m#de in the resence #nd $ith the #ssist#nce of counsel.( Any st#tement obt#ined in viol#tion of the constitution, $hether e/cul #tory or incul #tory, in $hole or in #rt, sh#ll be in#dmissible in evidence. &ven if the confession cont#ins # gr#in of truth, if it $#s m#de $ithout the #ssist#nce of counsel, it becomes in#dmissible in evidence, reg#rdless of the #bsence of coercion or even if it h#d been volunt#rily given. )he evidence for the rosecution sho$s th#t $hen # ell#nt $#s invited for ;uestioning #t the olice he#d;u#rters, he #llegedly #dmitted his #rtici #tion in the crime. )his $ill not suffice to convict him, ho$ever, of s#id crime. )he constitution#l rights of # ell#nt, #rticul#rly the right to rem#in silent #nd to counsel, #re im regn#ble from the moment he is investig#ted in connection $ith #n offense he is sus ected to h#ve committed, even if the s#me be initi#ted by mere invit#tion. ()his %ourt v#lues liberty #nd $ill #l$#ys insist on the observ#nce of b#sic constitution#l rights #s # condition sine ;u# non #g#inst the #$esome investig#tive #nd rosecutory o$ers of government.( +!o4 ! v. D, Fa"ts# Accused is the o$ner of @enny4s @#r #t @or#c#y "sl#nd #nd $#s sentenced $ith murder before the tri#l court for shooting # S$iss n#tion#l in his b#r. )he #ccused contends the court erred in #dmitting the resent#tion of the rosecution of evidence th#t he c#me to # olice officer #nd m#de # confession on the crime #nd informed s#id officer $here to find the gun he used, # st#tement the #ccused denied to h#ve done. )hey #ss#il its #dmissibility to the court on the grounds th#t such st#tement $#s not m#de in $riting #nd is in viol#tion of the due rocess re;uired in custodi#l investig#tion. Iss$!# >hether or not the evidence resented by the rosecution be #dmissible to $#rr#nt guilt of the #ccused.
H! %# "n vie$ of the document#ry evidence on record the defense lost its credibility before the court. An or#l confession m#de by the #ccused to the officer #nd telling him the gun is in his b#r $hich he $#nts to surrender c#n be held #dmissible in court #s evidence #g#inst him. )his is bec#use such confession $#s m#de unsolicited by the olice officer #nd the #ccused $#s not under investig#tion $hen he m#de the or#l confession. )herefore there is no need to invo8e com li#nce of the ro er rocedure in # custodi#l investig#tion #t the c#se #t b#r. )he rule on 0&S J&S)A& is # lic#ble $here # $itness $ho he#rd the confession is com etent to s#tisfy the subst#nce of $h#t he he#rd if he he#rd #nd understood it. An or#l confession need not be re e#ted verb#tim, but in such # c#se it must be given in subst#nce. )hus the or#l confession m#de by the #ccused outside the #mbit of custodi#l investig#tion c#n be #dmissible in court #nd $#s given due credence to $#rr#nt the =udgment of the #ccused being guilty of the crime. +!o4 ! v A i"an%o AJ.0. 9o. 116D.6, December *, 19913 Fa"ts# Accused $#s convicted $ith # crime of r# e $ith homicide of # D ye#r old girl. ?e $#s #rrested #nd during the interrog#tion he m#de # confession of the crime $ithout the #ssist#nce of # counsel. @y virtue of his uncounseled confession the olice c#me to 8no$ $here to find the evidences consisting of the victim4s erson#l things li8e clothes st#ined $ith blood $hich $#s #dmitted to court #s evidences. )he victim le#ded guilty during the #rr#ignment #nd $#s convicted $ith the de#th en#lty. )he c#se $#s for$#rded to the S% for #utom#tic revie$. Iss$!# >hether or not due rocess during the custodi#l investig#tion $#s #ccorded to the #ccused. H! %#
84
Due rocess $#s not observed in the conduct of custodi#l investig#tion for the #ccused. ?e $#s not informed of his right to # counsel u on m#8ing his e/tr#=udici#l confession #nd the inform#tion #g#inst him $#s $ritten in # l#ngu#ge he could not underst#nd #nd $#s not e/ l#ined to him. )his is in viol#tion of section 1A#3 of 0ule 116, the rule im lementing the constitution#l right of the # ell#nt to be informed of the n#ture #nd c#use of the #ccus#tion #g#inst him. )he lo$er court #lso viol#ted section 7 of 0ule 116 $hen it #cce ted the le# of guilt of the # ell#nt $ithout conducting # se#rch in;uiry on the volunt#riness #nd full underst#nding of the #ccused of the conse;uences of his le#. Moreover the evidences #dmitted by the court th#t $#rr#nted his convicted $ere in#dmissible bec#use they $ere due to #n inv#lid custodi#l investig#tion th#t did not rovide the #ccused $ith due rocess of the l#$. )hus the S% #nnulled the decision of the im osition of the de#th en#lty #nd rem#nded the c#se b#c8 to the lo$er for further roceeding. Juanita A. Aquino v. 8eresita &. Paiste "#A$A%LA&LE Section 1, -- 3i'ht to &ail 6as"o v. Ra4ata o FACTS# An inform#tion for murder $#s filed #g#inst Morente. )he #ccused Morente filed # etition for b#il. )he he#ring for s#id etition $#s set for M#y 71, 1991 by etitioner but $#s not he#rd since the res ondent Judge $#s then on le#ve. "t $#s reset to June ., 1991 but on s#id d#te, res ondent Judge reset it to June **, 1991. )he he#ring for June **, 1991, ho$ever, did not m#teri#liCe. "nste#d, the #ccused $#s #rr#igned #nd tri#l $#s set. Ag#in, the etition for b#il $#s not he#rd on s#id d#te #s the rosecution!s $itnesses in connection $ith s#id etition $ere not notified. Another #ttem t $#s m#de to reset the he#ring to July 16, 1991.%om l#in#nt #llegedly s#$ the #ccused in 0os#rio, '# <nion on July 7, 1991 #nd l#ter le#rned th#t the #ccused $#s out on b#il des ite the f#ct th#t the etition h#d not been he#rd #t #ll. < on investig#tion, com l#in#nt
discovered th#t b#il h#d been gr#nted #nd # rele#se order d#ted June *9, 1991 $#s issued on the b#sis of # m#rgin#l note d#ted June **, 1991, #t the bottom of the b#il etition by Assist#nt Prosecutor Oliv# $hich st#ted2 (9o ob=ection2 P.B,BBB.BB,( signed #nd # roved by the #ssist#nt rosecutor #nd eventu#lly by res ondent Judge. 9ote th#t there $#s #lre#dy # rele#se order d#ted June *9, 1991 on the b#sis of the m#rgin#l note of the Assist#nt Prosecutor d#ted June **, 1991 $hen the he#ring of the b#il etition $#s #borted #nd inste#d #rr#ignment too8 l#ce3 $hen #nother he#ring $#s scheduled for July 16, 1991.0es ondent Judge #lleged th#t he gr#nted the etition b#sed on the rosecutor!s o tion not to o ose the etition #s $ell #s the l#tter!s recommend#tion setting the b#il bond in the #mount of P.B,BBB.BB. ?e #verred th#t $hen the rosecution chose not to o ose the etition for b#il, he h#d the discretion on $hether to # rove it or not. ?e further decl#red th#t $hen he # roved the etition, he h#d # right to resume th#t the rosecutor 8ne$ $h#t he $#s doing since he $#s more f#mili#r $ith the c#se, h#ving conducted the relimin#ry investig#tion. Furthermore, the riv#te rosecutor $#s not #round #t the time the ublic rosecutor recommended b#il. 0es ondent Judge st#ted th#t in #ny c#se, the b#ilbond osted by #ccused $#s c#ncelled #nd # $#rr#nt for his #rrest $#s issued on #ccount of com l#in#nt!s motion for reconsider#tion. )he Assist#nt Provinci#l Prosecutor # #rently conformed to #nd # roved the motion for reconsider#tion. Accused is confined #t the '# <nion Provinci#l J#il. On August 1D1991, in # s$orn letterEcom l#int, com l#in#nt @#sco ch#rged res ondent Judge 'eo M.0# #t#lo $ith gross ignor#nce or $illful disreg#rd of est#blished rule of l#$ for gr#nting b#il to #n #ccused in # murder c#se $ithout receiving evidence #nd conducting # he#ring. ISSUE# %A9 A J<DJ& S&) @A"' &,&9 >-O %O9D<%)"9J A ?&A0"9J O0 0&%&","9J&,"D&9%&: HELD#
85
9O. "f the deni#l of b#il is #uthoriCed in c# it#l offenses, it is only in theory th#t the roof being strong, the defend#nt $ould flee, if he h#s the o ortunity, r#ther th#n f#ce the verdict of the court. ?ence the e/ce tion to the fund#ment#l right to be b#iled should be # lied in direct r#tio to the e/tent of rob#bility of ev#sion of the rosecution. "n r#ctice, b#il h#s #lso been used to revent the rele#se of #n #ccused $ho might other$ise be d#ngerous to society or $hom the =udges might not $#nt to rele#se. "t is in vie$ of the #bovementioned r#ctic#l function of b#il th#t it is not # m#tter of right in c#ses $here the erson is ch#rged $ith # c# it#l offense unish#ble by de#th, reclusion er etu# or life im risonment. Article 11D, section 6 of the 0ules of %ourt, #s #mended, st#tes, (9o erson( ch#rged $ith # c# it#l offense, or #n offense unish#ble by reclusion er etu# or life im risonment $hen the evidence of guilt is strong, sh#ll be #dmitted to b#il reg#rdless of the st#ge of the crimin#l #ction.(>hen the gr#nt of b#il is discretion#ry, the rosecution h#s the burden of sho$ing th#t the evidence of guilt #g#inst the #ccused is strong. ?o$ever, the determin#tion of $hether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, being # m#tter of =udici#l discretion, rem#ins $ith the =udge. )his discretion by the very n#ture of things, m#y rightly be e/ercised only #fter the evidence is submitted to the court #t the he#ring. Since the discretion is directed to the $eight of the evidence #nd since evidence c#nnot ro erly be $eighed if not duly e/hibited or roduced before the court, it is obvious th#t # ro er e/ercise of =udici#l discretion re;uires th#t the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the etitioner h#ving the right of cross e/#min#tion #nd to introduce his o$n evidence in rebutt#l. )o be sure, the discretion of the tri#l court, (is not #bsolute nor beyond control. "t must be sound, #nd e/ercised $ithin re#son#ble bounds. Judici#l discretion, by its very n#ture involves the e/ercise of the =udge!s individu#l o inion #nd the l#$ h#s $isely rovided th#t its e/ercise be guided by $ellE8no$n rules $hich, $hile #llo$ing the =udge r#tion#l l#titude for the o er#tion of his o$n individu#l vie$s, revent them from getting out of control. %onse;uently, in the # lic#tion for b#il of # erson ch#rged $ith # c# it#l offense unish#ble by de#th, reclusion er etu# or life im risonment, # he#ring, $hether summ#ry or other$ise in the discretion of the court,
must #ctu#lly be conducted to determine $hether or not the evidence of guilt #g#inst the #ccused is strong. On such he#ring, the court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into #ny nice in;uiry #s to the $eight th#t ought to be #llo$ed to the evidence for or #g#inst the #ccused, nor $ill it s ecul#te on the outcome of the tri#l or on $h#t further evidence m#y be therein offered #nd #dmitted. )he course of in;uiry m#y be left to the discretion of the court $hich m#y confine itself to receiving such evidence #s h#s reference to subst#nti#l m#tters, #voiding unnecess#ry thoroughness in the e/#min#tion #nd cross e/#min#tion. "f # #rty is denied the o ortunity to be he#rd, there $ould be # viol#tion of rocedur#l due rocess. )he cited c#ses A$-c " didn4t include 8se m#d#mi3 #re #ll to the effect th#t $hen b#il is discretion#ry, # he#ring, $hether summ#ry or other$ise in the discretion of the court, should first be conducted to determine the e/istence of strong evidence, or l#c8 of it, #g#inst the #ccused to en#ble the =udge to m#8e #n intelligent #ssessment of the evidence resented by the #rties. Since the determin#tion of $hether or not the evidence of guilt #g#inst the #ccused is strong is # m#tter of =udici#l discretion, the =udge is m#nd#ted to conduct # he#ring even in c#ses $here the rosecution chooses to =ust file # comment or le#ve the # lic#tion for b#il to the discretion of the court. A he#ring is li8e$ise re;uired if the rosecution refuses to #dduce evidence in o osition to the # lic#tion to gr#nt #nd fi/ b#il. %oroll#ry, #nother re#son $hy he#ring of # etition for b#il is re;uired, #s c#n be gle#ned from the )uc#y v Dom#g#s, is for the court to t#8e into consider#tion the guidelines set forth in Section 6, 0ule 11D of the 0ules of %ourt in fi/ing the #mount of b#il. )his %ourt, in # number of c#ses held th#t even if the rosecution f#ils to #dduce evidence in o osition to #n # lic#tion for b#il of #n #ccused, the court m#y still re;uire th#t it #ns$er ;uestions in order to #scert#in not only the strength of the st#te! s evidence but #lso the #de;u#cy of the #mount of b#il. After he#ring, the court!s order gr#nting or refusing b#il must cont#in # summ#ry of the evidence for the rosecution. On the b#sis thereof, the =udge should then formul#te his o$n conclusion #s to $hether the evidence so resented is strong enough #s to indic#te the guilt of the #ccused. Other$ise, the order gr#nting or denying the # lic#tion for b#il m#y be inv#lid#ted bec#use the summ#ry of evidence for the
86
rosecution $hich cont#ins the =udge!s ev#lu#tion of the evidence m#y be considered #s #n #s ect of rocedur#l due rocess for both the rosecution #nd the defense. An ev#lu#tion of the records in the c#se #t b#r reve#ls th#t res ondent Judge gr#nted b#il to the #ccused $ithout first conducting # he#ring to rove th#t the guilt of the #ccused is strong des ite his 8no$ledge th#t the offense ch#rged is # c# it#l offense in disreg#rd of the rocedure l#id do$n in Section ., 0ule 11D of the 0ules of %ourt #s #mended by Administr#tive %ircul#r 9o. 1*E9D.0es ondent =udge #dmittedly gr#nted the etition for b#il b#sed on the rosecution!s decl#r#tion not to o ose the etition. 0es ondent!s #ssertion, ho$ever, th#t he h#s # right to resume th#t the rosecutor 8no$s $h#t he is doing on #ccount of the l#tter!s f#mili#rity $ith the c#se due to his h#ving conducted the relimin#ry investig#tion is f#ulty. S#id re#soning is t#nt#mount to ceding to the rosecutor the duty of e/ercising =udici#l discretion to determine $hether the guilt of the #ccused is strong. Judici#l discretion is the dom#in of the =udge before $hom the etition for rovision#l liberty $ill be decided. )he m#nd#ted duty to e/ercise discretion h#s never been re osed u on the rosecutor. )he #bsence of ob=ection from the rosecution is never # b#sis for gr#nting b#il to the #ccused. "t is the court!s determin#tion #fter # he#ring th#t the guilt of the #ccused is not strong th#t forms the b#sis for gr#nting b#il. 0es ondent Judge should not h#ve relied solely on the recommend#tion m#de by the rosecutor but should h#ve #scert#ined erson#lly $hether the evidence of guilt is strong. After #ll, the =udge is not bound by the rosecutor!s recommend#tion. Moreover, there $ill be # viol#tion of due rocess if the res ondent Judge gr#nts the # lic#tion for b#il $ithout he#ring since Section . of 0ule 11D rovides th#t $h#tever evidence resented for or #g#inst the #ccused!s rovision#l rele#se $ill be determined #t the he#ring. )he r#ctice by tri#l court =udges of gr#nting b#il to the #ccused $hen the rosecutor refuses or f#ils to resent evidence to rove th#t the evidence of guilt of the #ccused is strong c#n be tr#ced to the c#se of ?err#s )eeh#n8ee v Director of Prisons. "t is to be rec#lled th#t ?err#s )eeh#n8ee $#s decided 1B ye#rs #go under # com letely different f#ctu#l milieu. ?#ydee ?err#s )eeh#n8ee $#s indicted under # l#$ de#ling $ith tre#son c#ses #nd coll#bor#tion $ith the enemy. )he s#id (instructions( given in the s#id c#se under the 19DB 0ules of %ourt no longer # ly due to the #mendments
introduced in the 19.1 0ules of %ourt ."t should be noted th#t there h#s been #dded in Section . cruci#l sentence G)he evidence resented during the b#il he#rings sh#ll be considered #utom#tic#lly re roduced #t the tri#l, but u on motion of either #rty, the court m#y rec#ll #ny $itness for #ddition#l e/#min#tion unless the $itness is de#d, outside of the Phili ines or other$ise un#ble to testify.H is not found in the counter #rt rovision, Section 6, 0ule 11B of the 19DB 0ules of %ourt. )he #boveEunderscored sentence in section ., 0ule 11D of the 19.1 0ules of %ourt, #s #mended, $#s #dded to #ddress # situ#tion $here in c#se the rosecution does not choose to resent evidence to o ose the # lic#tion for b#il, the =udge m#y feel dutyE bound to gr#nt the b#il # lic#tion. )he rosecution under the revised rovision is duty bound to resent evidence in the b#il he#ring to rove $hether the evidence of guilt of the #ccused is strong #nd not merely to o ose the gr#nt of b#il to the #ccused. ?o$ever, the n#ture of the he#ring in #n # lic#tion for b#il must be e;u#ted $ith its ur ose i.e., to determine the b#il#bility of the #ccused. "f the rosecution $ere ermitted to conduct # he#ring for b#il #s if it $ere # fullEdress tri#l on the merits, the ur ose of the roceeding, $hich is to secure the rovision#l liberty of the #ccused to en#ble him to re #re for his defense, could be defe#ted. At #ny r#te, in c#se of # summ#ry he#ring, the rosecution $itnesses could #l$#ys be rec#lled #t the tri#l on the merits. "n the light of the # lic#ble rules on b#il #nd the =uris rudenti#l rinci les =ust enunci#ted, S% reiter#ted the duties of the tri#l =udge in c#se #n # lic#tion for b#il is filed2A13 9otify the rosecutor of the he#ring of the # lic#tion for b#il or re;uire him to submit his recommend#tion ASection 1., 0ule 11D of the 0ules of %ourt #s #mended35A*3 %onduct # he#ring of the # lic#tion for b#il reg#rdless of $hether or not the rosecution refuses to resent evidence to sho$ th#t the guilt of the #ccused is strong for the ur ose of en#bling the court to e/ercise its sound discretionASections 6 #nd ., su r#35A73 Decide $hether the evidence of guilt of the #ccused is strong b#sed on the summ#ry of evidence of the rosecution A@#ylon v. Sison35AD3 "f the guilt of the #ccused is not strong, disch#rge the #ccused u on the # rov#l of the b#ilbond. ASection 19,su r#3. Other$ise, etition should be denied. )he #boveEenumer#ted rocedure should no$ le#ve no room for doubt #s to the duties of the tri#l =udge in c#ses of b#il # lic#tions.
87
+!o4 ! v. 1$%g! Donato Fa"ts#
6. Pursu#nt to Ministry Order 9o. 1EA d#ted 11 J#nu#ry 19.* , # re$#rd of P*1B,BBB.BB $#s offered #nd #id for his #rrest. )his ho$ever $#s denied. ?ence the # e#l.
Priv#te res ondent #nd his coE#ccused $ere ch#rged of rebellion on October *, 19.6 for #cts committed before #nd #fterFebru#ry 19.6. Priv#te res ondent filed $ith # Motion to Iu#sh #lleging th#t2 A#3 the f#cts #lleged do not constitute #n offense5 Ab3 the %ourt h#s no =urisdiction over the offense ch#rged5 Ac3 the %ourt h#s no =urisdiction over the ersons of the defend#nts5 #nd Ad3 the crimin#l #ction or li#bility h#s been e/tinguished. )his $#s denied. M#y 9, 19.6 0es ondent filed # etition for b#il, $hich $#s o osed th#t the res ondent is not entitled to b#il #nymore since rebellion bec#me # c# it#l offense under PD 1996, 9D* #nd 1.7D #mending A0). 171 of 0P%. On 1 June 19.6 the President issued &/ecutive Order 9o. 1.6 re e#ling, #mong others, P.D. 9os. 1996, 9D* #nd 1.7D #nd restoringto full force #nd effect Article 171 of the 0evised Pen#l %ode #s it e/isted before the #mend#tory decrees. Judge Don#to no$ gr#nted the b#il, $hich $#s fi/ed #t P7B,BBB.BB #nd im osed # condition th#t he sh#ll re ort to the court once every t$o months $ithin the first ten d#ys of every eriod thereof. Petitioner filed # su lement#l motion for reconsider#tion indirectly #s8ing the court to deny b#il to #nd to #llo$ it to resent evidence in su ort thereof considering the (inevit#ble rob#bility th#t the #ccused $ill not com ly $ith this m#in condition of his b#il. "t $#s contended th#t2 1. )he #ccused h#s ev#ded the #uthorities for thirteen ye#rs #nd $#s #n esc# ee from detention $hen #rrested5 A%h#irm#n of %PPE 9PA3 *. ?e $#s not #rrested #t his residence #s he h#d no 8no$n #ddress5 7. ?e $#s using the f#lse n#me (M#nuel Merc#do %#stro( #t the time of his #rrest #nd resented # Driver!s 'icense to subst#nti#te his f#lse identity5 D. )he #ddress he g#ve (P#n#mit#n, S#$it, %#vite,( turned out to be #lso # f#lse #ddress5 1. ?e #nd his com #nions $ere on bo#rd # riv#te vehicle $ith # decl#red o$ner $hose identity #nd #ddress $ere #lso found to be f#lse5
Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the riv#te res ondent h#s the right to b#il. H! %# Les. @#il in the inst#nt c#se is # m#tter of right. "t is #bsolute since the crime is not # c# it#l offense, therefore rosecution h#s no right to resent evidence. "t is only $hen it is # c# it#l offense th#t the right becomes discretion#ry. ?o$ever it $#s $rong for the Judge to ch#nge the #mount of b#il from 7BS to 1BS $ithout he#ringthe rosecution. 0e ublic Act 9o. 696. # roved on *D October 199B, roviding # en#lty of reclusion er etu# to the crime of rebellion, is not # lic#ble to the #ccused #s it is not f#vor#ble to him. Accused v#lidly $#ived his right to b#il in #nother c#seA etition forh#be#s cor us3. Agreements $ere m#de therein2 #ccused to rem#in under custody, $here#s his coEdet#inees Josefin# %ruC #nd Jose Milo %once cion $ill be rele#sed immedi#tely, $ith # condition th#t they $ill submit themselves in the =urisdiction of the court. S#id etition for ?% $#s dismissed. @#il is the security given for the rele#se of # erson in custody of the l#$. &rgo, there $#s # $#iver. >e hereby rule th#t the right to b#il is #nother of the constitution#l rights $hich c#n be $#ived. "t is # right $hich is erson#l to the #ccused #nd $hose $#iver $ould not be contr#ry to l#$, ublic order, ublic olicy, mor#ls, or good customs, or re=udici#l to # third erson $ith # right recogniCed by l#$. +!o4 ! v. Fo*t!s Fa"ts#
88
Agri ino Jine of @#r#ng#y 9#bur#c#n, Munici #lity of M#tnog, Province of Sorsogon, #ccom #nied his 17Eye#r old d#ughter, Merelyn, to the olice st#tion of the s#id munici #lity to re ort # r# e committed #g#inst the l#tter by the #ccused. Follo$ing this, the #ccused $#s # rehended #nd ch#rged. A bond of P*1BBB $#s gr#nted for #ccused4s rovision#l rele#se. )he M%)% found him guilty. An # e#l to 0)% $#s filed, the re;uest for the fi/ing of bond $#s denied. 9o$ #ccused #ss#ils deni#l of b#il on the ground th#t the s#me #mounted to #n undue deni#l of his constitution#l right to b#il. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the #ccused4s right to b#il viol#ted. H! %# 9o. "t is cle#r from Section 17, Article """ of the 19.6 %onstitution #nd Section 7, 0ule 11D of the 0evised 0ules of %ourt, #s #mended, th#t before conviction b#il is either # m#tter of right or of discretion. "t is # m#tter of right $hen the offense ch#rged is unish#ble by #ny en#lty lo$er th#n reclusion er etu#. )o th#t e/tent the right is #bsolute. "f the offense ch#rged is unish#ble by reclusion er etu# b#il becomes # m#tter of discretion. "t sh#ll be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. )he court!s discretion is limited to determining $hether or not evidence of guilt is strong. @ut once it is determined th#t the evidence of guilt is not strong, b#il #lso becomes # m#tter of right. "f #n #ccused $ho is ch#rged $ith # crime unish#ble by reclusion er etu# is convicted by the tri#l court #nd sentenced to suffer such # en#lty, b#il is neither # m#tter of right on the #rt of the #ccused nor of discretion on the #rt of the court. Com!n%a%o* v. D! 9i a A*BB S%0A .B W1991X3 Fa"ts# )he etitioners in J.0. 9os. 97166 #nd 969D. $ho #re officers of the AFP $ere directed to # e#r in erson before the PreE)ri#l
"nvestig#ting Officers for the #lleged #rtici #tion the f#iled cou on December 1 to 9, 19.9. Petitioners no$ cl#im th#t there $#s no reE tri#l investig#tion of the ch#rges #s m#nd#ted by Article of >#r 61. A motion for dismiss#l $#s denied. 9o$, their motion for reconsider#tion. Alleging deni#l of due rocess. "n J.0. 9o. 91B*B, 'tc J#cinto 'igot # lied for b#il on June 1, 199B, but the # lic#tion $#s denied by J%M 9o.1D. ?e filed $ith the 0)% # etition for certior#ri #nd m#nd#mus $ith r#yer for rovision#l liberty#nd # $rit of relimin#ry in=unction. Judge of J%M then gr#nted the rovision#l liberty. ?o$ever he $#s not rele#sed immedi#tely. )he 0)% no$ decl#red th#t even milit#ry men f#cing court m#rti#l roceedings c#n #v#il the right to b#il. )he riv#te res ondents in J.0. 9o. 96D1D filed $ith S% # etition forh#be#s cor us on the ground th#t they $ere being det#ined in %#m %r#me $ithout ch#rges. )he etition $#s referred to 0)%. Finding #fter he#ring th#t no form#l ch#rges h#d been filed #g#inst the etitioners #fter more th#n # ye#r #fter their #rrest, the tri#l court ordered their rele#se. Iss$!s# A13 >hether or 9ot there $#s # deni#l of due rocess. A*3 >hether or not there $#s # viol#tion of the #ccused right to b#il. H! %# 9O deni#l of due rocess. Petitioners $ere given sever#l o ortunities to resent their side #t the reEtri#l investig#tion, first #t the scheduled he#ring of Febru#ry 1*, 199B, #nd then #g#in #fter the deni#l of their motion of Febru#ry *1, 199B, $hen they $ere given until M#rch 6, 199B, to submit their counterE#ffid#vits. On th#t d#te, they filed inste#d # verb#l motion for reconsider#tion $hich they $ere #g#in #s8ed to submit in $riting. )hey h#d been e/ ressly $#rned in the sub oen# th#t (f#ilure to submit counterE#ffid#vits on the d#te s ecified sh#ll be deemed # $#iver of their right to submit controverting evidence.( Petitioners h#ve # right to reEem tory ch#llenge. A0ight to ch#llenge v#lidity of members of J-S%M3
89
"t is #rgued th#t since the riv#te res ondents #re officers of the Armed Forces #ccused of viol#tions of the Articles of >#r, the res ondent courts h#ve no #uthority to order their rele#se #nd other$ise interfere $ith the courtEm#rti#l roceedings. )his is $ithout merit. U )he 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt h#s concurrent =urisdiction $ith the %ourt of A e#ls #nd the Su reme %ourt over etitions for certior#ri, rohibition or m#nd#mus #g#inst inferior courts #nd other bodies #nd on etitions for h#be#s cor us #nd ;uo $#rr#nto. )he right to b#il invo8ed by the riv#te res ondents h#s tr#dition#lly not been recogniCed #nd is not #v#il#ble in the milit#ry, #s #n e/ce tion tothe gener#l rule embodied in the @ill of 0ights. )he right to # s eedy tri#l is given more em h#sis in the milit#ry $here the right to b#il does not e/ist. On the contention th#t they h#d not been ch#rged #fter more th#n one ye#r from their #rrest, there $#s subst#nti#l com li#nce $ith the re;uirements of due rocess #nd the right to # s eedy tri#l. )he AFP S eci#l "nvestig#ting %ommittee $#s #ble to com lete the reE ch#rge investig#tion only #fter one ye#r bec#use hundreds of officers #nd thous#nds of enlisted men $ere involved in the f#iled cou . Accordingly, in J.0. 9o. 97166, the etition is dismissed for l#c8 of merit. "n J.0. 9o. 969D., the etition is gr#nted, #nd the res ondents #re directed to #llo$ the etitioners to e/ercise the right of erem tory ch#llenge under #rticle 1. of the #rticles of $#r. "n J.0. 9os. 91B*B #nd 96D1D, the etitions #re #lso gr#nted, #nd the orders of the res ondent courts for the rele#se of the riv#te res ondents #re hereby reversed #nd set #side. 9o costs. 6a, on v. 1$%g! Sison Fa"ts# 0es ondent =udge is #ccused for m#lfe#s#nce in gr#nting b#il to the #ccused ch#rged $ith double murder. Prosecution $#s not given notice of #t le#st 7 d#ys before the scheduled he#ring for b#il in viol#tion of 0ule 11, section D of the 0ules of %ourt #nd the filing of
etition for b#il h#s only * nonE$or8ing d#y interv#l from the schedule of the he#ring. Moreover the rosecution #lso #ss#ils th#t they $ere not given the ch#nce to resent evidence th#t strongly rove the guilt of the #ccused. 0es ondent =udge =ustifies not h#ving committed gr#ve #buse of discretion since the rosecution did not inter ose ob=ection $ith his orders #nd the l#c8 of revious notice $#s cured $ith the filing of motion for reconsider#tion. Iss$!# >hether or not the res ondent =udge e/ercised #buse in discretion in the gr#nt of b#il to the #ccused. H! %# )he Su reme %ourt held th#t there $#s #buse in the discretion of the =udge in gr#nting b#il to the #ccused considering th#t the motion for b#il $#s filed on # S#turd#y #nd the he#ring $#s immedi#tely conducted on Mond#y thereby de riving the rosecution to m#8e #n o osition thereto #nd viol#ting the 7Ed#y notice rule embodied in 0ule 11, Sec. D of 0ules of %ourt. "t is # $ell est#blished rule of l#$ th#t b#il is not # m#tter of right #nd re;uires # he#ring $here the #ccused is ch#rged $ith #n offense $hich is unish#ble by de#th, reclusion er etu# or life im risonment. 0es ondent =udge should h#ve c#refully scrutiniCed the v#lidity of etition for b#il before m#8ing #n outright gr#nt of this motion. Not!# A guided leg#l rinci le in the right to b#il includes2 . . )he rosecution must first be #ccorded #n o ortunity to resent evidence bec#use by the very n#ture of deciding # lic#tions for b#il, it is on the b#sis of such evidence th#t =udici#l discretion is $eighed #g#inst in determining $hether the guilt of the #ccused is strong. "n other $ords, discretion must be e/ercised regul#rly, leg#lly #nd $ithin the confines of rocedur#l due rocess, th#t is, #fter ev#lu#tion of the evidence submitted by the rosecution. Any order issued in the #bsence thereof is not # roduct of sound =udici#l discretion but of $him #nd c# rice #nd outright #rbitr#riness.
90
/anoto" v. Co$*t o- A44!a s Fa"ts#
Section 1/ -- (ri2inal Due Process (ri2inal Due Process Tata% v. San%igan'a,an
)his is # consolid#ted c#se of members of the AFP $ho $ere ch#rged $ith viol#tion of Articles of >#r AA>3 66 AMutiny3, A> 96 A%onduct <nbecoming #n Officer #nd # Jentlem#n3 #nd A> 9D A,#rious %rimes3 in rel#tion to Article *D. of the 0evised Pen#l %ode AMurder3. )he etitioners $ere ;uestioning the conduct of the reE tri#l investig#tion conducted $here # motion to b#il $#s filed but $#s denied. Petitioner # lied for rovision#l liberty #nd relimin#ry in=unction before the court $hich $#s gr#nted. ?o$ever De ,ill# refused to rele#se etitioner for rovision#l liberty ending the resolution of the # e#l they h#ve t#8en before the court invo8ing th#t milit#ry officers #re #n e/em tion from the right to b#il gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution. Decision $#s rendered reiter#ting the rele#se for rovision#l liberty of etitioners $ith the court st#ting th#t there is # mist#8e in the resum tion of res ondents th#t b#il does not # ly #mong milit#ry men f#cing court m#rti#l roceeding. 0es ondents no$ # e#l before the higher court. Iss$!# >hether or not milit#ry men #re e/em ted from the %onstitution#l gu#r#ntee on the right to b#il. H! %# )he S% ruled th#t the b#il invo8ed by etitioners is not #v#il#ble in the milit#ry #s #n e/ce tion to the gener#l rule embodied in the @ill of 0ights. )hus the right to # s eedy tri#l is given more em h#sis in the milit#ry $here the right to b#il does not e/ist. Justific#tion to this rule involves the uni;ue structure of the milit#ry #nd n#tion#l security consider#tions $hich m#y result to d#m#ging recedents th#t mutinous soldiers $ill be rele#sed on rovision#l liberty giving them the ch#nce to continue their lot in overthro$ing the government. )herefore the decision of the lo$er court gr#nting b#il to the etitioners $#s reversed.
Fa"ts2 )he com l#in#nt, Antonio de los 0eyes, origin#lly filed $h#t he termed (# re ort( $ith the 'eg#l P#nel of the Presidenti#l Security %omm#nd APS%3 on October 196D, cont#ining ch#rges of #lleged viol#tions of 0e . Act 9o. 7B19 #g#inst then Secret#ry of Public "nform#tion Fr#ncisco S. )#t#d. )he (re ort( $#s m#de to (slee ( in the office of the PS% until the end of 1969 $hen it bec#me $idely 8no$n th#t Secret#ry Athen Minister3 )#t#d h#d # f#lling out $ith President M#rcos #nd h#d resigned from the %#binet. On December 1*, 1969, the 196D com l#int $#s resurrected in the form of # form#l com l#int filed $ith the )#nodb#y#n. )he )#nodb#y#n #cted on the com l#int on A ril 1, 19.B $hich $#s #round t$o months #fter etitioner )#t#d!s resign#tion $#s #cce ted by Pres. M#rcos by referring the com l#int to the %"S, Presidenti#l Security %omm#nd, for investig#tion #nd re ort. On June 16, 19.B, the %"S re ort $#s submitted to the )#nodb#y#n, recommending the filing of ch#rges for gr#ft #nd corru t r#ctices #g#inst former Minister )#t#d #nd Antonio '. %#ntero. @y October *1, 19.*, #ll #ffid#vits #nd counterE#ffid#vits $ere in the c#se $#s #lre#dy for dis osition by the )#nodb#y#n. ?o$ever, it $#s only on June 1, 19.1 th#t # resolution $#s # roved by the )#nodb#y#n. Five crimin#l inform#tions $ere filed $ith the S#ndig#nb#y#n on June 1*, 19.1, #ll #g#inst etitioner )#t#d #lone. A13 Section 7, #r#gr# h Ae3 of 0A. 7B19 for giving D! Jrou , # riv#te cor or#tion controlled by his brotherEinEl#$, un$#rr#nted benefits, #dv#nt#ge or reference in the disch#rge of his offici#l functions5 A*3 ,iol#tion of Section 7, #r#gr# h Ab3 for receiving # chec8 of P1*1,BBB.BB from 0oberto ,#ll#r, President-Jener#l M#n#ger of Amity )r#ding %or or#tion #s consider#tion for the rele#se of # chec8 of P1..,BBB.BB to s#id cor or#tion for rinting services rendered for the %onstitution#l %onvention 0eferendum in 19675 A73 ,iol#tion of Section 6 on three A73 counts for his f#ilure to file his St#tement of Assets #nd 'i#bilities for the c#lend#r ye#rs 1967, 1966 #nd 196.. A motion to ;u#sh the inform#tion $#s m#de
91
#lleging th#t the rosecution de rived #ccused of due rocess of l#$ #nd of the right to # s eedy dis osition of the c#ses filed #g#inst him. "t $#s denied hence the # e#l. Iss$!# >hether or not etitioner $#s de rived of his rights #s #n #ccused. H! %# L&S. Due rocess AProcedur#l3 #nd right to s eedy dis osition of tri#l $ere viol#ted. Firstly, the com l#int c#me to life, #s it $ere, only #fter etitioner )#t#d h#d # f#lling out $ith President M#rcos. Secondly, de #rting from est#blished rocedures rescribed by l#$ for relimin#ry investig#tion, $hich re;uire the submission of #ffid#vits #nd counterE#ffid#vits by the com l#in#nt #nd the res ondent #nd their $itnesses, the )#nodb#y#n referred the com l#int to the Presidenti#l Security %omm#nd for finding investig#tion #nd re ort. )he l#$ AP.D. 9o. 9113 rescribes # tenEd#y eriod for the rosecutor to resolve # c#se under relimin#ry investig#tion by him from its termin#tion. >hile $e #gree $ith the res ondent court th#t this eriod fi/ed by l#$ is merely (directory,( yet, on the other h#nd, it c#n not be disreg#rded or ignored com letely, $ith #bsolute im unity. A del#y of close to three A73 ye#rs c#n not be deemed re#son#ble or =ustifi#ble in the light of the circumst#nce obt#ining in the c#se #t b#r. Ga man v. San%igan'a,an Fa"ts# Ass#ssin#tion of former Sen#tor @enigno (9inoy( A;uino, Jr. ?e $#s 8illed from his l#ne th#t h#d =ust l#nded #t the M#nil# "ntern#tion#l Air ort. ?is br#in $#s sm#shed by # bullet fired ointEbl#n8 into the b#c8 of his he#d by #n #ss#ssin. )he milit#ry investig#tors re orted $ithin # s #n of three hours th#t the m#n $ho shot A;uino A$hose identity $#s then su osed to be un8no$n #nd $#s reve#led only d#ys l#ter #s 0ol#ndo J#lm#n3 $#s # communistEhired gunm#n, #nd th#t the milit#ry escorts gunned him do$n in turn.
President $#s constr#ined to cre#te # F#ct Finding @o#rd to investig#te due to l#rge m#sses of eo le $ho =oined in the tenEd#y eriod of n#tion#l mourning ye#rning for the truth, =ustice #nd freedom. )he f#ct is th#t both m#=ority #nd minority re orts $ere one in re=ecting the milit#ry version st#ting th#t (the evidence sho$s to the contr#ry th#t 0ol#ndo J#lm#n h#d no subversive #ffili#tions. Only the soldiers in the st#irc#se $ith Sen. A;uino could h#ve shot him5 th#t 9inoy!s #ss#ssin#tion $#s the roduct of # milit#ry cons ir#cy, not # communist lot. Only difference bet$een the t$o re orts is th#t the m#=ority re ort found #ll the t$entyEsi/ riv#te res ondents #boveEn#med in the title of the c#se involved in the milit#ry cons ir#cy5 ( $hile the ch#irm#n!s minority re ort $ould e/clude nineteen of them. )hen Pres. M#rcos st#ted th#t evidence sho$s th#t J#lm#n $#s the 8iller. Petitioners r#y for issu#nce of # )0O en=oining res ondent court from rendering # decision in the t$o crimin#l c#ses before it, the %ourt resolved by nineEtoEt$o votes 11 to issue the restr#ining order r#yed for. )he %ourt #lso gr#nted etitioners # fiveEd#y eriod to file # re ly to res ondents! se #r#te comments #nd res ondent )#nodb#y#n # threeEd#y eriod to submit # co y of his .DE #ge memor#ndum for the rosecution. @ut ten d#ys l#ter, the %ourt by the s#me nineEtoEt$oEvote r#tio inreverse, resolved to dismiss the etition #nd to lift the )0O issued ten d#ys e#rlier en=oining the S#ndig#nb#y#n from rendering its decision. )he s#me %ourt m#=ority denied etitioners! motion for # ne$ 1Ed#y eriod counted from recei t of res ondent )#nodb#y#n!s memor#ndum for the rosecution A$hich # #rently $#s not served on them3. )hus, etitioners filed # motion for reconsider#tion, #lleging th#t the dismiss#l did not indic#te the leg#l ground for such #ction #nd urging th#t the c#se be set for # full he#ring on the merits th#t the eo le
92
#re entitled to due rocess. ?o$ever, res ondent S#ndig#nb#y#n issued its decision #c;uitting #ll the #ccused of the crime ch#rged, decl#ring them innocent #nd tot#lly #bsolving them of #ny civil li#bility. 0es ondents submitted th#t $ith the S#ndig#nb#y#n!s verdict of #c;uitt#l, the inst#nt c#se h#d become moot #nd #c#demic. )here#fter, s#me %ourt m#=ority denied etitioners! motion for reconsider#tion for l#c8 of merit. ?ence, etitioners filed their motion to #dmit their second motion for reconsider#tion #lleging th#t res ondents committed serious irregul#rities constituting mistri#l #nd resulting in misc#rri#ge of =ustice #nd gross viol#tion of the constitution#l rights of the etitioners #nd the sovereign eo le of the Phili ines to due rocess of l#$. Iss$!s# A13 >hether or not etitioner $#s de rived of his rights #s #n #ccused. A*3 >hether or not there $#s # viol#tion of the double =eo #rdycl#use. H! %# Petitioners! second motion for reconsider#tion is gr#nted #nd ordering # reEtri#l of the s#id c#ses $hich should be conducted $ith deliber#te dis #tch #nd $ith c#reful reg#rd for the re;uirements of due rocess. De uty )#nodb#y#n M#nuel ?errer# Am#de his e/ ose 11 months l#ter $hen former Pres. $#s no longer #round3 #ffirmed the #lleg#tions in the second motion for reconsider#tion th#t he reve#led th#t the S#ndig#nb#y#n Justices #nd )#nodb#y#n rosecutors $ere ordered by M#rcos to $hite$#sh the A;uinoEJ#lm#n murder c#se. M#l#c#T#ng $#nted dismiss#l to the e/tent th#t # re #red resolution $#s sent to the "nvestig#ting P#nel. M#l#c#T#ng %onference l#nned # scen#rio of tri#l $here the former President ordered then th#t the resolution be revised by c#tegoriCing the
#rtici #tion of e#ch res ondent5 decided th#t the residing =ustice, Justice P#m#r#n, AFirst Division3 $ould erson#lly h#ndle the tri#l. A conference $#s held in #n inner room of the P#l#ce. Only the First '#dy #nd Presidenti#l 'eg#l Assist#nt Justice '#C#ro $ere $ith the President. )he conferees $ere told to t#8e the b#c8 door in going to the room $here the meeting $#s held, resum#bly to esc# e notice by the visitors in the rece tion h#ll$#iting to see the President. During the conference, #nd #fter #n #greement $#s re#ched, Pres. M#rcos told them !O8#y, m#g moroEmoro n# l#m#ng 8#yo5! #nd th#t on their $#y out of the room Pres. M#rcos e/ ressed his th#n8s to the grou #nd uttered !" 8no$ ho$ to reci roc#te!. )he %ourt then s#id th#t the then President AcodeEn#med Olym us3 h#d st#geEm#n#ged in #nd from M#l#c#T#ng P#l#ce (# scri ted #nd redetermined m#nner of h#ndling #nd dis osing of the A;uinoE J#lm#n murder c#se5( #nd th#t (the rosecution in the A;uinoE J#lm#n c#se #nd the Justices $ho tried #nd decided the s#me #cted under the com ulsion of some ressure $hich roved to be beyond their c# #city to resist. Also redetermined the fin#l outcome of the c#se( of tot#l #bsolution of the t$entyEsi/ res ondentsE#ccused of #ll crimin#l #nd civil li#bility. Pres. M#rcos c#me u $ith # ublic st#tement #ired over television th#t Sen#tor A;uino $#s 8illed not by his milit#ry escorts, but by # communist hired gun. "t $#s, therefore, not # source of $onder th#t President M#rcos $ould $#nt the c#se dis osed of in # m#nner consistent $ith his #nnounced theory thereof $hich, #t the s#me time, $ould cle#r his n#me #nd his #dministr#tion of #ny sus ected guilty #rtici #tion in the #ss#ssin#tion. such # rocedure $ould be # better #rr#ngement bec#use, if the #ccused #re ch#rged in court #nd subse;uently #c;uitted, they m#y cl#im the benefit of the doctrine of double =eo #rdy #nd thereby #void #nother rosecution if some other $itnesses sh#ll # e#r $hen President M#rcos is no longer in office. More so $#s there su ression of vit#l evidence #nd h#r#ssment of $itnesses. )he dis# e#r#nce of $itnesses t$o $ee8s #fter 9inoy!s #ss#ssin#tion. According to J. ?errer#, (nobody $#s loo8ing for these ersons bec#use they s#id M#rcos $#s in o$er. )he #ssignment of the c#se to Presiding Justice P#m#r#n5 no evidence #t #ll th#t the #ssignment $#s indeed by virtue of # regul#r r#ffle,
93
e/ce t the uncorrobor#ted testimony of Justice P#m#r#n himself. )he custody of the #ccused #nd their confinement in # milit#ry c#m , inste#d of in # civili#n =#il. )he monitoring of roceedings #nd develo ments from M#l#c#T#ng #nd by M#l#c#T#ng ersonnel. )he #rti#lity of S#ndig#nb#y#n betr#yed by its decision2 )h#t President M#rcos h#d $#nted #ll of the t$entyEsi/ #ccused to be #c;uitted m#y not be denied. "n rendering its decision, the S#ndig#nb#y#n overdid itself in f#voring the residenti#l directive. "ts bi#s #nd #rti#lity in f#vor of the #ccused $#s cle#rly obvious. )he evidence resented by the rosecution $#s tot#lly ignored #nd disreg#rded. )he record sho$s th#t the then President misused the over$helming resources of the government #nd his #uthorit#ri#n o$ers to corru t #nd m#8e # moc8ery of the =udici#l rocess in the A;uinoEJ#lm#n murder c#ses. ()his is the evil of oneEm#n rule #t its very $orst.( Our Pen#l %ode en#liCes (#ny e/ecutive officer $ho sh#ll #ddress #ny order or suggestion to #ny =udici#l #uthority $ith res ect to #ny c#se or business coming $ithin the e/clusive =urisdiction of the courts of =ustice.( "m #rti#l court is the very essence of due rocess of l#$. )his crimin#l collusion #s to the h#ndling #nd tre#tment of the c#ses by ublic res ondents #t the secret M#l#c#T#ng conference A#nd reve#led only #fter fifteen months by Justice M#nuel ?errer#3 com letely dis;u#lified res ondent S#ndig#nb#y#n #nd voided #b initio its verdict. )he courts $ould h#ve no re#son to e/ist if they $ere #llo$ed to be used #s mere tools of in=ustice, dece tion #nd du licity to subvert #nd su ress the truth. More so, in the c#se #t b#r $here the eo le #nd the $orld #re entitled to 8no$ the truth, #nd the integrity of our =udici#l system is #t st#8e. )here $#s no double =eo #rdy. %ourts! 0esolution of #c;uitt#l $#s # void =udgment for h#ving been issued $ithout =urisdiction. 9o double =eo #rdy #tt#ches, therefore. A void =udgment is, in leg#l effect, no =udgment #t #ll. @y it no rights #re divested. "t neither binds nor b#rs #nyone. All #cts #nd #ll cl#ims flo$ing out of it #re void. Motion to Dis;u#lify-"nhibit should h#ve been resolved #he#d. "n this c#se, etitioners! motion for reconsider#tion of the #bru t dismiss#l
of their etition #nd lifting of the )0O en=oining the S#ndig#nb#y#n from rendering its decision h#d been t#8en cogniC#nce of by the %ourt $hich h#d re;uired the res ondents!, including the S#ndig#nb#y#n!s, comments. Although no restr#ining order $#s issued #ne$, res ondent S#ndig#nb#y#n should not h#ve reci it#tely issued its decision of tot#l #bsolution of #ll the #ccused ending the fin#l #ction of this %ourt. All of the #cts of the res ondent =udge m#nifest gr#ve #buse of discretion on his #rt #mounting to l#c8 of =urisdiction $hich subst#ntively re=udiced the etitioner. >ith the decl#r#tion of nullity of the roceedings, the c#ses must no$ be tried before #n im #rti#l court $ith #n unbi#sed rosecutor. 0es ondents #ccused must no$ f#ce tri#l for the crimes ch#rged #g#inst them before #n im #rti#l court $ith #n unbi#sed rosecutor $ith #ll due rocess. )he function of the # ointing #uthority $ith the m#nd#te of the eo le, under our system of government, is to fill the ublic osts. Justices #nd =udges must ever re#liCe th#t they h#ve no constituency, serve no m#=ority nor minority but serve only the ublic interest #s they see it in #ccord#nce $ith their o#th of office, guided only the %onstitution #nd their o$n conscience #nd honor. A ont! v. Sav! ano Fa"ts# Alonte $#s #ccused of r# ing Juvie'yn Punongb#y#n $ith #ccom lice @uen#ventur# %once cion. "t $#s #lleged th#t %once cion befriended Juvie #nd h#d l#ter lured her into Alonete4s house $ho $#s then the m#yor of @i]#n, '#gun#. )he c#se $#s brought before 0)% @i]#n. )he counsel #nd the rosecutor l#ter moved for # ch#nge of venue due to #lleged intimid#tion. >hile the ch#nge of venue $#s ending, Juvie e/ecuted #n #ffid#vit of desist#nce. )he rosecutor continued on $ith the c#se #nd the ch#nge of venue $#s done not$ithst#nding o osition from Alonte. )he c#se $#s r#ffled to the M#nil# 0)% under J S#vell#no. S#vell#no l#ter found rob#ble c#use #nd h#d ordered the #rrest of Alonte #nd %once cion. )here#fter, the rosecution resented Juvie #nd h#d #ttested the volunt#riness of her desist#nce the s#me being
94
due to medi# ressure #nd th#t they $ould r#ther est#blish ne$ life else$here. %#se $#s then submitted for decision #nd S#vell#no sentenced both #ccused to reclusion er etu#. S#vell#no commented th#t Alonte $#ived his right to due rocess $hen he did not cross e/#mine Juvie $hen cl#rific#tory ;uestions $ere r#ised #bout the det#ils of the r# e #nd on the volunt#riness of her desist#nce. Iss$!# >hether or not Alonte h#s been denied crimin#l due rocess. H! %# )he S% ruled th#t S#vell#no should inhibit himself from further deciding on the c#se due to #nimosity bet$een him #nd the #rties. )here is no sho$ing th#t Alonte $#ived his right. )he st#nd#rd of $#iver re;uires th#t it Gnot only must be volunt#ry, but must be 8no$ing, intelligent, #nd done $ith sufficient #$#reness of the relev#nt circumst#nces #nd li8ely conse;uences.H Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be so construed #s # $#iver of right, #nd the courts must indulge every re#son#ble resum tion #g#inst $#iver. S#vell#no h#s not sho$n im #rti#lity by re e#tedly not #cting on numerous etitions filed by Alonte. )he c#se is rem#nded to the lo$er court for retri#l #nd the decision e#rlier romulg#ted is nullified. Presu2)tion of %nnocence +!o4 ! v. D*ama,o Fa"ts# Dr#m#yo brought u the ide# of 8illing &stelito 9og#liC# so th#t he could not testify in the robbery c#se $here he is #n #ccused. )he ide# $#s for Dr#m#yo #nd &cubin to #mbush &stelito, $ho $#s returning from S# #o. )he others $ere to st#tion themselves ne#rby. Only Dr#m#yo #nd &cubin $ere convicted in the 0)% for murder.
?ence the # Iss$!#
e#l
>hether or not the #ccused4s crimin#l li#bility roved beyond re#son#ble doubt. H! %# Les. "t is to be #dmitted th#t the st#rting oint is the Presum tion of innocence. So it must be, #ccording to the %onstitution. )h#t is # right s#fegu#rded both # ell#nts. Accus#tion is not, #ccording to the fund#ment#l l#$, synonymous $ith guilt. "t is incumbent on the rosecution demonstr#te th#t cul #bility lies. A ell#nts $ere not even c#lled u on then to offer evidence on their beh#lf. )heir freedom is forfeit only if the re;uisite ;u#ntum of roof necess#ry for conviction be in e/istence. )heir guilt be sho$n beyond re#son#ble doubt. >h#t is re;uired then is mor#l cert#inty. (@y re#son#ble doubt is me#nt th#t $hich of ossibility m#y #rise, but it is doubt engendered by #n investig#tion of the $hole roof #nd #n in#bility, #fter such investig#tion, to let the mind rest e#sy u on the cert#inty of guilt. Absolute cert#in of guilt is not dem#nded by the l#$ to convict of #ny c#rn#l ch#rge but mor#l cert#inty is re;uired, #nd this cert#inty is re;uired #s to every ro osition of roof regul#r to constitute the offense.( )he =udgment of conviction should not h#ve occ#sioned #ny sur rise on the #rt of the t$o # ell#nts, #s from the evidence deserving of the fullest credence, their guilt h#d been more th#n #m ly demonstr#ted. )he resum tion of innocence could not come to their rescue #s it $#s more th#n sufficiently overcome by the roof th#t $#s offered by the rosecution. )he rinci #l contention r#ised is thus cle#rly unten#ble. "t must be st#ted li8e$ise th#t $hile s;u#rely #dv#nced for the first time, there h#d been c#ses $here this %ourt, not$ithst#nding # m#=ority of the defend#nts being #c;uitted, the element of cons ir#cy li8e$ise being #llegedly resent, did hold the #rty or #rties, res onsible for the offense guilty of the crime ch#rged, # mor#l cert#inty h#ving #risen #s to their c# #bility.
95
D$m ao v. Com! !" FACTS# Duml#o $#s the former governor of 9uev# ,iCc#y#. ?e h#s retired from his office #nd he h#s been receiving retirement benefits therefrom. ?e filed for reelection to the s#me office for the 19.B loc#l elections. On the other h#nd, @P 1* $#s #ssed A #r 1 thereof3 roviding dis;u#lific#tion for the li8es of Duml#o. Duml#o #ss#iled the @P #verring th#t it is cl#ss legisl#tion hence unconstitution#l. ?is etition $#s =oined by Atty. "got #nd S#l# #nt#n Jr. )hese t$o ho$ever h#ve different issues. )he suits of "got #nd S#l# #nt#n #re more of # t#/ #yer4s suit #ss#iling the other rovisions of @P 1* reg#rding the term of office of the elected offici#ls, the length of the c#m #ign #nd the rovision b#rring ersons ch#rged for crimes m#y not run for ublic office #nd th#t the filing of com l#ints #g#inst them #nd #fter relimin#ry investig#tion $ould #lre#dy dis;u#lify them from office. "n gener#l, Duml#o invo8ed e;u#l rotection in the eye of the l#$. ISSUE# >hether or not the there is c#use of #ction. HELD# )he S% ointed out the rocedur#l l# ses of this c#se for this c#se $ould never h#ve been merged. Duml#o4s c#use is different from "got4s. )hey h#ve se #r#te issues. Further, this c#se does not meet #ll the re;uisites so th#t it4d be eligible for =udici#l revie$. )here #re st#nd#rds th#t h#ve to be follo$ed in the e/ercise of the function of =udici#l revie$, n#mely2 A13 the e/istence of #n # ro ri#te c#se5 A*3 #n interest erson#l #nd subst#nti#l by the #rty r#ising the constitution#l ;uestion5 A73 the le# th#t the function be e/ercised #t the e#rliest o ortunity5 #nd AD3 the necessity th#t the constitution#l ;uestion be #ssed u on in order to decide the c#se. "n this c#se, only the 7rd re;uisite $#s met. )he S% ruled ho$ever th#t the rovision b#rring ersons ch#rged for crimes m#y not run for ublic
office #nd th#t the filing of com l#ints #g#inst them #nd #fter relimin#ry investig#tion $ould #lre#dy dis;u#lify them from office #s null #nd void. )he #ssertion th#t Sec D of @P 1* is contr#ry to the s#fegu#rd of e;u#l rotection is neither $ell t#8en. )he constitution#l gu#r#ntee of e;u#l rotection of the l#$s is sub=ect to r#tion#l cl#ssific#tion. "f the grou ings #re b#sed on re#son#ble #nd re#l differenti#tions, one cl#ss c#n be tre#ted #nd regul#ted differently from #nother cl#ss. For ur oses of ublic service, em loyees 61 ye#rs of #ge, h#ve been v#lidly cl#ssified differently from younger em loyees. &m loyees #tt#ining th#t #ge #re sub=ect to com ulsory retirement, $hile those of younger #ges #re not so com ulsorily retir#ble. "n res ect of election to rovinci#l, city, or munici #l ositions, to re;uire th#t c#ndid#tes should not be more th#n 61 ye#rs of #ge #t the time they #ssume office, if # lic#ble to everyone, might or might not be # re#son#ble cl#ssific#tion #lthough, #s the Solicitor Jener#l h#s intim#ted, # good olicy of the l#$ should be to romote the emergence of younger blood in our olitic#l elective echelons. On the other h#nd, it might be th#t ersons more th#n 61 ye#rs old m#y #lso be good elective loc#l offici#ls. 0etirement from government service m#y or m#y not be # re#son#ble dis;u#lific#tion for elective loc#l offici#ls. For one thing, there c#n #lso be retirees from government service #t #ges, s#y belo$ 61. "t m#y neither be re#son#ble to dis;u#lify retirees, #ged 61, for # 61Eye#r old retiree could be # good loc#l offici#l =ust li8e one, #ged 61, $ho is not # retiree. @ut, in the c#se of # 61Eye#r old elective loc#l offici#l ADum#lo3, $ho h#s retired from # rovinci#l, city or munici #l office, there is re#son to dis;u#lify him from running for the s#me office from $hich he h#d retired, #s rovided for in the ch#llenged rovision. /a*8$!& v. Com! !" Fa"ts# "t is #verred th#t #t the time res ondent 0odrigueC filed his certific#te ofc#ndid#cy, # crimin#l ch#rge #g#inst him for ten counts of
96
insur#nce fr#ud or gr#ndtheft of erson#l ro erty $#s still ending before the Munici #l %ourt of 'osAngeles, <SA. A $#rr#nt issued by s#id court for his #rrest, it is cl#imed, h#s yet tobe served on riv#te res ondent on #ccount of his #lleged GflightH from th#t country. @efore the M#y 199* elections, # etition for c#ncell#tion of res ondent4s certific#teof c#ndid#cy on the ground of the c#ndid#te4s dis;u#lific#tion $#s filed by etitioner,but %OM&'&% dismissed the etition. Priv#te res ondent $#s rocl#imed JovernorEelect of IueCon. Petitioner instituted;uo $#rr#nto roceedings #g#inst riv#te res ondent before the %OM&'&% but thel#tter dismissed the etition. Iss$!# >hether riv#te res ondent, $ho #t the time of the filing of his certific#te ofc#ndid#cy is s#id to be f#cing # crimin#l ch#rge before # foreign court #nd ev#ding #$#rr#nt of #rrest comes $ithin the term Gfugitive from =ustice.H H! %# )he Su reme %ourt ruled th#t Article 67 of the 0ules #nd 0egul#tions im lementing the 'oc#l Jovernment %ode of 1991 rovides2 GArticle 67. Dis;u#lific#tions K )he follo$ing ersons sh#ll be dis;u#lified from running for #ny elective loc#l osition2 GA#3//// GAe3Fugitives from =ustice in crimin#l or nonE olitic#l c#ses here or#bro#d. Fugitive from =ustice refers to # erson $ho h#s been convictedby fin#l =udgment.H "t is cle#r from this rovision th#t fugitives from =ustice refer only to ersons $ho h#s been convicted by fin#l =udgment. ?o$ever, %OM&'&% did not m#8e #ny definite finding on $hether or not riv#teres ondent is # fugitive from =ustice $hen it outrightly denied the etition for ;uo$#rr#nto. )he %ourt o ted to rem#nd the c#se to %OM&'&% to resolve #nd roceed$ith the c#se.
Co*4$& v. +!o4 ! Fa"ts# Petitioner see8s revers#l of the lo$er court4s decision finding him guilty for m#lvers#tion of ublic funds. )he #ccused $#s the #cting su ervising c#shier #t the Provinci#l )re#surer4s office. ?e denied h#ving misused the $hole #mount of P6*,.*7.B. $hich $#s discovered to be # short#ge from the government funds contending th#t the P1B,BBB.BB $#s the unli;uid#ted $ithdr#$#l m#de by their #ym#ster Pined# thru the D chec8s he issued $hile the etitioner $#s on le#ve #nd th#t he $#s forced by their Provinci#l )re#surer Aluning to ost s#id #mount in his c#sh boo8 des ite not #ctu#lly receiving the #mount. Iss$!# >hether or not the court erred in observing the resum tion of innocence of the #ccused of the ch#rge #g#inst him H! %# "t is held th#t resum tion of innocence of the #ccused should yield to the ositive findings th#t he m#lversed the government funds considering #ll the evidences resented th#t oint out to his guilt on the ch#rge im uted #g#inst him. 0ecords sho$s th#t the chec8s issued for the #ym#ster $ere duly li;uid#ted to the #ccused #nd there $ere inconsistent entries on his c#sh boo8s #nd th#t he $#s not re#lly on le#ve on the d#y the s#id chec8s $ere disbursed by the #ym#ster. Antonio F. T*i an!s I9 v. Hon. +im!nt! ( S*. Fa"ts# At the $ee hours of July *6, *BB7, # grou of more th#n 7BB he#vily #rmed soldiers led by =unior officers of the Armed Forces of the Phili ines AAFP3 stormed into the O#8$ood Premier A #rtments in M#8#ti %ity #nd ublicly dem#nded the resign#tion of the President #nd 8ey n#tion#l offici#ls. '#ter in the d#y, President Jlori# M#c# #g#l Arroyo issued Procl#m#tion 9o. D*6 #nd Jener#l Order
97
9o. D decl#ring # st#te of rebellion #nd c#lling out the Armed Forces to su ress the rebellion. Petitioner Antonio F. )rill#nes ", $#s ch#rged, #long $ith his comr#des, $ith cou d!et#t defined under Article 17DEA of the 0evised Pen#l %ode before the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt A0)%3 of M#8#ti. H! %# >? & 0& FO 0&, the etition is D"S M"S S & D. Ratio<Do"t*in!# All ersons, e/ce t those ch#rged $ith offenses unish#ble by reclusion er etu# $hen evidence of guilt is strong, sh#ll, before conviction, be b#il#ble by sufficient sureties, or be rele#sed on recogniC#nce #s m#y be rovided by l#$.)he right to b#il sh#ll not be im #ired even $hen the rivilege of the $rit of h#be#s cor us is sus ended. &/cessive b#il sh#ll not be re;uired. )he 0ules #lso st#te th#t no erson ch#rged $ith # c# it#l offense, or #n offense unish#ble by reclusion er etu# or life im risonment, sh#ll be #dmitted to b#il $hen evidence of guilt is strong, reg#rdless of the st#ge of the crimin#l #ction. All risoners $hether under reventive detention or serving fin#l sentence c#nnot r#ctice their rofession nor eng#ge in #ny business or occu #tion, or hold office, elective or # ointive, $hile in detention. %ongress continues to function $ell in the hysic#l #bsence of one or # fe$ of its members. 9ever h#s the c#ll of # #rticul#r duty lifted # risoner into # different cl#ssific#tion from those others $ho #re v#lidly restr#ined by l#$ 3i'ht to 5e =eard 51 =i2self and (ounsel +!o4 ! v. Ho ga%o FACTS#
E A ell#nt Frisco ?olg#do $#s ch#rged in the courtof First "nst#nce of 0omblon $ith slight illeg#ldetention bec#use #ccording to the inform#tion,being # riv#te erson, he did (feloniously #nd$ithout =ustifi#ble motive, 8idn# #nd det#in oneArtemi# F#bre#g in the house of Antero ?olg#do for#bout eight hours thereby de riving s#id Artemi#F#bre#g of her erson#l liberty E During the tri#l, he le#d guilty #s he $#s $ithout #l#$yer, #nd th#t # cert#in 9umeri#no Oc#m o told?olg#do to le#d guilty. )he %ourt reserved thesentence for # t$o d#ys des ite the fisc#l4s#ssur#nces th#t the cert#in 9umeri#no Oc#m o h#sbeen investig#ted #nd found $ithout evidence to lin8him to the crimeE "t must be noticed th#t in the c# tion of the c#se #sit # e#rs in the =udgment #bove ;uoted, the offensech#rged is n#med S'"J?) "''&JA' D&)&9)"O9 $hilein the body of the =udgment if is s#id th#t the#ccused (st#nds ch#rged $ith the crime of 8idn# ing #nd serious illeg#l detention.( "n theform#tion filed by the rovinci#l fisc#l it is s#id th#the (#ccuses Frisco ?olg#do of the crime of slightilleg#l detention.( )he f#cts #lleged in s#idinform#tion #re not cle#r #s to $hether the offense isn#med therein or c# it#l offense of (8idn# ing #ndserious illeg#l detention( #s found by the tri#l =udgein his =udgment. Since the #ccusedE# ell#nt le#dedguilty #nd no evidence # e#rs to h#ve been resented by either #rty, the tri#l =udge must h#vededuced the c# it#l offense from the f#cts le#ded inthe inform#tion. ISSUE2 >O9 the conviction of the lo$er court is v#lid HELD2 9O. "t is inv#lid.E <nder the circumst#nces, #rticul#rly the ;u#lified le# given by the #ccused $ho $#s un#ided bycounsel, it $#s not rudent, to s#y the le#st, for thetri#l court to render such # serious =udgment findingthe #ccused guilty of # c# it#l offense, #nd im osingu on him such # he#vy en#lty #s ten ye#rs #nd oned#y of rision m#yor to t$enty ye#rs, $ithout#bsolute #ny evidence to determine #nd cl#rify thetrue f#cts of the c#se.E rules of %ourt, 0ule 11*, section 7, th#t K"f the defend#nt # e#rs $ithout #ttorney, he mustbe informed
98
by the court th#t it is his right to h#ve#ttorney being #rr#igned., #nd must be #s8ed if hedesires the #id of #ttorney, the %ourt must #ssign#ttorney de oficio to defend him. A re#son#bletime must be #llo$ed for rocuring #ttorney.E the court h#s four im ort#nt duties to com ly $ith21 Q "t must inform the defend#nt th#t it is his right toh#ve #ttorney before being #rr#igned5 * Q Aftergiving him such inform#tion the court must #s8 him if he desires the #id of #n #ttorney5 7 Q "f he desires#nd is un#ble to em loy #ttorney, the court must#ssign #ttorney de oficio to defend him5 #nd D Q " the #ccused desires to rocure #n #ttorney of hiso$n the court must gr#nt him # re#son#ble timetherefor. E "9 )?& %AS&, 9ot one of these duties h#d beencom lied $ith by the tri#l court. )he record disclosesth#t s#id court did not inform the #ccused of his rightto h#ve #n #ttorney nor did it #s8 him if he desiredthe #id of one. )he tri#l court f#iled to in;uire$hether or not the #ccused $#s to em loy #n#ttorney, to gr#nt him re#son#ble time to rocure or#ssign #n #ttorney de oficio .E )he ;uestion #s8ed by the court to the #ccused$#s (Do you h#ve #n #ttorney or #re you going to le#d guilty:( 9ot only did such # ;uestion f#il toinform the #ccused th#t it $#s his right to h#ve #n#ttorney before #rr#ignment, but, $h#t is $orse,the ;uestion $#s so fr#med th#t it could h#ve beenconstrued by the #ccused #s # suggestion from thecourt th#t he le#d guilt if he h#d no #ttorney. Andthis is # deni#l of f#ir he#ring in viol#tion of thedue rocess cl#use cont#ined in our %onstitution.E One of the gre#t rinci les of =ustice gu#r#nteed byour %onstitution is th#t (no erson sh#ll be held to#ns$er for # crimin#l offense $ithout due rocess of l#$(, #nd th#t #ll #ccused (sh#ll en=oy the right to behe#rd by himself #nd counsel.( "n crimin#l c#sesthere c#n be no f#ir he#ring unless the #ccused begiven the o ortunity to be he#rd by counsel. )heright to be he#rd $ould be of little #v#il if it does notinclude the right to be he#rd by counsel. &ven themost intelligent or educ#ted m#n m#y h#ve no s8illin the science of the l#$, #rticul#rly in the rules of rocedure, #nd, $ithout counsel, he m#y beconvicted not bec#use he is guilty but bec#use hedoes not 8no$ ho$ to est#blish his innocence. Andthis c#n h# en more e#sily to ersons $ho #reignor#nt or
uneduc#ted.E "t is for this re#son th#t the right to be #ssisted bycounsel is deemed so im ort#nt th#t it h#s become #constitution#l right #nd it is so im lemented th#tunder our rules of rocedure it is not enough for the%ourt to # rise #n #ccused of his right to h#ve #n#ttorney, it is not enough to #s8 him $hether hedesires the #id of #n #ttorney, but it is essenti#l th#tthe court should #ssign one de oficio if he so desires#nd he is oor gr#nt him # re#son#ble time to rocure #n #ttorney of his o$n.E in the inst#nt c#se, th#t the #ccused $ho $#sun#ided by counsel le#ded guilty but $ith thefollo$ing ;u#lific#tion2 (but " $#s instructed by oneMr. Oc#m o.( )he tri#l court f#iled to in;uire #s tothe true im ort of this ;u#lific#tion. the record doesnot sho$ $hether the su osed instructions $#s re#l. #nd $hether it h#d reference to the commission of the offense or to the m#8ing of the le# guilty. 9oinvestig#tion $#s o ened by the court on this m#tterin the resence of the #ccused #nd there is no$ no$#y of determining $hether the su osed instructionis # good defense or m#y viti#te the volunt#riness of the confession. A #rently the court bec#mes#tisfied $ith the fisc#l!s inform#tion th#t he h#dinvestig#ted Mr. Oc#m o #nd found th#t the s#meh#d nothing to do $ith this c#se. Such #ttitude of thecourt $#s $rong for the sim le re#son th#t # merest#tement of the fisc#l $#s not sufficient toovercome # ;u#lified le# of the #ccused. @ut #bove#ll, the court should h#ve seen to it th#t the #ccusedbe #ssisted by counsel s eci#lly bec#use of the;u#lified le# given by him #nd the seriousness of the offense found to be c# it#l by the court. Dis ositive )he =udgment # e#led from isreversed #nd the c#se is rem#nded to the %ourtbelo$ for # ne$ #rr#ignment #nd # ne$ tri#l #fter the#ccused is # rised of his right to h#ve #nd to be#ssisted by counsel. So ordered +!o4 ! v. Ag'a,ani Fa"ts# )
99
he # ell#nt $#s ch#rged for r# ing his 1DEye#r old d#ughter #nd $#s found guilty of the crime of r# e. A motion for # ne$ tri#l $#s filed before the court by the ne$ counsel of the #ccused #ss#iling the irregul#rities re=udici#l to the subst#nti#l rights of the #ccused invo8ing the f#ilure of the court to inform the #ccused of his right to choose his o$n counsel #nd the viol#tion of the # ell#nts right for # * d#y re #r#tion for tri#l. Iss$!# >hether or not the f#ilure of the record to disclose #ffirm#tively th#t the tri#l =udge #dvised the #ccused of the right to h#ve counsel is sufficient ground to reverse the =udgment of conviction #nd to send the c#se b#c8 for # ne$ tri#l. H! %# "t is settled th#t the f#ilure of the record to disclose #ffirm#tively th#t the tri#l =udge #dvised the #ccused of his right to counsel is not sufficient ground to reverse conviction. )he re#son being th#t the tri#l court must be resumed to h#ve com lied $ith the rocedure rescribed by l#$ for the he#ring #nd tri#l of c#ses, #nd th#t such # resum tion c#n only be overcome by #n #ffirm#tive sho$ing to the contr#ry. )hus it h#s been held th#t unless the contr#ry # e#rs in the record, or th#t it is ositively roved th#t the tri#l court f#iled to inform the #ccused of his right to counsel, it $ill be resumed th#t the #ccused $#s informed by the court of such right. Amion v. C)iongson Fa"ts# )his is #n #dministr#tive m#tter filed before the court ch#rging the res ondent =udge for ignor#nce of the l#$ #nd o ression for vehemently insisting of # ointing the #ccusedE# ell#nt counsel de officio des ite the # ell#nt4s o osition bec#use he h#s his o$n counsel of choice in the erson of Atty. De #suc#t. ?o$ever, m#ny inst#nces th#t Atty. De #suc#t did not # e#r in court $hich rom ted res ondent =udge to #ssign Atty. '#o Ong from the PAO to
re resent the #ccused st#ting on record th#t his re resent#tion is $ithout re=udice to the # e#r#nce of the #ccused o$n counsel. )his $#s done in order to #void del#y of the tri#l since the com l#in#nt #lre#dy e/ ressed frustr#tion on the so m#ny ost onement of the he#ring. Iss$!# >hether or not there is merit of invo8ing the right to counsel of his o$n choice #s #sserted by the #ccused in the c#se #t b#r. H! %# )he court finds the #dministr#tive com l#int #g#inst res ondent =udge devoid of merit. An e/#min#tion of rel#ted rovisions in the %onstitution concerning the right to counsel, $ill sho$ th#t the ( reference in the choice of counsel( ert#ins more # tly #nd s ecific#lly to # erson under investig#tion r#ther th#n one $ho is the #ccused in # crimin#l rosecution. AccusedEcom l#in#nt $#s not, in #ny $#y, de rived of his subst#ntive #nd constitution#l right to due rocess #s he $#s duly #ccorded #ll the o ortunities to be he#rd #nd to resent evidence to subst#nti#te his defense but he forfeited this right, for not # e#ring in court together $ith his counsel #t the scheduled he#rings. "t $#s the str#tegic m#chin#tion of del#ying the roceeding by the #ccused th#t g#ve rise to the need of # ointing him counsel de officio by the court #s del#ying further the he#ring is re=udici#l to s eedy dis osition of # c#se #nd c#uses del#y in the #dministr#tion of =ustice. Ferdinand A. (ruz v. Jud'e "#A$A%LA&LE i>ares
3i'ht to 5e %nfor2ed of the #ature and (ause of Accusation +!")o vs. +!o4 ! Fa"ts#
100
)he decision of the Su reme %ourt for convicting the #ccused for the com le/ crime of #ttem ted est#f# thru f#lsific#tion of offici#l #nd commerci#l document $#s #ss#iled $ith the contention of the defense th#t the #ccused m#y not be convicted of the crime for double =eo #rdy. )he ch#rge #g#inst the #ccused $#s on viol#tion of 0A 7B19 of $hich he $#s #c;uitted bec#use it only en#liCes consumm#ted crime. "n the #bsence of evidence th#t sho$s th#t the crime $#s consumm#ted the #ccused $#s #c;uitted but the court held =udgment of rosecuting his conviction for #ttem ted est#f# thru f#lsific#tion of offici#l #nd commerci#l document $hich is necess#rily included in the crime ch#rged. Accused invo8es the defense of double =eo #rdy since his #c;uitt#l from the ch#rge involving 0A 7B19 is # b#r for rosecution on the crime of #ttem ted est#f# thru f#lsific#tion of offici#l #nd commerci#l document #nd th#t the #ccused $#s not informed of this ch#rge #g#inst him in the filing of the inform#tion. Iss$!# >hether or not the #ccused $#s informed of the n#ture #nd c#use of the crime to $hich he is convicted H! %# )he court resented the ob=ectives of the right of the #ccused to be informed of the n#ture #nd c#use of the crime he is ch#rged $ith #s follo$s2 1.)o furnish the #ccused $ith such # descri tion of the ch#rge #g#inst him #s $ill en#ble him to m#8e his defense5 *.)o #v#il himself of his conviction or #c;uitt#l for rotection #g#inst # further rosecution for the s#me c#use5 7.)o inform the court of the f#cts #lleged, so th#t it m#y decide $hether they #re sufficient in l#$ to su ort # conviction, if one should be h#d. "n order th#t this re;uirement m#y be s#tisfied f#cts must be st#ted2 not conclusions of l#$. )he com l#int must cont#in # s ecific #lleg#tion of every f#ct #nd circumst#nce necess#ry to constitute the crime. >h#t determines the re#l n#ture #nd c#use of #ccus#tion
#g#inst #n #ccused is the #ctu#l recit#l of f#cts st#ted in the inform#tion or com l#int #nd not the c# tion or re#mble of the inform#tion or com l#int nor the s ecific#tion of the rovision of l#$ #lleged to h#ve been viol#ted, they being conclusions of l#$. "t follo$s then th#t #n #ccused m#y be convicted of # crime $hich #lthough not the one ch#rged, is necess#rily included in the l#tter. "t h#s been sho$n th#t the inform#tion filed in court is considered #s ch#rging for t$o offenses $hich the counsel of the #ccused f#iled to ob=ect therefore he c#n be convicted for both or either of the ch#rges. ?o$ever by revie$ing the c#se #t b#r the S% finds l#c8 of sufficient evidence th#t $ould est#blish the guilt of the #ccused #s cons ir#tor to the crime of est#f# beyond re#son#ble doubt, the rior decision of the S% $#s deemed to be b#sed merely on circumst#nti#l evidence, thus the #ccused $#s #c;uitted. So*iano v. San%igan'a,an Fa"ts# )#n $#s #ccused of ;u#lified theft. )he etitioner, $ho $#s #n Asst. Fisc#l, $#s #ssigned to investig#te. "n the course of the investig#tion, etitioner dem#nded Ph .DBBB from )#n #s rice for dismissing the c#se. )#n re orted it to the 9@" $hich set u #n entr# ment. )#n $#s given # Ph .*BBB, m#r8ed bill, #nd he h#d su lied the other h#lf. )he entr# ment succeeded #nd #n inform#tion $#s filed $ith the S#ndig#nb#y#n. After tri#l, the S#ndig#nb#y#n rendered # decision finding the etitioner guilty #s # rinci #l in viol#ting the Anti Jr#ft #nd %orru t Pr#ctices Act A0.A.7B193. A motion for reconsider#tion $#s denied by the S#ndig#nb#y#n, hence this inst#nt etition. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the investig#tion conducted by the etitioner c#n be reg#rded #s contr#ct or tr#ns#ction $ithin the urvie$ of .0A.7B19. H! %#
101
0.A. 7B19 Sec.7. %orru t r#ctices of ublic officers E "n #ddition to #cts or omissions of ublic officers #lre#dy en#liCed by e/isting l#$s, the follo$ing sh#ll constitute corru t r#ctices of #ny ublic officer #nd #re hereby decl#red to be unl#$ful2 /// b. Directly or indirectly re;uesting or receiving #ny gift, resent, sh#re ercent#ge or benefit, for himself or for other erson, in connection $ith #ny contr#ct or tr#ns#ction bet$een the Jovt. #nd #ny other #rty $herein the ublic officer in his offici#l c# #city h#s to intervene under the l#$. )he etitioner st#ted th#t the f#cts m#8e out # c#se of direct bribery under Art.*1B of the 0P% #nd not # viol#tion of 0.A. 7B19 sec.7 Ab3. )he offense of direct bribery is not the offense ch#rged #nd is not included in the offense ch#rged $hich is viol#tion of 0.A.7B19 sec.7 Ab3. )he res ondent cl#imed th#t, tr#ns#ction #s used hereof, is not limited to commerci#l or business tr#ns#ction, but includes #ll 8inds of tr#ns#ction $hether commerci#l, civil, or #dministr#tive in n#ture. )he court #grees $ith the etitioner. "t is obvious th#t the investig#tion conducted by the etitioner $#s neither # contr#ct nor tr#ns#ction. A tr#ns#ction li8e # contr#ct is one $hich involves some consider#tion #s in credit tr#ns#ctions. And this element is #bsent in the investig#tion conducted by the etitioner. Judgment modified. Petitioner is guilty of direct bribery under Art.*1B of the 0P%. 6o*0a v. /!n%o&a Fa"ts# @or=# $#s #ccused of slight hysic#l in=uries in the %ity of %ebu. ?o$ever, he $#s not #rr#igned. )h#t not $ithst#nding, res ondent Judge Senining roceeded $ith the tri#l in #bsenti# #nd rendered # decision finding etitioner guilty of the crime ch#rged. )he c#se $#s # e#led to the %ourt o First "nst#nce in %ebu resided by res ondent Judge MendoC#. "t $#s #lleged th#t the f#ilure to #rr#ign him is # viol#tion of his constitution#l rights. "t $#s #lso #lleged th#t
$ithout #ny notice to etitioner #nd $ithout re;uiring him to submit his memor#ndum, # decision on the # e#led c#se $#s rendered )he Solicitor Jener#l commented th#t the decision should be #nnulled bec#use there $#s no #rr#ignment. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot etitioner4s constitution#l right $#s viol#ted $hen he $#s not #rr#igned. H! %# Les. Procedur#l due rocess re;uires th#t the #ccused be #rr#igned so th#t he m#y be informed #s to $hy he $#s indicted #nd $h#t en#l offense he h#s to f#ce, to be convicted only on # sho$ing th#t his guilt is sho$n beyond re#son#ble doubt $ith full o ortunity to dis rove the evidence #g#inst him. "t is #lso not =ust due rocess th#t re;uires #n #rr#ignment. "t is re;uired in the 0ules th#t #n #ccused, for the first time, is gr#nted the o ortunity to 8no$ the recise ch#rge th#t confronts him. "t is im er#tive th#t he is thus m#de fully #$#re of ossible loss of freedom, even of his life, de ending on the n#ture of the crime im uted to him. At the very le#st then, he must be fully informed of $hy the rosecuting #rm of the st#te is mobiliCed #g#inst him. @eing #rr#igned is thus # vit#l #s ect of the constitution#l rights gu#r#nteed him. Also, res ondent Judge Senining convicted etitioner not$ithst#nding the #bsence of #n #rr#ignment. >ith the viol#tion of the constitution#l right to be he#rd by himself #nd counsel being thus m#nifest, it is correct th#t the Solicitor Jener#l #greed $ith etitioner th#t the sentence im osed on him should be set #side for being null. )he #bsence of #n #rr#ignment c#n be invo8ed #t #nytime in vie$ of the re;uirements of due rocess to ensure # f#ir #nd im #rti#l tri#l. >herefore, the etition for certior#ri is gr#nted. )he decision of res ondent Judge 0omulo 0. Senining d#ted December *., 1967, finding the #ccused guilty of the crime of slight hysic#l in=uries, is nullified #nd set #side. 'i8e$ise, the decision of res ondent Judge 0#f#el ). MendoC# d#ted 9ovember 16, 1966, #ffirming the #fores#id decision of Judge Senining, is nullified #nd set #side. )he
102
c#se is rem#nded to the %ity %ourt of %ebu for the rosecution of the offense of slight hysic#l in=uries, $ith due res ect #nd observ#nce of the rovisions of the 0ules of %ourt, st#rting $ith the #rr#ignment of etitioner. S)!a a +. /at*i%o v. +!o4 ! o- t)! +)i i44in!s Fa"ts# She#l# M#trido A etitioner3 #ss#ils the M#y 71, *BB6 Decision #nd August 1, *BB6 0esolution of the %ourt of A e#ls, $hich #ffirmed the tri#l court4s Decision of December 17, *BBD convicting her of ;u#lified theft. As # credit #nd collection #ssist#nt of riv#te com l#in#nt &m ire &#st '#nd ?oldings, "nc., etitioner $#s t#s8ed to collect #yments from buyers of re#l est#te ro erties such #s '#gun# @elEAir develo ed by riv#te com l#in#nt, issue recei ts therefor, #nd remit the #yments to riv#te com l#in#nt in M#8#ti %ity. On June 1B, 1999, etitioner received #mortiC#tion #yment from one Am#nte del# )orre in the #mount of P**,D6B.66 #s evidenced by the o$ner4s co y of Offici#l 0ecei t 9o. 761D6, but etitioner remitted only PD,D6B.66 to riv#te com l#in#nt #s reflected in the tre#sury de #rtment4s co y of Offici#l 0ecei t 9o. 761D6 submitted to riv#te com l#in#nt, both co ies of $hich be#r the sign#ture of etitioner #nd reflect # difference of P1.,BBB. On riv#te com l#in#nt4s investig#tion, etitioner $#s found to h#ve f#iled to remit #yments received from its clients, rom ting it to file v#rious com l#ints, one of $hich is # %om l#intEAffid#vit of Se tember *1, *BBB for est#f#, doc8eted #s ".S. 9o. *BBBE"E7*7.1 in the M#8#ti Prosecutor4s Office. Iss$!# >hether the # ell#te court Ggr#vely erred in #ffirming the decision of the tri#l WcourtX convicting the etitioner of the crime of ;u#lified theft des ite the f#ct th#t the rosecution tried to rove during the tri#l the crime of est#f# thus denying the etitioner the right to be informed of the n#ture #nd c#use of #ccus#tion #g#inst her:
H! %# "t is settled th#t it is the #lleg#tions in the "nform#tion th#t determine the n#ture of the offense, not the technic#l n#me given by the ublic rosecutor in the re#mble of the "nform#tion. From # leg#l oint of vie$, #nd in # very re#l sense, it is of no concern to the #ccused $h#t is the technic#l n#me of the crime of $hich he st#nds ch#rged. "t in no $#y #ids him in # defense on the merits. )h#t to $hich his #ttention should be directed, #nd in $hich he, #bove #ll things else, should be most interested, #re the f#cts #lleged. )he re#l ;uestion is not did he commit # crime given in the l#$ some technic#l #nd s ecific n#me, but did %e perform t%e acts alle)ed in t%e bod# of t%e information in t%e manner t%erein set fort%. J#uging such st#nd#rd #g#inst the $ording of the "nform#tion in this c#se, the %ourt finds no viol#tion of etitioner4s rights. )he recit#l of f#cts #nd circumst#nces in the "nform#tion sufficiently constitutes the crime of ;u#lified theft. As #lleged in the "nform#tion, etitioner too8, intending to g#in therefrom #nd $ithout the use of force u on things or violence #g#inst or intimid#tion of ersons, # erson#l ro erty consisting of money in the #mount P1.,BBB belonging to riv#te com l#in#nt, $ithout its 8no$ledge #nd consent, thereby gr#vely #busing the confidence re osed on her #s credit #nd collection #ssist#nt $ho h#d #ccess to #yments from riv#te com l#in#nt4s clients, s ecific#lly from one Am#nte Del# )orre. )he en#lty for ;u#lified theft is t$o degrees higher th#n the # lic#ble en#lty for sim le theft. )he #mount stolen in this c#se $#s P1.,BBB.BB. "n c#ses of theft, if the v#lue of the erson#l ro erty stolen is more th#n P1*,BBB.BB but does not e/ceed P**,BBB.BB, the en#lty sh#ll be prision ma#or in its minimum #nd medium eriods. )$o degrees higher th#n this en#lty is reclusion temporal in its medium #nd m#/imum eriods or 1D ye#rs, . months #nd 1 d#y to *B ye#rs. A lying the "ndetermin#te Sentence '#$, the minimum sh#ll be prision ma#or in its m#/imum eriod to reclusion temporal in its minimum eriod or $ithin the r#nge of 1B ye#rs #nd 1 d#y to 1D ye#rs #nd . months. )he mitig#ting circumst#nce of volunt#ry
103
surrender being resent, the m#/imum en#lty sh#ll be the minimum eriod of reclusion temporal in its medium #nd m#/imum eriods or $ithin the r#nge of 1D ye#rs, . months #nd 1 d#y to 16 ye#rs, 1 months #nd *B d#ys. 3i'ht to S)eed1- %2)artial and Pu5lic 8rial +!o4 ! vs. T!! Fa"ts2 )he c#se involves #n #utom#tic revie$ of =udgment m#de #g#inst )ee $ho $#s convicted for illeg#l ossession of m#ri=u#n# #nd sentenced to de#th. )he defense #ss#iled the decision of the court for t#8ing #dmissible #s evidence the m#ri=u#n# seiCed from the #ccused by virtue of #llegedly gener#l se#rch $#rr#nt. )hey further contend th#t the #ccused $#s de rived of his right to s eedy tri#l by f#ilure of the rosecution to roduce their $itness $ho f#iled to # e#r during the *B he#ring d#tes thereby slo$ing do$n the tri#l rocedure. Iss$!2 >hether or not the subst#ntive right of the #ccused for # s eedy tri#l re=udiced during the he#ring of the c#se: H! %2 )he court ruled th#t the subst#ntive right of the #ccused for # f#ir #nd s eedy tri#l $#s not viol#ted. "t held th#t the S eedy )ri#l Act of 199. rovides th#t the tri#l eriod for the crimin#l c#ses should be in gener#l 1.B d#ys. ?o$ever, in determining the right of #n #ccused to s eedy tri#l, courts should do more th#n # m#them#tic#l com ut#tion of the number of ost onements of the scheduled he#rings of the c#se. )he right to # s eedy tri#l is deemed viol#ted only $hen2 A13 the roceedings #re #ttended by ve/#tious, c# ricious, #nd o ressive del#ys5 or A*3 $hen un=ustified ost onements #re #s8ed for #nd secured5 or A73 $hen $ithout c#use or =ustifi#ble motive # long eriod of time is #llo$ed to el# se $ithout the #rty h#ving his
c#se tried. "t $#s sho$n by the records th#t the rosecution e/erted efforts in obt#ining # $#rr#nt to com el the $itness to testify. )he conce t of s eedy tri#l is necess#rily rel#tive $here sever#l f#ctors #re $eighed such #s the length of time of del#y, the re#son of such del#y, #nd conduct of rosecution #nd the #ccused #nd the re=udice #nd d#m#ged c#used to the #ccused of such del#y. )he court did not find the *B d#ys of del#yed he#ring unre#son#ble length of time #s to constitute de riv#tion of the constitution#l rights of the #ccused for # s eedy tri#l in #ddition to the f#ct th#t court tri#l m#y be #l$#ys sub=ected to ost onement for re#son#ble c#use of del#y. "n the #bsence of sho$ing th#t the re#son for del#y $#s c# ricious or o ressive, the St#te must not be de rived of re#son#ble o ortunity in rosecuting the #ccused. F o*!s v. +!o4 ! Fa"ts# Petitioners le# for their constitution#l rights to # s eedy tri#l by certior#ri $here the roceeding of the c#se for robbery #g#inst etitioners dr#gged on for over # dec#de $ithout #ny fin#l =udgment rendered by the court. Petitioners sought for the dismiss#l of the c#se due to inordin#te del#y in its dis osition. )he Peo le in its #ffirm#tive defense r#ised the f#cts th#t the c#se $#s not ro erly c# tioned, #s the Peo le of the Phils. #g#inst $hom it is filed $#s not # tribun#l e/ercising =udici#l functions #nd $ithout the %ourt of A e#ls being m#de # #rt to the etition there #re insufficient f#cts to constitute # c#use of #ction. Moreover it defends th#t the %A too8 #ll necess#ry ste s to com lete the tr#nscri t of stenogr# hic notes of the origin#l tri#l. Iss$!# >hether or not the constitution#l right of the #ccused to # s eedy tri#l $#s viol#ted: H! %#
104
)he court referred to revious =uris rudence u holding the constitution#l rights of the #ccused to # s eedy tri#l. "t reE#ffirmed $ith em h#sis th#t such right is more signific#nt th#n the rocedur#l defects ointed out by the Peo le of the Phili ines th#t the %A should h#ve been m#de #rtyEres ondent to the etition. )echnic#lities should #l$#ys give $#y to the re#lity of the situ#tion #nd th#t in the #bsence of # v#lid decision the st#ge tri#l $#s not com leted #nd the #ccused should be #ccorded $ith the right to contend th#t they h#d not been #ccorded their right to be tried #s rom tly #s circumst#nces ermit. )hus the S% finds merit to dismiss the c#se #g#inst the etitioners. Con%! v. Riv!*a Fa"ts# Aureli# %onde, formerly # munici #l mid$ife in 'ucen#, )#y#b#s, h#s been forced to res ond to no less the five inform#tion for v#rious crimes #nd misdeme#nors, h#s # e#red $ith her $itnesses #nd counsel #t he#rings no less th#n on eight different occ#sions only to see the c#use ost oned, h#s t$ice been re;uired to come to the Su reme %ourt for rotection, #nd no$, #fter the #ss#ge of more th#n one ye#r from the time $hen the first inform#tion $#s filed, seems #s f#r #$#y from # definite resolution of her troubles #s she $#s $hen origin#lly ch#rged. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot etitioner h#s been denied her right to # s eedy #nd im #rti#l tri#l: H! %# Phili ine org#nic #nd st#tutory l#$ e/ ressly gu#r#ntee th#t in #ll crimin#l rosecutions the #ccused sh#ll en=oy the right to h#ve # s eedy tri#l. Aureli# %onde, li8e #ll other #ccused ersons, h#s # right to # s eedy tri#l in order th#t if innocent she m#y go free, #nd she h#s been de rived of th#t right in defi#nce of l#$. >e l#y do$n
the leg#l ro osition th#t, $here # rosecuting officer, $ithout good c#use, secures ost onements of the tri#l of # defend#nt #g#inst his rotest beyond # re#son#ble eriod of time, #s in this inst#nce for more th#n # ye#r, the #ccused is entitled to relief by # roceeding in m#nd#mus to com el # dismiss#l of the inform#tion, or if he be restr#ined of his liberty, by h#be#s cor us to obt#in his freedom. /at!o( 1*. v. 9i a $& =G0 SCRA 1> A1B@2CD Fa"ts# Petitioners $ere ch#rged $ith robbery in b#nd $ith homicide. )hey filed motions to dismiss the crimin#l c#ses $hich $ere not immedi#tely resolved by the res ondent Judge. "n the me#ntime, #nother sus ect, one 0ol#ndo 0eyes $#s #rrested. ?e e/ecuted #n e/tr#E=udici#l st#tement #nd signed #nd s$ore to its truth before the res ondent Judge $herein he im lic#ted the etitioners. On this b#sis, the res ondent Judge deferred #ction on the etitioner4s motion to dismiss until #fter the rosecution h#d resented #nd rested its c#se #g#inst 0eyes. 0eyes $#s tried se #r#tely #nd in the #bsence of etitioners. During the etitioner4s tri#l, 0eyes $#s c#lled #s #n #ddition#l $itness $here he re udi#ted his e/tr#E=udici#l st#tement contending th#t the s#me $#s rocured through thre#ts by # government #gent. As # conse;uence, he etitioners filed # motion to dis;u#lify the res ondent Judge on the ground th#t 0eyes h#d re udi#ted the e/tr#E=udici#l st#tement $hich the l#tter s$orn to before the former #nd th#t the l#tter $ould h#ve to #ss u on the re udi#tion. )he motion to dis;u#lify $#s denied by the res ondent Judge. Iss$!# >hether the res ondent Judge should dis;u#lify $#s denied by the res ondent Judge. H! %# Petition is gr#nted. )he restr#ining order issued is m#de erm#nent.
105
"t is beyond th#t due rocess c#nnot be s#tisfied in the #bsence of th#t degree of ob=ectivity on the #rt of # =udge sufficient to re#ssure litig#nts of his being f#ir #nd being =ust. )hereby there is the legitim#te e/ ect#tion th#t the decision #rrived #t $ould be the # lic#tion of the l#$ to the f#cts #s found by # he#ring before #n im #rti#l #nd disinterested tribun#l, #nd th#t every litig#nt is entitled to nothing less th#n the cold neutr#lity of #n im #rti#l =udge. Petitioners c#n #ssert then th#t this court h#s the o$er to set #side the order denying the motion for dis;u#lific#tion. >hile the discretion in the first inst#nce belongs to the res ondent Judge, its e/ercise is sub=ect to this court4s corrective #uthority. )here c#n be no ;uestion #s to its being considered #bused if it c#n be sho$n th#t to refuse dis;u#lific#tion is to c#st v#lid doubts #s to court4s im #rti#lity. "n this c#se, the res ondent Judge could not be tot#lly immune to $h#t # #rently $#s #sserted before him in such e/tr#E=udici#l st#tement. "t is unli8ely th#t he $#s not in the slightest bit offended by the #ffi#nt4s turn #bout $hich his l#ter decl#r#tion th#t there $#s intimid#tion by considering th#t the res ondent Judge $ould h#ve to #ss =udgment on # ;uestion th#t by im lic#tion h#d #lre#dy been #ns$ered by him Ah#ving #lre#dy given his o inion on the m#tter3. Ga*"ia v. Domingo FACTS2 On J#nu#ry 16, 196., in the %ity %ourt of M#nil# resided over by etitioner Judge Jregorio J#rci#, .inform#tions $ere filed #g#inst res ondents &dg#rdo %#lo, #nd Simeon %#rbonnel #nd Fr#ncisco 'orenC#n#, for slight hysic#l in=uries, m#ltre#tment, for viol#tion of Sec. ..6 of the 0evised Ordin#nces of M#nil# Aresisting #n officer35 #nd for sl#nder. )he tri#l of the #forementioned c#ses $#s =ointly held on M#rch D, 1., *7, 7B, 196.5 A ril 16, V *B, 196., M#yD V 11, 196., June 1, 11, ** V *9, 196., August 7 V1B, 196.. All the 1D tri#l d#tes e/ce t M#rch D #nd1., #nd A ril 16, 196. fell on # S#turd#y. )his $#s #rr#nged by the #rties #nd the %ourt u on the insistence of res ondents %#lo #nd %#rbonnel $ho, #s olice officers under sus ension bec#use of the c#ses, desired the s#me to be termin#ted #s soon #s ossible #nd #s there $ere m#ny c#ses scheduled for tri#l on the usu#l crimin#l tri#l d#ys AMond#y, >ednesd#y #nd
Frid#y3, S#turd#y $#s #greed u on #s the inv#ri#ble tri#l d#y for s#id eight A.3 crimin#l c#ses. )he tri#l of the c#ses in ;uestion $#s held, $ith the conformity of the #ccused #nd their counsel, in the ch#mbers of Judge J#rci#. During #ll the 1Dd#ys of tri#l, s #nning # eriod of sever#l months, the #ccused $ere #t #ll times re resented by their res ective counsel, $ho #cted not only in defense of their clients, but #s rosecutors of the #ccus#tions filed #t their clients! inst#nce. )here $#s only 1 d#y AA ril *B3 $hen Atty. %onsengco, re resenting res ondent %#lo #nd %#rbonnel, $#s #bsent. @ut #t the insistence of %#rbonnel, the tri#l roceeded #nd s#id res ondent crossEe/#mined one of the $itnesses resented by the #dverse #rty. "n #ny c#se, no retense h#s been m#de by the res ondents th#t this constituted #n irregul#rity correctible on certior#ri. At the conclusion of the he#rings the #ccused, thru counsel, #s8ed for #nd $ere gr#nted time to submit memor#nd#. 0es ondents %#lo #nd %#rbonnel, thru counsel, Atty. 0#f#el %onsengco, submitted # 1DE #ge memor#ndum in su ort of their r#yer for e/oner#tion, #nd conviction of etitioner 'orenC#n# in res ect of their counterch#rges #g#inst the l#tter. "t is $orthy of note th#t u to this l#te d#te, s#id res ondents %#lo #nd %#rbonnel h#d not ob=ected to or ointed out #ny su osed irregul#rity in the roceedings thus f#r5 theme memor#ndum submitted in their beh#lf is confined to # discussion of the evidence #dduced in, #nd the merits of the c#ses.E )he romulg#tion of =udgment scheduled on Se *7, 196. $#s ost oned to Se *., 196. #t the inst#nce of Atty. %onsengco, , #nd #g#in to Oct 1,196.. )he # lic#tions for ost onement $ere not grounded u on #ny su osed defect or irregul#rity of the roceedings.E ?o$ever, on October 1, 196., %#lo #nd %#rbonnel, thru their counsel, filed $ith the %F" of M#nil# # etition for certior#ri #nd rohibition, $ith # lic#tion for relimin#ry rohibitory #nd m#nd#tory in=unction #lleging =urisdiction#l defects. 0es ondent Judge Feli/ Domingo issued # restr#ining order thusc#using the deferment of the romulg#tion of the =udgment. After roceedings duly h#d, there $#s #n order from him decl#ring th#t !the constitution#l #nd st#tutory rights of the #ccused! h#d been viol#ted, #dversely #ffecting their !right to # free #nd im #rti#l tri#l, noting !th#t the tri#l of these c#ses l#sting sever#l $ee8s held e/clusively in ch#mbers #nd notin the court room o en the ublic!5( #nd ordering the city court Judge J#rci#, (to desist from re#ding or c#using to be re#d or romulg#ted
106
the decisions he m#y h#ve rendered #lre#dy in the crimin#l c#ses ending in his %ourt, until further orders of this %ourt.HE )he M0 $#s denied. ?ence, on J#nu#ry *., 1969, the m#tter $#s elev#ted to the S% by me#ns of the resent suit for certior#ri #nd rohibition. ISSUE# >O9 res ondent Judge commit # gr#ve #buse of discretion in ruling th#t the holding of the tri#l of the #ccused inside the ch#mbers of etitioner ,city court Judge Jregorio J#rci#, #s viol#tive of the constitution#l right to ublic tri#l HELD# L&S. )he rocedure h#d been #greed to beforeh#nd by #ccused. )he he#rings h#ve been thus conducted on fourteen se #r#te occ#sions $ithout ob=ection on their #rt, #nd $ithout #n iot# of evidence to subst#nti#te #ny cl#im #s to #ny other erson so minded being e/cluded from the remises. "t is thus evident th#t $h#t too8 l#ce in the ch#mbers of the city court =udge $#s devoid of h#ste or intention#l secrecy.E )he 1971 %onstitution $hich $#s in force #t the time of this etition e/ licitly enumer#ted the right to # ublic tri#l to $hich #n #ccused $#s entitled. As # m#tter of f#ct, th#t $#s one constitution#l rovision th#t needed only # single, terse summ#tion from Justice Jose P. '#urel, to g#in #cce t#nce. As $#s stressed by him2 ()ri#l should #lso be ublic in order to offset #ny d#nger of conducting it in #n illeg#l #nd un=ust m#nner.("t $ould h#ve been sur rising if its ro osed inclusion in the @ill of 0ights h#d rovo8ed #ny discussion, much less # deb#te. "t $#s merely #re iter#tion $h#t # e#red in the Phili ine Autonomy Act of 1916, o ul#rly 8no$n #s the Jones '#$. &#rlier, such # right found e/ ression in the Phili ine @ill of 19B*, li8e$ise #n org#nic #ct of the government of this country #s #n unincor or#ted territory of the <nited St#tes.?istoric#lly #s $#s ointed out by Justice @l#c8, in the le#ding c#se of "n re Oliver2 )his n#tion4s #cce ted r#ctice of gu#r#nteeing # ublic tri#l to #n #ccused h#s its roots in the &nglish common l#$ herit#ge, but it li8ely evolved long before thesettlement of the <S #s #n #ccom #niment of the #ncient institution of =ury tri#l.)he gu#r#ntee to #n #ccused of the right to # ublic tri#l # e#red in #
st#te constitution in 1666. '#ter it $#s embodied in the Si/th Amendment of the Feder#l %onstitution r#tified in 1691. )od#y #lmost $ithout e/ce tion every st#te by constitution, st#tute, or =udici#l decision, re;uires th#t #ll crimin#l tri#ls be o en to the ublic.E )he %onstitution gu#r#ntees #n #ccused the right to # ublic tri#l. )here is no #mbiguity in the $ords em loyed. )he tri#l must be ublic. "t ossesses th#t ch#r#cter $hen #nyone interested in observing the m#nner # =udge conducts the roceedings in his courtroom m#y do so. )here is to be no b#n on such #ttend#nce. ?is being # str#nger to the litig#nts is of no moment. 9o rel#tionshi to the #rties need be sho$n. )he thought th#t lies behind this s#fegu#rd is the belief th#t thereby the #ccused is #fforded further rotection, th#t his tri#l is li8ely to be conducted $ith regul#rity #nd not t#inted $ith #ny im ro riety. Accdg to J. '#urel, the im ort#nce of this right is its being # deterrence to #rbitr#riness. "t is thus underst#nd#ble $hy such # right is deemed 8rial in A5sentia +!o4 ! v. Sa as FACTS# At #bout 62BB o!cloc8 in the morning of M#rch 6, 199*, # 6B ye#r old $om#n, identified #s ,irgini# )#lens $#s found lying de#d in # c#n#l #t @o. S#n 9icol#s, Me/ico, P#m #ng#5 she $#s l#st seen #live #t #bout 72BB o!cloc8 e#rly morning of M#rch 6, 199* by Orl#ndo P#ng#n #nd 0ich#rd P#ng#n $ho $ere $ith her going home coming from the $#8e of one 'eon#rdo Flores5 both Orl#ndo #nd 0ich#rd P#ng#n testified th#t #ccused $#s $ith them in going home #t #bout 72BB o!cloc8 in the morning of M#rch 6, 199*5 Orl#ndo #nd 0ich#rd P#ng#n re#ched first their house #nd left the t$o on the $#y #nd th#t $#s the l#st time ,irgini# $#s seen #live5 =ust # fe$ minutes #fter re#ching his house #nd $hile inside his house, Orl#ndo P#ng#n he#rd # shout5 #nother $om#n, one Ser#fi# JutierreC, testified th#t she li8e$ise $#s #$#8ened by # shout #t #bout 72BB in the morning5 Dr. Agud# $ho #uto sied the victim found hem#tom# on the he#d #nd chest, #n #br#sion on the left chin #nd st#b$ound on the nec8 $hich st#b$ound, the doctor cl#ims, $#s the c#use of de#th of the
107
victim5 Police "nvestig#tor JonC#les $ho immedi#tely res onded u on re ort, recovered #t the scene # in, the victim!s $rist$#tch, e#rring, # ring #nd P171.BB money5 he li8e$ise found on M#rch 9, 199* $hen he continued his investig#tion bloodst#in on the front door of the house of the #ccused $hich bloodst#in $hen submitted for e/#min#tion $#s found to be of hum#n blood5 one 0esult#y $#s $ith ,irgini# )#lens #t #bout 12BB #fternoon of M#rch 1, 199* in going to the $#8e, $ho cl#ims th#t ,irgini# h#d money on # urse #s $hile they $ere on the $#y ,irgini# bet on # =ueteng she s#$ ,irgini# got money from her urse # P1BB.BB bill but #s she h#d no ch#nge she inste#d too8 P..BB from her other oc8et5 one 0#mil)#lens, # son of the victim corrobor#ted the cl#im of 0esult#y th#t ,irgini# h#d $ith her #t th#t time money $orth P*,BBB.BB #s in the morning of M#rch 1, 199* he g#ve her mother for s#fe8ee ing the sum of P1,1BB.BB $hich he cl#ims his mother l#ced in her urse #nd cl#ims further th#t #t the $#8e, he #s8ed #nd $#s given P1B.BB by his mother #s he #lso #rtici #ted in the g#mbling there#t, ho$ever, the urse of ,irgini# cont#ining #bout P*,BBB.BB $#s no longer to be found $hen she $#s found de#d5 Orl#ndo P#ng#n s#$ the #ccused g#mbled in the $#8e5 ,irgini# li8e$ise g#mbled #t the $#8e5 #ccused h#d been $or8ing for three d#ys before M#rch 6 #t St#. An#, P#m #ng# #nd u to M#rch 1, 199*, but the follo$ing d#y, he did not #nymore re ort for $or8 #t St#. An#, P#m #ng#, $#s no longer to be found #nd $#s l#st seen #t #bout 72BB morning together $ith ,irgini# )#lens on their $#y home coming from the $#8e5 the #rents of WtheX #ccused $ere informed by "nvestig#tor JonC#les th#t their son $#s the sus ect #nd #dviced them to surrender him, but since M#rch 6, 199* $hen #ccused left Me/ico, P#m #ng#, he returned only on Se tember 19, 199* #t Ar#y#t, P#m #ng#, not #t Me/ico, P#m #ng# $here he $#s ultim#tely # rehended by the Me/ico Police on Se tember **, 199* #fter ch#ncing on # r#dio mess#ge by the olice of Ar#y#t to their Provinci#l comm#nder th#t # vehicul#r incident occurred #t Ar#y#t, P#m #ng# $here one &lmer S#l#s $#s the victim #nd $#s hos it#liCed #t the district hos it#l #t Ar#y#t, P#m #ng# $here he used the n#me of 0ommel S#l#s #nd not &lmer S#l#s. )he tri#l court rendered convicting S#l#s for 0obbery $ith ?omicide ISSUES#
A13 >hether or 9ot there is evidence sufficient to sust#in # conviction of the # ell#nt of the crime of 0obbery $ith ?omicide. A*3 >hether or 9ot the # ell#nt4s crime homicide or robbery $ith homicide. HELD# )here $#s no eye$itness or direct evidence5 either to the robbery or to the homicide #nd none of the things #llegedly stolen $ere ever recovered. ?o$ever, direct evidence is not the only m#tri/ from $hich the tri#l court m#y dr#$ its findings #nd conclusion of cul #bility. 0esort to circumst#nti#l evidence is essenti#l $hen to insist on direct testimony $ould result in setting felons free. For circumst#nti#l evidence to be sufficient to su ort # conviction, #ll the circumst#nces must be consistent $ith e#ch other, consistent $ith the theory th#t the #ccused is guilty of the offense ch#rged, #nd #t the s#me time inconsistent $ith the hy othesis th#t he is innocent #nd $ith every other ossible, r#tion#l hy othesis e/ce ting th#t of guilt. All the circumst#nces est#blished must constitute #n unbro8en ch#in $hich le#ds to one #nd f#ir #nd re#son#ble conclusion ointing solely to the #ccused, to the e/clusion of #ll other ersons, #s the #uthor of the crime. )he f#cts #nd circumst#nces consistent $ith the guilt of the #ccused #nd inconsistent $ith his innocence c#n constitute evidence $hich, in $eight #nd rob#tive v#lue, m#y be deemed to sur #ss even direct evidence in its effect on the court. )he f#t#l st#bbing of ,irgini# )#lens occurred #t #round 72BB #.m. of M#rch 6, 199*. A ell#nt h#stily #b#ndoned his house in @#rrio S#n 9icol#s, Me/ico, P#m #ng#, his residence since childhood, on th#t very d#te. A ell#nt $#s no$here $hen his coE$or8er #nd b#rrio m#te, &du#rdo @#gt#s, c#me to # ell#nt!s house to fetch him for $or8 #t #round 627B to 62BB #.m. of M#rch 6, 199*. A ell#nt #lso #b#ndoned his =ob #s # #inter in St#. An#, P#m #ng#, on M#rch 6, 199*, the d#te of the crime, le#ving behind #n unfinished #inting ro=ect. ?e $#s not seen #g#in from s#id d#te. Police investig#tors found hum#n bloodst#ins on the front door of # ell#nt!s house, on his clothing, #nd on his yello$ sli ers #fter the victim $#s 8illed. Des ite efforts of the olice to find # ell#nt #s the rinci #l sus ect,
108
# f#ct 8no$n to # ell#nt!s f#mily #nd neighbors, # ell#nt did not resent himself to the #uthorities. A ell#nt $#s # rehended only # full si/ months #fter the d#te of the crime, follo$ing his confinement in # hos it#l in Ar#y#t, P#m #ng# bec#use he $#s sides$i ed by # ,ictory 'iner bus in Ar#y#t. >hen hos it#liCed, # ell#nt used the #li#s 0ommel S#l#s, inste#d of his true n#me &lmer S#l#s. )hese circumst#nces denote flight, $hich $hen une/ l#ined, h#s #l$#ys been considered by the courts #s indic#tive of guilt. @oth # ell#nt #nd victim g#mbled #t the $#8e they #ttended. )he victim $#s, in f#ct, en=oying # $inning stre#8 $hen her son, 0#mil)#lens, c#me to fetch her but $hich he f#iled to do bec#use his mother $#s $inning, #nd she refused to le#ve. )he urse of )#lens cont#ining c#sh $#s gone $hen her cor se $#s found in the c#n#l $ith # st#b $ound #nd bruises. >h#t $#s left $#s # s#fety in $hich victim used to f#sten the missing urse to her clothes. Deni#l is #n inherently $e#8 defense $hich must be buttressed by strong evidence of nonEcul #bility to merit credibility. Deni#l is neg#tive #nd selfEserving #nd c#nnot be given gre#ter evidenti#ry $eight over the testimonies of credible $itnesses $ho ositively testified th#t # ell#nt $#s #t the locus criminis #nd $#s the l#st erson seen $ith the victim #live. )he #bsence of evidence sho$ing #ny im ro er motive on the #rt of the rinci #l $itness for the rosecution to f#lsely testify #g#inst the # ell#nt strongly tends to buttress the conclusion th#t no such im ro er motive e/ists #nd th#t the testimony of s#id $itnesses deserve full f#ith #nd credit. )he essence of volunt#ry surrender is s ont#neity #nd the intent of the #ccused to give himself u #nd submit himself uncondition#lly to the #uthorities either bec#use he #c8no$ledges his guilt or he $#nts to s#ve the St#te the trouble of h#ving to effect his #rrest. S ont#neity #nd intent to give one!s self u #re #bsent $here the #ccused $ent into hiding for si/ months #fter the incident #nd h#d to resort to #n #li#s $hen he $#s involved in #n #ccident being investig#ted by the olice #uthorities.
0obbery $ith ?omicide is # s eci#l com le/ crime #g#inst ro erty. ?omicide is incident#l to the robbery $hich is the m#in ur ose of the crimin#l. "n ch#rging 0obbery $ith ?omicide, the onus rob#ndi is to est#blish2 (A#3 the t#8ing of erson#l ro erty $ith the use of violence or intimid#tion #g#inst # erson5 Ab3 the ro erty belongs to #nother5 Ac3 the t#8ing is ch#r#cteriCed $ith #nimus lucr#ndi5 #nd Ad3 on the occ#sion of the robbery or by re#son thereof, the crime of homicide, $hich is used in the generic sense, $#s committed.( Although there $#s no $itness #s to the #ctu#l robbing of the victim, there is testimony th#t the victim h#d more or less P*,BBB.BB5 #nd $ore gold e#rrings v#lued #t P61B.BB. )hese $ere never recovered. >hile there is indeed no direct roof th#t ,irgini# )#lens $#s robbed #t the time she $#s 8illed, $e m#y conclude from four circumst#nces th#t the robbery occ#sioned her 8illing2 A13 @oth # ell#nt #nd victim g#mbled #t the $#8e. A*3 )he # ell#nt 8ne$ th#t victim $#s $inning. A73 )he victim $#s l#st seen #live $ith # ell#nt. AD3 )he victim!s urse cont#ining her money #nd e#rrings $ere missing from her body $hen found. )he decision of the region#l tri#l court is #ffirmed. %osts #g#inst # ell#nt.So ordered. Ca**!%o v. +!o4 ! FACTS# Accused #fter #rr#ignment $#ives his right to # e#r in court during the tri#l $hile under # bond. At the resent#tion of the rinci #l $itness the court issued # sub oen# to the #ccused to # e#r on tri#l for the ur ose of meeting the $itness f#ce to f#ce, ho$ever he did not # e#r $ith the =ustific#tion of his $#iver. Subse;uently the munici #l =udge issued order of #rrest of the #ccused $ith confisc#tion of his c#sh bond #nd ordering the bondsm#n to sho$ c#use $hy no =udgment sh#ll be rendered #g#inst him. ISSUE2
109
>hether or not #n #ccused m#y be com elled by the court to # before the court des ite $#iver in f#vor of tr#il by #bsenti#. HELD#
e#r
)he court held th#t such $#iver only constitutes # $#iver of the right of the #ccused to meet the $itness f#ce to f#ce. "t does not in effect de rive the rosecution of its right to re;uire the resence of the #ccused for the ur ose of identific#tion by its $itnesses $hich is vit#l in the conviction of the #ccused. "t does not further rele#se the #ccused from his oblig#tion under the bond to # e#r in court $henever so re;uired. )he #ccused is #ccorded $ith the right to $#ive his o$n erson#l right but not his duty #nd oblig#tion to the court. G)ri#l in #bsenti# not #llo$ed $hen it is necess#ry to est#blish the identity of #ccused by the $itnessH +!o4 ! v. /a4a ao FACTS2 &leven A113 eo le rode in # Ford Fier# going to @#guio. 9#mely they #re2 FeliC#rdo J#lveC, Jimmy Jet$#ni, Simeon %#l#m#, 0ene S#long#, &du#rdo 'o eC, Adolfo Iui#mb#o, Alim#n @#r#E#8#l, An$#r ?#d=i&dris, Jum#n#8Om # #nd defend#ntE# el#nts in this c#se, Om#r M#g #l#o #nd 0e/ M#gumn#ng. After #n hour of driving, the c#r sto ed so th#t one of the #ssengers could urin#te. >hile the c#r $#s sto ed the @#r#E#8#l, &dris, Om #, M#g #l#o #nd M#gumn#ng ointed guns #nd 8nives #t the other #ssengers #nd divested them of their ro erties. On of the robbers then ordered J#lveC to drive the c#r to$#rds the reci ice Ab#ngin3. >hen the c#r $#s ne#r the reci ice, J#lveC then ste ed to the br#8es. )he other #ssengers =um ed out of the c#r #nd $ent to different directions to esc# e. J#lveC ho$ever, $#s left inside the c#r #nd $#s st#bbed by one of the robbers. )he robbers then esc# ed. Iui#mb#o, $ho o$ned the c#r, hel ed J#lveC to get to # hos it#l. J#lveC died in the hos it#l. )he robbers
$ere then # rehended $ith the e/ce tion of &dris $ho rem#in #t l#rge. M#ngumn#ng ho$ever esc# ed $hile being in detention #nd @#r#E#8#l died inside the =#il. Since M#ngumn#ng $#s not #rrested, the tri#l in #bsenti# continued #s to him. Om #, M#g #l#o, #nd M#gumn#ng $ere #ll held guilty #s rinci #l by direct #rtici #tion of the crime of 0obbery $ith ?omicide. ISSUE# >hether or 9ot the lo$er court erred in f#iling to # ly the %onstitution#l m#nd#te on the resum tion of innocence #nd roof beyond re#son#ble doubt $hen it #llo$ed the tri#l in #bsenti# to ush through on the #rt of defend#ntE# ell#nt M#gumn#ng. HELD# )he %ourt #ffirmed the decision of the lo$er court. )he re#son is th#t the lo$er court h#s =urisdiction over M#gumn#ng the moment the l#tter $#s in custody. Jurisdiction once #c;uired is not lost u on the inst#nce of #rties but until the c#se is termin#ted. Since #ll the re;uisites of tri#l in #bsenti# #re com lete, the court h#s =urisdiction over M#gumn#ng. "n #ddition, M#gumn#ng $#s resumed innocent during his tri#l in #bsenti#. )he rosecution h#d strong evidence #g#inst him #s roof beyond re#son#ble doubt th#t he is # rinci #l by direct #rtici #tion in the crime of 0obbery $ith ?omicide. )hus, the %onstitution#l m#nd#te $#s not viol#ted. +!o4 ! vs. 9a !*iano( !t a . Fa"ts# )he #ccus#tory ortion in the inform#tion for murder. F#cts #re #s follo$s2 ()h#t sometime in the evening of the *.th of J#nu#ry, 19.B, #t 9#gbinlod, Munici #lity of St#. %#t#lin#, Province of 9egros Orient#l, Phili ines, #nd $ithin the =urisdiction of this ?onor#ble %ourt, the
110
#ccused, including sever#l !John Does!, cons iring #nd confeder#ting $ith one #nother, $ith intent to 8ill, #nd $ith tre#chery #nd evident remedit#tion #nd being then #rmed $ith bolos #nd ! inuti!, did then #nd there $illfully, unl#$fully #nd feloniously #tt#c8, #ss#ult #nd use erson#l violence on the erson of one 0iC#lin#A #t#nSilv#no $hile the l#tter $#s #bout to le#ve her house #nd inflicting u on her in=uries, to $it2 !right leg #m ut#ted belo$ the 8nee5 left leg h#c8ed behind the 8nee5 #bdomen h#c8ed $ith viscer#eev#cer#ted,! #nd did then #nd there set the house on fire $hile the #forementioned 0iC#lin#A #t#nSilv#no $#s inside s#id house trying to esc# e therefrom, #nd #llo$ing her to be burned inside s#id house $hich $#s burned to the ground, thereby c#using u on s#id 0iC#lin#A #t#nSilv#no her de#th #nd burning her beyond recognition. @ut on 16 M#y 19.6, # fire gutted the building $here @r#nch 76 $#s loc#ted #nd the records of these t$o c#ses $ere burned. )he records $ere subse;uently reconstituted u on etition of the rosecuting fisc#l. )he testimonies of the $itnesses $ere ret#8en, ho$ever, before it could commence, #ccused &ngr#cio,#leri#no =um ed b#il #nd the $#rr#nt for his #rrest issued on 16 9ovember 19.6 $#s returned unserved bec#use he could not be found. An #li#s $#rr#nt for his #rrest $#s issued on *6 June 19.9, but he rem#ins #t l#rge u to the resent. After the com letion of the reEt#8ing of the testimonies of the $itnesses in @r#nch 76, %rimin#l %#ses 9os. D1.D #nd D1.1 $ere reEr#ffled to @r#nch 77 of the tri#l court, then resided over by Judge P#cifico S. @ul#do. )he decision of the tri#l court, er Judge P#cifico S. @ul#do, d#ted 71 October 1991 but romulg#ted on *B December 1991, cont#ined no s ecific dis ositive ortion. "ts rulings #re found in the l#st t$o #r#gr# hs $hich re#d #s follo$s2 ()he elements of murder in this c#se, %rimin#l %#se 9o. D1.1 for the 8illing of 0iC#lin#A #t#nESilv#no h#ving been roved by the rosecution beyond doubt, the #ccused J<A9")O 0"SM<9DO, MA%A0"O A%A@A' #nd A@<9D"O 9A?"D, considering the
#ttend#nt ;u#lifying #ggr#v#ting circumst#nces of nighttime, use of fire by burning the house of victim 0iC#lin#A #t#nESilv#no in order to forcibly drive her out of her house #nd h#c8 her to de#th, the #buse of su erior strength, the en#lty im oss#ble WsicX here $ill be in its m#/imum degree, th#t is reclusion er etu#t#8ing into #ccount Article *D. of the 0evised Pen#l %ode, the en#lty no$ for murder is 0eclusion )em or#l to 0eclusion Per etu#, #nd for #ll the #ccused to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of )hirty )hous#nd AP7B,BBB.BB3 Pesos since this c#se occurred WsicX in 19.B. For the $ounding of the victim >ilson A. Silv#no, this %ourt believes th#t sim le frustr#ted homicide only is committed by the #ccused &ngr#cio,#leri#no only. @ut since the erson $ho #ctu#lly inflicted the in=uries of victim >ilson Silv#no, #ccused &ngr#cio,#leri#no only is no$here to be found, hence, not brought to the b#r of =ustice, he being # fugitive or #t l#rge, no en#lty could be im osed on him since he is beyond the =urisdiction of this court to re#ch. All the other t$o A*3 #ccused, J<A9")O 0"SM<9DO #nd A@<9D"O 9A?"D #re hereby ordered #nd decl#red #bsolved from #ny crimin#l res onsibility from frustr#ted homicide. )he b#il bond ut u by the three #ccused, n#mely2 Ju#nito0ismundo, M#c#rioAc#b#l #nd Abundio9#hid #re hereby ordered c#ncelled #nd let # $#rr#nt of #rrest be issued for their immedi#te confinement.( Iss$!s# A13 >hether or not the =udgment com lied $ith the 0ules of %ourt. A*3 >hether or not the c#ncell#tion of the b#il bonds of the #ccused is v#lid. A73 >hether or not the #ccused m#y be tried in #bsenti#. AD3 >hether or not the #ccused is guilty of the crime of frustr#ted murder. H! %#
111
>e find th#t the decision subst#nti#lly com lies $ith the 0ules of %ourt on =udgments #s it did sentence the #ccusedE# ell#nts to reclusion er etu#. A =udgment of conviction sh#ll st#te A#3 the leg#l ;u#lific#tion of the offense constituted by the #cts committed by the #ccused, #nd the #ggr#v#ting or mitig#ting circumst#nces #ttending the commission, if there #re #ny5 Ab3 the #rtici #tion of the #ccused in the commission of the offense, $hether #s rinci #l, #ccom lice or #ccessory #fter the f#ct5 Ac3 the en#lty im osed u on the #ccused5 #nd Ad3 the civil li#bility or d#m#ges c#used by the $rongful #ct to be recovered from the #ccused by the offended #rty, if there is #ny, unless the enforcement of the civil li#bility by # se #r#te #ction h#s been reserved or $#ived. "t is obvious th#t they cle#rly understood th#t they $ere found guilty beyond re#son#ble doubt of the crime of murder #nd $ere sentenced to suffer the en#lty of reclusion er etu# in %rimin#l %#se 9o. D1.1. >ere it other$ise, they $ould not h#ve decl#red in o en court their intention to # e#l immedi#tely #fter the romulg#tion of the decision #nd $ould not h#ve subse;uently filed their $ritten notice of # e#l. AccusedE# ell#nts contend th#t the tri#l court did not im ose #ny sentence #nd so c#nnot c#ncel #nymore their b#il bonds #nd direct their #rrest #nd immedi#te commitment bec#use it #lre#dy lost =urisdiction over their ersons $hen they erfected their # e#l. )he decision did im ose the en#lty of reclusion er etu#. Since the order c#ncelling their b#il bonds #nd directing their #rrest is cont#ined in the decision itself, it is # #rent th#t their #bovementioned contention is highly illogic#l. At the time the order in ;uestion $#s m#de, the tri#l court still h#d =urisdiction over the ersons of the #ccusedE# ell#nts. )he tri#l court further erred in holding th#t no en#lty could be im osed on #ccused &ngr#cio,#leri#no in %rimin#l %#se 9o. D1.D bec#use he (is no$here to be found, hence, not brought to the b#r of =ustice, he being # fugitive or #t l#rge.( )he court ignored the f#ct th#t &ngr#cio =um ed b#il #fter he h#d been #rr#igned, =ust before the ret#8ing of evidence commenced. P#r#gr# h A*3, Section 1D, Article
""" of the %onstitution ermits tri#l in #bsenti# #fter the #ccused h#s been #rr#igned rovided he h#s been duly notified of the tri#l #nd his f#ilure to # e#r there#t is un=ustified. One $ho =um s b#il c#n never offer # =ustifi#ble re#son for his nonE# e#r#nce during the tri#l. Accordingly, #fter the tri#l in #bsenti#, the court c#n render =udgment in the c#se #nd romulg#tion m#y be m#de by sim ly recording the =udgment in the crimin#l doc8et $ith # co y thereof served u on his counsel, rovided th#t the notice re;uiring him to be resent #t the romulg#tion is served through his bondsmen or $#rden #nd counsel. "n conclusion, bec#use of re#son#ble doubt #s to their guilt, the #ccusedE# ell#nts must be #c;uitted. &very #ccused is resumed innocent until the contr#ry is roved5 th#t resum tion is solemnly gu#r#nteed by the @ill of 0ights. )he contr#ry re;uires roof beyond re#son#ble doubt, or th#t degree of roof $hich roduces conviction in #n un re=udiced mind. Short of this, it is not only the right of the #ccused to be freed5 it is even the constitution#l duty of the court to #c;uit him. 3i'ht of (onfrontation ".S. v. Javier "#A$A%LA&LE 8alino v. Sandi'an5a1an "#A$A%LA&LE Section 19 -- Sus)ension of the Privile'e of the ?rit of =a5eas (or)us Lansang v. Ga*"ia =D* S%0A DD. W1961X3 Fa"ts# Due to the thro$ing of t$o h#nd gren#des in # 'iber#l P#rty c#ucus in 1961 c#using the de#th of . eo le, M#rcos issued PP ..9 $hich sus ended the rivilege of the $rit of h#be#s cor us. M#rcos urged th#t there is # need to curt#il the gro$th of M#oist grou s.
112
Subse;uently, '#ns#ng et #l $ere invited by the P% he#ded by J#rci# for interrog#tion #nd investig#tion. '#ns#ng et #l ;uestioned the v#lidity of the sus ension of the $rit #verring th#t the sus ension does not meet the constitution#l re;uisites. ISSUE# >hether or not the sus ension is constitution#l. HELD# )he doctrine est#blished in 6arcelon #nd 2ontene)ro $#s subse;uently #b#ndoned in this c#se $here the S% decl#red th#t it h#d the o$er to in;uire into the f#ctu#l b#sis of the sus ension of the rivilege of the $rit of h#be#s cor us by M#rcos in Aug 1961 #nd to #nnul the s#me if no leg#l ground could be est#blished. Accordingly, he#rings $ere conducted to receive evidence on this m#tter, including t$o closedEdoor sessions in $hich relev#nt cl#ssified inform#tion $#s divulged by the government to the members of the S% #nd 7 selected l#$yers of the etitioners. "n the end, #fter s#tisfying itself th#t there $#s #ctu#lly # m#ssive #nd system#tic %ommunistEoriented c#m #ign to overthro$ the government by force, #s cl#imed by M#rcos, the S% un#nimously decided to u hold t1he sus ension of the rivilege of the >rit of ?#be#s %or us. Section 1: -- 3i'ht to a S)eed1 Dis)osition of (ases +a%$a v. E*i"ta
m#de to numerous documents. At the close of his e/#min#tion, #nd on motion of defend#nts! counsel, the reviously scheduled he#ring of December 1*, 1967 $#s c#ncelled, #nd P#du#!s crossE e/#min#tion $#s reset on December 16, 1967. ?o$ever, the he#ring of December 16,1967 $#s #lso c#ncelled, #g#in #t the inst#nce of defend#nts! counsel, $ho le#ded sic8ness #s ground therefor5 #nd tri#l $#s once more sl#ted to (t#8e l#ce on M#rch 6, M#rch 6 #nd 17, 196D, #ll #t 92BB o!cloc8 in the morning.( After defend#nts! #ttorney h#d t$ice sought #nd obt#ined c#ncell#tion of tri#l settings, #s n#rr#ted, it $#s l#intiff P#du#!s counsel $ho ne/t moved for c#ncell#tion of # he#ring d#te. "n # motion d#ted #nd filed on M#rch 1, 196D, P#du#!s counsel #lleged th#t he h#d (#nother he#ring on M#rch 6, 196D in )#rl#c #nd th#t the c#ncell#tion $ould (#t #ny r#te ... le#ve l#intiff #nd defend#nts t$o A*3 he#ring d#tes on M#rch 6 #nd 17, 196D5( #nd on these remises, he #s8ed (th#t the he#ring on M#rch 6, 196D ... be ordered c#ncelled.( 9o o osition $#s filed by the defend#nts to the motion. A #rt from filing this motion on M#rch 1, 196D, l#intiff4s counsel too8 the #ddition#l ste of sending his client!s $ife to the %ourt on the d#y of the tri#l, M#rch 6,196D, to verb#lly reiter#te his # lic#tion for c#ncell#tion of the he#ring on th#t d#y. )his, Mrs. P#du# did. )he res ondent Judge ho$ever denied the # lic#tion #nd dismissed the c#se. P#du# moved for reconsider#tion, but this $#s denied. ISSUE 2 >hether or not the res ondent =udge erred in dismissing the c#se on the ground th#t it viol#tes the right to # s eedy dis osition of c#ses. RULING#
FACTS 2 Domingo P#du#, etitioner sought to recover d#m#ges for the in=uries suffered by his eightEye#r old d#ughter, 'uCvimind#, c#used by her being hit by # truc8 driven by 0undio Ab=#eto #nd o$ned by Antonio J. 0#mos. P#du# $#s litig#ting in form# #u eris. )ri#l of the c#se h#ving been set in due course, P#du# commenced resent#tion of his evidence on December 6, 1967. ?e g#ve testimony on direct e/#min#tion in the course of $hich reference $#s %ourts should not broo8 undue del#ys in the ventil#tion #nd determin#tion of c#uses. "t should be their const#nt effort to #ssure th#t litig#tions #re rosecuted #nd resolved $ith dis #tch. Post onements of tri#ls #nd he#rings should not be #llo$ed e/ce t on meritorious grounds5 #nd the gr#nt or refus#l thereof rests entirely in the sound discretion of the Judge. "t goes $ithout s#ying, ho$ever, th#t th#t discretion must be re#son#bly #nd $isely e/ercised, in the light of the #ttend#nt circumst#nces. Some re#son#ble deferment of
113
the roceedings m#y be #llo$ed or toler#ted to the end th#t c#ses m#y be #d=udged only #fter full #nd free resent#tion of evidence by #ll the #rties, s eci#lly $here the deferment $ould c#use no subst#nti#l re=udice to #ny #rt. )he desider#tum of # s eedy dis osition of c#ses should not, if #t #ll ossible, result in the reci it#te loss of # #rty!s right to resent evidence #nd either in l#intiff!s being nonEsuited or the defend#nt!s being ronounced li#ble under #n e/ #rte =udgment. Judge!s #ction $#s unre#son#ble, c# ricious #nd o ressive, #nd should be #s it is hereby #nnulled. F o*!s v. +!o4 !
)echnic#lities should #l$#ys give $#y to the re#lity of the situ#tion #nd th#t in the #bsence of # v#lid decision the st#ge tri#l $#s not com leted #nd the #ccused should be #ccorded $ith the right to contend th#t they h#d not been #ccorded their right to be tried #s rom tly #s circumst#nces ermit. )hus the S% finds merit to dismiss the c#se #g#inst the etitioners. Section 1; -- 3i'ht A'ainst Self-%ncri2ination U. S. v. Tan T!ng Fa"ts#
Fa"ts# Petitioners le# for their constitution#l rights to # s eedy tri#l by certior#ri $here the roceeding of the c#se for robbery #g#inst etitioners dr#gged on for over # dec#de $ithout #ny fin#l =udgment rendered by the court. Petitioners sought for the dismiss#l of the c#se due to inordin#te del#y in its dis osition. )he Peo le in its #ffirm#tive defense r#ised the f#cts th#t the c#se $#s not ro erly c# tioned, #s the Peo le of the Phili ines #g#inst $hom it is filed $#s not # tribun#l e/ercising =udici#l functions #nd $ithout the %ourt of A e#ls being m#de # #rt to the etition there #re insufficient f#cts to constitute # c#use of #ction. Moreover it defends th#t the %A too8 #ll necess#ry ste s to com lete the tr#nscri t of stenogr# hic notes of the origin#l tri#l. Iss$!# >hether or not the constitution#l rights of the #ccused to # s eedy tri#l $#s viol#ted. H! %# )he court referred to revious =uris rudence u holding the constitution#l rights of the #ccused to # s eedy tri#l. "t reE#ffirmed $ith em h#sis th#t such right is more signific#nt th#n the rocedur#l defects ointed out by the Peo le of the Phili ines th#t the %A should h#ve been m#de #rtyEres ondent to the etition. )he lo$er court held th#t the results sho$ th#t the dise#se th#t the victim h#d #c;uired c#me from the defend#nt herein. Such dise#se $#s tr#nsferred by the unl#$ful #ct of c#rn#l 8no$ledge by the l#tter. )he defend#nt #lleged th#t the s#id evidence should be in#dmissible bec#use it $#s t#8en in viol#tion of his right #g#inst selfE incrimin#tion. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the hysic#l e/#min#tion conducted $#s # viol#tion of the defend#nt4s rights #g#inst selfEincrimin#tion. )he defend#nt herein r# ed Oliv# P#comio, # sevenEye#rEold girl. )#n )eng $#s g#mbling ne#r the house of the victim #nd it $#s #lleged th#t he entered her home #nd thre$ the victim on the floor #nd l#ce his riv#te #rts over hers. Sever#l d#ys l#ter, P#comio $#s suffering from # dise#se c#lled gonorrhe#. P#comio told her sister #bout $h#t h#d h# ened #nd re orted it to the olice. )#n )eng $#s c#lled to # e#r in # olice lineEu #nd the victim identified him. ?e $#s then stri ed of his clothing #nd $#s e/#mined by # olicem#n. ?e $#s found to h#ve the s#me sym toms of gonorrhe#. )he olicem#n too8 # ortion of the subst#nce emitting from the body of the defend#nt #nd turned it over to the @ure#u of Science. )he results sho$ed th#t the defend#nt $#s suffering from gonorrhe#.
114
H! %# )he court held th#t the t#8ing of # subst#nce from his body $#s not # viol#tion of the s#id right. ?e $#s neither com elled to m#8e #ny #dmissions or to #ns$er #ny ;uestions. )he subst#nce $#s t#8en from his body $ithout his ob=ection #nd $#s e/#mined by com etent medic#l #uthority. )he rohibition of selfEincrimin#tion in the @ill of 0ights is # rohibition of the use of hysic#l or mor#l com ulsion to e/tort communic#tions from him, #nd not #n e/clusion of his body #s evidence, $hen it m#y be m#teri#l. "t $ould be the s#me #s if the offender # rehended $#s # thief #nd the ob=ect stolen by him m#y be used #s evidence #g#inst him. 9i a- o* v. S$mm!*s Fa"ts2 Petitioner ,ill#flor $#s ch#rged $ith the crime of #dultery. )he tri#l =udge ordered the etitioner to sub=ect herself into hysic#l e/#min#tion to test $hether or not she $#s regn#nt to rove the determine the crime of #dultery being ch#rged to her. ?erein etitioner refused to such hysic#le/#min#tion inter osing the defense th#t such e/#min#tion $#s # viol#tion of her constitution#l rights #g#inst selfEincrimin#tion. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the hysic#l e/#min#tion $#s # viol#tion of the etitioner4s constitution#l rights #g#inst selfEincrimin#tion. H! %# 9o. "t is not # viol#tion of her constitution#l rights. )he rule th#t the constitution#l gu#r#nty, th#t no erson sh#ll be com elled in #ny crimin#l c#se to be # $itness #g#inst himself, is limited to # rohibition #g#inst com ulsory testimoni#l selfEincrimin#tion. )he coroll#ry to the ro osition is th#t, #n ocul#r ins ection of the body of the #ccused is ermissible.
6! t*an v. Samson Fa"ts2 @eltr#n, #s # defend#nt for the crime of F#lsific#tion, refused to $rite # s#m le of his h#nd$riting #s ordered by the res ondent Judge. )he etitioner in this c#se contended th#t such order $ould be # viol#tion of his constitution#l right #g#inst selfEincrimin#tion bec#use such e/#min#tion $ould give the rosecution evidence #g#inst him, $hich the l#tter should h#ve gotten in the first l#ce. ?e #lso #rgued th#t such #n #ct $ill m#8e him furnish evidence #g#inst himself. Iss$!# >hether or not the $riting from the fisc#l!s dict#tion by the etitioner for the ur ose of com #ring the l#tter!s h#nd$riting #nd determining $hether he $rote cert#in documents su osed to be f#lsified, constitutes evidence #g#inst himself $ithin the sco e #nd me#ning of the constitution#l rovision under e/#min#tion. H! %# )he court ordered the res ondents #nd those under their orders desist #nd #bst#in #bsolutely #nd forever from com elling the etitioner to t#8e do$n dict#tion in his h#nd$riting for the ur ose of submitting the l#tter for com #rison. >riting is something more th#n moving the body, or the h#nds, or the fingers5 $riting is not # urely mech#nic#l #ct, bec#use it re;uires the # lic#tion of intelligence #nd #ttention5 #nd in the c#se #t b#r $riting me#ns th#t the etitioner herein is to furnish # me#ns to determine $hether or not he is the f#lsifier, #s the etition of the res ondent fisc#l cle#rly st#tes. &/ce t th#t it is more serious, $e believe the resent c#se is simil#r to th#t of roducing documents or ch#ttels in one!s ossession. >e s#y th#t, for the ur oses of the constitution#l rivilege, there is # simil#rity bet$een one $ho is com elled to roduce # document, #nd one $ho is com elled to furnish # s ecimen of his h#nd$riting, for in both c#ses, the $itness is re;uired to furnish evidence #g#inst himself. "t c#nnot be contended in the resent c#se th#t if ermission
115
to obt#in # s ecimen of the etitioner!s h#nd$riting is not gr#nted, the crime $ould go un unished. %onsidering the circumst#nce th#t the etitioner is # munici #l tre#surer, it should not be # difficult m#tter for the fisc#l to obt#ined genuine s ecimens of his h#nd$riting. @ut even su osing it is im ossible to obt#in s ecimen or s ecimens $ithout resorting to the me#ns com l#ined herein, th#t is no re#son for tr#m ling u on # erson#l right gu#r#nteed by the constitution. "t might be true th#t in some c#ses crimin#ls m#y succeed in ev#ding the h#nd of =ustice, but such c#ses #re #ccident#l #nd do not constitute the r#ison d! etre of the rivilege. )his constitution#l rivilege e/ists for the rotection of innocent ersons. C)av!& v. Co$*t o- A44!a s FACTS# ^this is # etition for h#be#s cor us. Petitioner invo8ing =urisdiction of the Su reme %ourt th#t he is entitled to be freed from im risonment u on ground th#t tri#l $hich resulted his conviction, ?& >AS D&9"&D OF ?"S %O9S)")<)"O9A' 0"J?) 9O) )O @& %OMP&''&D )O )&S)"FL AJA"9S) ?"MS&'F. ^=udgment of conviction $#s for ;u#lified theft of # motor vehicle Athunderbird c#r together $ith #ccessories3 ^#n inform#tion $#s filed #g#inst the #ccused together $ith other #ccused, th#t they cons ired, $ith intent to g#in #nd #buse of confidence $ithout the consent of o$ner Dy 'im, too8 the vehicle. ^#ll the #ccused le#d not guilty. ^during the tri#l, the fisc#l greci# A rosecution3 #s8ed roger %h#veC to be the first $itness. %ounsel of the #ccused o osed. Fisc#l Jreci# contends th#t the #ccused A%h#veC3 $ill only be #n ordin#ry $itness not #n st#te $itness. %ounsel of #ccused #ns$er th#t it $ill only incrimin#te his client. @ut the =ugde ruled in f#vor of the fisc#l on the grounds th#t A13 the right of the rosecution to #s8 #nybody to #ct #s $itness on the $itness st#nd including the #ccused A*3 "f there
should be #ny ;uestion th#t is incrimin#ting then th#t is the time for counsel to inter ose his ob=ection #nd the court $ill sust#in him if #nd $hen the court feels th#t the #ns$er of this $itness to the ;uestion $ould incrimin#te him. A73 %ounsel h#s #ll the #ssur#nce th#t the court $ill not re;uire the $itness to #ns$er ;uestions $hich $ould incrimin#te him. ^ rosecution version of $h#t h# ened2 %h#veC s#$ 'ee driving the thunderbirdAc#r3 #nd #s8ed if it is for s#le. 'ee #ns$ered yes. %h#veC met Sumil#ng #nd informed #bout the c#r. )he t$o $ent to Asistio #nd m#de # l#n to c# it#liCe on 0omeo ,#s;ueC! re ut#tion #s # $e#lthy movie st#r, introduce him #s # buyer to someone $ho $#s selling # c#r #nd, #fter the deed of s#le is signed, by tric8ery to run #$#y $ith the c#r. Asistio $ould then register it, sell it to # third erson for # rofit. %h#veC 8no$n to be # c#r #gent $#s included in the l#n. ?e furnished the n#me of Johnson 'ee $ho $#s selling his )hunderbird. %h#veC #rr#nged the meeting $ith 'ee. )hey #greed on the rice #nd $ent to Dy Sun8 $hich is the registered o$ner of the c#r. Deed of s#le $#s dr#$n #nd signed by Sumil#ng. At &ugene!s, # m#n # ro#ched Sumil#ng $ith # note $hich st#ted th#t the money $#s re#dy #t the D#lis#y )he#ter. Sumil#ng then $rote on the s#me note th#t the money should be brought to the rest#ur#nt. At the s#me time he re;uested 'ee to e/hibit the deed of s#le of the c#r to the note be#rer. )he t$o %hinese $ere left #lone in the rest#ur#nt. )he t$o %hinese could not loc#te Sumil#ng #nd %h#veC. )hey $ent out to the l#ce $here the )hunderbird $#s #r8ed, found th#t it $#s gone. )hey then immedi#tely re orted its loss to the olice. Much l#ter, the 9@" recovered the #lre#dy re #inted c#r #nd im ounded it. %h#veC, Sumil#ng #nd Asistio converged th#t s#me d#y #t @#rrio Fiest#, # rest#ur#nt #t ?igh$#y 1D ne#r the @#lint#$#8 monument in %#looc#n. )here, Asistio h#nded to Sumil#ng P1,BBB.BB c#sh #nd # golf set $orth P.BB.BB #s the l#tter!s sh#re in the tr#ns#ction. On the 1Dth of 9ovember, the registr#tion of the c#r $#s tr#nsferred in the n#me of Sumil#ng in %#vite %ity, #nd three d#ys l#ter, in the n#me of Asistio in %#looc#n. ^sumil#ng4s verson Aone of the #ccused32 Sumil#ng s#$ %h#veC #t g#s st#tion #nd told #bout the
116
)hunderbird. )hey r#ised the money. %h#veC $ent to Sumil#ng house #nd #s8ed if he $#s re#dy for the rest of money. ?e #ffirmed. At &ugene4s Sumil#ng s#$ P#scu#l #nd $#rned %h#veC $#s # sm#rt #gent #nd #dvised th#t Sumil#ng should be c#reful. )hen the deed of s#le $#s e/ecuted. )$o or three d#ys #fter, Asistio offered to buy the c#r of Sumil#ng #nd tendered the do$n #yment. ^tri#l court g#ve credence to the testimony of Sumil#ng. As to %h#veC, his testimony est#blished his guilt beyond re#son#ble doubt #nd br#nded him GSelf K confessed cul ritH. ^tri#l court decision2 freed #ll other #ccused e/ce t %h#veC $ho $#s found guilty beyond re#son#ble doubt. ^ch#veC # ISSUE# >hether or not constitution#l right of %h#veC #g#inst self K incrimin#tion h#d been viol#ted: HELD# ^Petitioner cl#ims th#t there $#s # viol#tion of right #g#inst self K incrim#tion. ^%om ulsion #s it is understood here does not necess#rily connote the use of violence5 it m#y be the roduct of unintention#l st#tements. Pressure $hich o er#tes to overbe#r his $ill, dis#ble him from m#8ing # free #nd r#tion#l choice, or im #ir his c# #city for r#tion#l =udgment $ould in our o inion be sufficient ^During the tri#l, the etitioner declined to be # $itness but the =udge h#d im liedly forced him by s#ying th#t the rosecution h#s the right #nd th#t his testimony $ill not be used #g#inst him. ^Petitioner $#s envelo ed by # coercive force5 they de rived him of his $ill to resist5 they foreclosed choice. >ith #ll these, $e h#ve no hesit#ncy in s#ying th#t etitioner $#s forced to testify to incrimin#te e#led to the %ourt of # e#ls but it $#s dismissed.
himself, in full bre#ch of his constitution#l right to rem#in silent. "t c#nnot be s#id no$ th#t he h#s $#ived his right. ?e did not volunteer to t#8e the st#nd #nd in his o$n defense5 he did not offer himself #s # $itness5 on the contr#ry, he cl#imed the right u on being c#lled to testify. ^)here is no $#iver of the rivilege. ()o be effective, # $#iver must be cert#in #nd une&ui!ocal, #nd intelli)entl#, understandabl#, #nd 4illin)l# m#de5 such $#iver follo$ing only $here libert# of c%oice h#s been fully #ccorded. After # cl#im # $itness c#nnot ro erly be held to h#ve $#ived his rivilege on v#gue #nd uncert#in evidence ^)he course $hich etitioner t#8es is correct. Habeas corpus is # high rerog#tive $rit. 71 "t is tr#dition#lly considered #s #n e/ce tion#l remedy to rele#se # erson $hose liberty is illeg#lly restr#ined such #s $hen the #ccused!s constitution#l rights #re disreg#rded. A void =udgment is in leg#l effect no =udgment. @y it no rights #re divested. From it no rights c#n be obt#ined. @eing $orthless in itself, #ll roceedings founded u on it #re e;u#lly $orthless. ^Su reme %ourt decision2 Petition gr#nted. Accused must be disch#rge. Section 1@ -- Prohi5ited Punish2ent Peo)le v. Estoista "#A$A%LA&LE Peo)le v. Es)aras and Li5ed "#A$A%LA&LE E")!ga*a, v. S!"*!ta*, o- 1$sti"! Fa"ts# On J#nu#ry D, 1999, the S% issued # )0O st#ying the e/ecution of etitioner 'eo &cheg#r#y scheduled on th#t s#me d#y. )he ublic res ondent Justice Secret#ry #ss#iled the issu#nce of the )0O #rguing th#t the #ction of the S% not only viol#ted the rule on fin#lity
117
of =udgment but #lso encro#ched on the o$er of the e/ecutive to gr#nt re rieve. Iss$!# >hether or not the S%, #fter the decision in the c#se becomes fin#l #nd e/ecutory, still h#s =urisdiction over the c#se H! %# )he fin#lity of =udgment does not me#n th#t the S% h#s lost #ll its o$ers or the c#se. @y the fin#lity of the =udgment, $h#t the S% loses is its =urisdiction to #mend, modify or #lter the s#me. &ven #fter the =udgment h#s become fin#l, the S% ret#ins its =urisdiction to e/ecute #nd enforce it. )he o$er to control the e/ecution of the S%4s decision is #n essenti#l #s ect of its =urisdiction. "t c#nnot be the sub=ect of subst#nti#l subtr#ction for the %onstitution vests the entirety of =udici#l o$er in one S% #nd in such lo$er courts #s m#y be est#blished by l#$. )heim ort#nt #rt of # litig#tion, $hether civil or crimin#l, is the rocess of e/ecution of decisions $here su ervening events m#y ch#nge the circumst#nce of the #rties #nd com el courts to intervene #nd #d=ust the rights of the litig#nts to revent unf#irness. "t is bec#use of these unforeseen, su ervening contingencies th#t courts h#ve been conceded the inherent #nd necess#ry o$er of control of its rocesses #nd orders to m#8e them comform to l#$ #nd =ustice. )he %ourt #lso re=ected ublic res ondent4s contention th#t by gr#nting the )0O, the %ourt h#s in effect gr#nted re rieve $hich is #n e/ecutive function under Sec. 19, Art. ,"" of the %onstitution. "n truth, #n #ccused $ho h#s been convicted by fin#l =udgment still ossessescoll#ter#l rights #nd these rights c#n be cl#imed in the # ro ri#te courts. For inst#nce, # de#th convict $ho becomes ins#ne #fter his fin#l conviction c#nnot be e/ecuted $hile in # st#te of ins#nity. )hesus ension of such # de#th sentence is indis ut#bly #n e/ercise of =udici#l o$er. "t is not # usur #tion of the residenti#l o$er of re rieve though its effects #re the s#me #s the tem or#ry sus ensionof the e/ecution of the de#th convict. "n the s#me vein, it c#nnot be denied th#t %ongress c#n #t #ny time #mend the De#th
Pen#lty '#$ by reducing the en#lty of de#th to life im risonment. )he effect of such #n #mendment is li8e th#t of commut#tion of sentence. @ut thee/ercise of %ongress of its len#ry o$er to #mend l#$s c#nnot be considered #s # viol#tion of the o$er of the President to commute fin#l sentences of conviction. )he o$ers of the &/ecutive, the 'egisl#tive #nd the Judici#ry to s#ve the life of # de#th convict do not e/clude e#ch other for the sim le re#son th#t there is no higher right th#n the right to life. )o contend th#t only the &/ecutive c#n rotect the right to life of #n #ccused #fter his fin#l conviction is to viol#te the rinci le of coEe;u#l #nd coordin#te o$ers of the 7 br#nches of the government. Section 2. -- #on-%2)rison2ent for De5t S!*a-in v. Lin%a,ag =?@ SCRA 1?? A1B@GCD Fa"ts# Pl#intiff f#iled to #y # sim le indebtedness for P11BB %#rmelito MendoC#, then munici #l secret#ry #nd his $ife %or#ConMendoC# #nd therefore #n est#f# c#se $#s filed #g#inst her. %om l#in#nt #dmitted com l#int. 9o$ com l#in#nt filed # c#se #g#inst res ondent Judge for not dismissing the c#se #nd issuing # $#rr#nt of #rrest #s it f#lls on the c#tegory of # sim le indebtedness, since elements of est#f# #re not resent. Further she contended th#t no erson should be im risoned for nonE #yment of # lo#n of # sum of money. )$o months #fter res ondent dismissed l#intiff4s c#se. AJudge here committed gross ignor#nce of l#$. &ven if com l#in#nt desisted c#se $#s ursued.3 Iss$!# >hether or 9ot there $#s # viol#tion committed by the =udge $hen it ordered the im risonment of l#intiff for nonE #yment of debt: H! %# Les. Since l#intiff did not commit #ny offense #s, his debt is considered # sim le lo#n gr#nted by her friends to her. )here is no
118
coll#ter#l or security bec#use com l#in#nt $#s #n old friend of the s ouses $ho lent the money #nd th#t $hen they $rote her # letter of dem#nd she romised to #y them #nd s#id th#t if she f#iled to 8ee her romise, they could get her v#lu#ble things #t her home. <nder the %onstitution she is rotected. Judge therefore in #dmitting such # (crimin#l com l#int( th#t $#s l#inly civil in #s ects from the very f#ce of the com l#int #nd the (evidence( resented, #nd issuing on the s#me d#y the $#rr#nt of #rrest u on his utterly b#seless finding (th#t the #ccused is rob#bly guilty of the crime ch#rged,( res ondent grossly f#iled to erform his duties ro erly. Lo&ano v. /a*tin!& Fa"ts# A motion to ;u#sh the ch#rge #g#inst the etitioners for viol#tion of the @P ** $#s m#de, contending th#t no offense $#s committed, #s the st#tute is unconstitution#l. Such motion $#s denied by the 0)%. )he etitioners thus elev#te the c#se to the Su reme %ourt for relief. )he Solicitor Jener#l, commented th#t it $#s rem#ture for the #ccused to elev#te to the Su reme %ourt the orders denying their motions to ;u#sh. ?o$ever, the Su reme %ourt finds it =ustifi#ble to intervene for the revie$ of lo$er court!s deni#l of # motion to ;u#sh. Iss$!# >hether or not @P ** is constitution#l #s it is # ro er e/ercise of olice o$er of the St#te. H! %# )he en#ctment of @P ** # v#lid e/ercise of the olice o$er #nd is not re ugn#nt to the constitution#l inhibition #g#inst im risonment for debt. )he offense unished by @P ** is the #ct of m#8ing #nd issuing # $orthless chec8 or # chec8 th#t is dishonored u on its resent#tion for #yment. "t is not the nonE #yment of #n oblig#tion $hich the l#$
unishes. )he l#$ is not intended or designed to coerce # debtor to #y his debt. )he l#$ unishes the #ct not #s #n offense #g#inst ro erty, but #n offense #g#inst ublic order. )he thrust of the l#$ is to rohibit, under #in of en#l s#nctions, the m#8ing of $orthless chec8s #nd utting them in circul#tion. An #ct m#y not be considered by society #s inherently $rong, hence, not m#lum in se but bec#use of the h#rm th#t it inflicts on the community, it c#n be outl#$ed #nd crimin#lly unished #s m#lum rohibitum. )he st#te c#n do this in the e/ercise of its olice o$er. Section 21 -- Dou5le Jeo)ard1 +!o4 ! v. O'sania =2F SCRA 12HB A1B?>CD Fa"ts# )he #ccused $#s ch#rged $ith 0obbery $ith 0# e before the Munici #l %ourt of @#lung#o, P#ng#sin#n. ?e le#ded not guilty. ?is counsel moved for the dismiss#l of the ch#rge for f#ilure to #llege vivid designs in the info. S#id motion $#s gr#nted. From this order of dismiss#l the rosecution # e#led. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the resent # Jeo #rdy. H! %# "n order th#t the #ccused m#y invo8e double =eo #rdy, the follo$ing re;uisites must h#ve obt#ined in the origin#l rosecution, #3 v#lid com l#int, b3 com etent court, c3 the defend#nt h#d le#ded to the ch#rge, d3 defend#nt $#s #c;uitted or convicted or the c#se #g#inst him $#s dismissed or other$ise termin#ted $ithout his e/ ress consent. "n the c#se #t b#r, the converted dismiss#l $#s ordered by the )ri#l Judge u on the defend#nt!s motion to dismiss. )he Gdoctrine of double =eo #rdyH #s enunci#ted in P.vs. S#lico # lies to $it $hen e#l l#ces the #ccused in Double
119
the c#se is dismissed $ith the e/ ress consent of the defend#nt, the dismiss#l $ill not be # b#r to #nother rosecution for the s#me offense bec#use his #ction in h#ving the c#se is dismissed constitutes # $#iver of his constitution#l right- rivilege for the re#son th#t he thereby revents the %ourt from roceeding to the tri#l on the merits #nd rendering # =udgment of conviction #g#inst him. "n essence, $here # crimin#l c#se is dismissed rovision#lly not only $ith the e/ ress consent of the #ccused but even u on the urging of his counsel there c#n be no double =eo #rdy under Sect. 9 0ule 117, if the indictment #g#inst him is revived by the fisc#l. +a$ in v. Gim!n!& Fa"ts# 0es ondent #nd @rgy %# t. M#buyo, $hile in # =ee , $ere smothered $ith dust $hen they $ere overt#8en by the vehicle o$ned by Petitioner S ouses. "r8ed by such, M#buyo follo$ed the vehicle until the l#tter entered the g#te of #n est#blishment. ?e in;uired the ne#rby security gu#rd for the identity of the o$ner of the vehicle. '#ter th#t d#y, $hile eng#ged in his duties, etitioners #llegedly ointed their guns #t him. )hus, he immedi#tely ordered his subordin#te to c#ll the olice #nd bloc8 ro#d to revent the etitioners4 esc# e. < on the #rriv#l of the olice, etitioners ut their guns do$n #nd $ere immedi#tely # rehended. A com l#int Ggr#ve thre#tsH $#s filed #g#inst the etitioners A%rimin#l %#se 9o. 1*BD3. "t $#s dismissed by the court #cting on the motion of the etitioners. M#buyo filed # MO0 thus the dismiss#l $#s reversed. )here#fter, etitioners filed for Gcertior#ri, rohibition, d#m#ges, $ith relief of relimin#ry in=unction #nd the issu#nce of # )0OH A%&@E9*B63. Petition is dismissed for l#c8 of merit #nd for being # rohibited le#ding #nd ordered to roceed $ith the tri#l of the c#se. ?ence, this inst#nt etition. Iss$!s# A13 >hether or 9ot the dismiss#l of 1*BD $#s # =udgment of #c;uitt#l.
A*3 >hether or 9ot the =udge ignored etitioner4s right #g#inst double =eo #rdy by dismissing %&@E9*B6. H! %# For double =eo #rdy to #tt#ch, the dismiss#l of the c#se must be $ithout the e/ ress consent of the #ccused. >here the dismiss#l $#s ordered u on motion or $ith the e/ ress #ssent of the #ccused, he h#s deemed to h#ve $#ived his rotection #g#inst double =eo #rdy. "n the c#se #t b#r, the dismiss#l $#s gr#nted u on motion of the etitioners. Double =eo #rdy thus did not #tt#ch. Furthermore, such dismiss#l is not considered #s #n #c;uitt#l. )he l#tter is #l$#ys b#sed on merit th#t sho$s th#t the defend#nt is beyond re#son#ble doubt not guilty. >hile the former, in the c#se #tb#r, termin#ted the roceedings bec#use no finding $#s m#de #s to the guilt or innocence of the etitioners. )he lo$er court did not viol#te the rule $hen it set #side the order of dismiss#l for the rece tion of further evidence by the rosecution bec#use it merely corrected its error $hen it rem#turely termin#ted #nd dismissed the c#se $ithout giving the rosecution the right tocom lete the resent#tion of its evidence. )he rule on summ#ry rocedure $#s correctly # lied. I"asiano vs. San%igan'a,an Fa"ts# 0om#n# M#gb#go filed #n #dministr#tive com l#int d#ted 16 Febru#ry 19.6 $ith the Su reme court #g#inst then #cting Munici #l )ri#l %ourt Judge of 9#ic, %#vite, herein etitioner Aurelio J. "c#si#no, Jr. for gr#ve #buse of #uthority, m#nifest #rti#lity #nd incom etence. 1 )he #dministr#tive com l#int #rose from t$o A*3 orders of detention d#ted 1. #nd *6 9ovember 19.6 issued by the s#id #cting =udge #g#inst com l#in#nt AM#gb#go3 for contem t of court bec#use of her continued refus#l to com ly $ith # fift% alias $rit of e/ecution. )he
120
Su reme %ourt dismissed the #dministr#tive com l#int for l#c8 of merit in #n en banc resolution d#ted * Febru#ry 19... Me#n$hile, on 16 M#rch 19.6, com l#in#nt M#gb#go #lso filed $ith the Office of the Ombudsm#n the s#me letterEcom l#int e#rlier filed $ith the Su reme %ourt5 this time, she cl#imed viol#tion by Judge "c#si#no, Jr. of the AntiEJr#ft #nd %orru t Pr#ctices Act. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the # R$ ing# "t is, therefore, correct for the S#ndig#nb#y#n to hold th#t double =eo #rdy does not # ly in the resent controversy bec#use the Su reme %ourt c#se A#g#inst the herein etitioner3 $#s #dministr#tive in ch#r#cter $hile the S#ndig#nb#y#n c#se #lso #g#inst s#id etitioner is crimin#l in n#ture. >hen the Su reme %ourt #cts on com l#ints #g#inst =udges or #ny of the ersonnel under its su ervision #nd control, it #cts #s ersonnel #dministr#tor, im osing disci line #nd not #s # court =udging =ustici#ble controversies. Administr#tive rocedure need not strictly #dhere to technic#l rules. Subst#nti#l evidence is sufficient to sust#in conviction. %rimin#l roceedings before the S#ndig#nb#y#n, on the other h#nd, $hile they m#y involve the s#me #cts sub=ect of the #dministr#tive c#se, re;uire roof of guilt beyond re#son#ble doubt. )o #v#il of the rotection #g#inst double =eo #rdy, it is fund#ment#l th#t the follo$ing re;uisites must h#ve obt#ined in the origin#l rosecution2 A#3 # v#lid com l#int or inform#tion5 Ab3 # com etent court5 Ac3 # v#lid #rr#ignment5 Ad3 the defend#nt h#d le#ded to the ch#rge5 #nd Ae3 the defend#nt $#s #c;uitted, or convicted, or the c#se #g#inst him $#s dismissed or other$ise termin#ted $ithout his e/ ress consent. 6 All these elements do not # ly !is7a7!is the #dministr#tive c#se, $hich should t#8e c#re of etitioner!s contention th#t s#id #dministr#tive c#se #g#inst him before the Su reme %ourt, $hich $#s, #s #forest#ted, dismissed, entitles him to r#ise the defense of double =eo #rdy in the crimin#l c#se in the e#l l#ced the #ccused in double =eo #rdy.
S#ndig#nb#y#n. +!o4 ! v. 6a isa"an Fa"ts# Aurelio @#lis#c#n $#s ch#rged $ith homicide in the %F" of "locos 9orte. < on being #rr#igned, he entered into # le# of guilty. "n doing so, he $#s #ssisted y counsel. At his counsel de officio, he $#s #llo$ed to resent evidence #nd conse;uently testified th#t he st#bbed the dece#sed in selfEdefense. "n #ddition, he st#ted th#t he surrendered himself volunt#rily to the olice #uthorities. On the b#sis of the testimony of the #ccused, he $#s #c;uitted. )hus, the rosecution # e#led. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the # H! %# )he Su reme %ourt held th#t it is settled th#t the e/istence of le# is #n essenti#l re;uisite to double =eo #rdy. )he #ccused h#d first entered # le# of guilty but ho$ever testified th#t he #cted incom lete selfEdefense. S#id testimony h#d the effect of v#c#ting his le# of guilty #nd the court # ;uo should h#ve re;uired him to le#d # ne$ ch#rge, or #t le#st direct th#t # ne$ le# of not guilty be entered for him. )his $#s not done. )herefore, there h#s been no st#nding of le# during the =udgment of #c;uitt#l, so there c#n be no double =eo #rdy $ith res ect to the # e#l herein. +!o4 ! v. Cit, Co$*t o- Si a, Fa"ts# &rnesto de l# P#C, P#cifico Senecio, Jr. y Sebus# 0omeo Mill#n y Dele=ero #nd >ilfredo Jochico y M#g#lon#, $ere ch#rged $ith (f#lsific#tion by riv#te individu#ls #nd use of f#lsified document( under P#r. *, Article 16* of the 0evised Pen#l %ode. &rnesto de l# e#l l#ced the #ccused in double =eo #rdy.
121
P#C, overseer of ?d#. M#lisbog belonging to Deogr#ci#s de l# P#C, #nd the other three #ccused, sc#lers of ?#$#ii#nEPhili ine %om #ny, $ith intent of g#in #nd to c#use d#m#ge by conniving, coo er#ting #nd mutu#lly hel ing one #nother did then #nd there $ilfully, unl#$fully #nd feloniously #lter or f#lsify the sug#r c#ne $eight re ort c#rd or (t#r=et#(, # riv#te document sho$ing the $eight of sug#rc#ne belonging to Deogr#ci#s de l# P#C, #rticul#rly those lo#ded in c#ne c#rs 9os. 16.6, 16D7 #nd 1B** by incre#sing the tot#l #ctu#l $eight of **.BB1 tons to *6.16B tons for s#id three c#ne c#rs, thereby c#using d#m#ge to the centr#l #nd other c#ne l#nters of #bout ..6. iculs of sug#r v#lued in the tot#l #mount of P61..19, to the d#m#ge #nd re=udice of ?#$#ii#n %entr#l #nd other sug#rc#ne l#nters #dhered thereto in the #forest#ted #mount of P61..19. After the rosecution h#d resented its evidence #nd rested its c#se, riv#te res ondents moved to dismiss the ch#rge #g#inst them on the ground th#t the evidence resented $#s not sufficient to est#blish their guilt beyond re#son#ble doubt. Acting on this motion, res ondent court issued its order of December 19, 1961, dismissing the c#se $ith costs de oficio rinci #lly on the ground th#t the #cts committed by the #ccused #s n#rr#ted #bove do not constitute the crime of f#lsific#tion #s ch#rged. Iss$!# >hether the le# of double =eo #rdy is #v#il#ble in this situ#tion: R$ ing# >e dis#gree $ith the osition t#8en by the Acting Solicitor Jener#l ?ugo &. JutierreC, Jr. th#t the le# of double =eo #rdy is not #v#il#ble in the inst#nt situ#tion. "t is true th#t the crimin#l c#se of f#lsific#tion $#s dismissed on motion of the #ccused5 ho$ever, this $#s # motion filed after t%e prosecution %ad rested its case, c#lling for #n # reci#tion of the evidence #dduced #nd its sufficiency to $#rr#nt conviction beyond re#son#ble doubt, resulting in # dismissal of t%e case on t%e merits, t#nt#mount to #n #c;uitt#l of the #ccused.
As correctly st#ted in the %omment of the Acting Solicitor Jener#l, the #ccused $ere not ch#rged $ith substitution of genuine (t#r=et#s( $ith f#lse ones. )he b#sis for the #ccus#tion $#s th#t the #ccused entered f#lse st#tements #s to the $eight of the sug#r c#ne lo#ded in cert#in c#ne c#rs in (t#r=et#s( $hich $ere submitted to the l#bor#tory section of the com #ny. )he #ct of m#8ing # f#lse entry in the (t#r=et#s( is undoubtedly #n #ct of f#lsific#tion of # riv#te document, the #ccused h#ving m#de untruthful st#tements in # n#rr#tion of f#cts $hich they $ere under oblig#tion to #ccom lish #s #rt of their dutiesE &rnesto de l# P#C, #s overseer of ?d#. M#lisbog, #nd the other #ccused #s sc#lers of the offended #rty, the ?#$#ii#nE Phili ine %om #ny, thereby c#using d#m#ge to the l#tter. Esm!na v. +ogo, Fa"ts# Petitioners &smeT# #nd Alb# $ere ch#rged $ith gr#ve coercion in the %ourt of %ebu %ity for #llegedly forcing Fr. )hom#s )ibud#n to $ithdr#$ # sum of money $orth P1BBB from the b#n8 to be given to them bec#use the riest lost in # g#me of ch#nce. During #rr#ignment, etitioners le#ded G9ot JuiltyH. 9o tri#l c#me in #fter the #rr#ignment due to the riest4s re;uest to move it on #nother d#te. Sometime l#ter Judge Pogoy issued #n order setting the tri#l Aug.16,1969 but the fisc#l informed the court th#t it received # telegr#m st#ting th#t the com l#in#nt $#s sic8. )he #ccused invo8ed their right to s eedy tri#l. 0es ondent =udge dismissed the c#se bec#use the tri#l $#s #lre#dy dr#gging the #ccused #nd th#t the riest4s telegr#m did not h#ve # medic#l certific#te #tt#ched to it in order for the court to recogniCe the com l#in#nt4s re#son to be v#lid in order to reschedule #g#in #nother he#ring. After *6 d#ys the fisc#l filed # motion to revive the c#se #nd #tt#ched the medic#l certific#te of the riest roving the f#ct th#t the riest $#s indeed sic8 of influenC#. On Oct.*D,1969, #ccused &smeT# #nd Alb# filed # motion to dismiss the c#se on the ground of double =eo #rdy. Iss$!#
122
>hether or 9ot the reviv#l of gr#ve coercion c#se, $hich $#s dismissed e#rlier due to com l#in#nt4s f#ilure to # e#r #t the tri#l, $ould l#ce the #ccused in double =eo #rdy H! %# Les, reviv#l of the c#se $ill ut the #ccused in double =eo #rdy for the very re#son th#t the c#se h#s been dismissed #lre#dy $ithout the consent of the #ccused $hich $ould h#ve #n effect of #n #c;uitt#l on the c#se filed. )he dismiss#l $#s due to com l#in#nt4s inc# #bility to resent its evidence due to non # e#r#nce of the $itnesses #nd com l#in#nt himself $hich $ould b#r further rosecution of the defend#nt for the s#me offense. For double =eo #rdy to e/ist these three re;uisites should be resent, th#t one, there is # v#lid com l#int or inform#tion filed second, th#t it is done before # court of com etent =urisdiction #nd third, th#t the #ccused h#s been #rr#igned #nd h#s le#ded to the com l#int or inform#tion. "n the c#se #t b#r, #ll three conditions $ere resent, #s the c#se filed $#s gr#ve coercion, filed in # court of com etent =urisdiction #s to $here the coercion too8 l#ce #nd l#st the #ccused $ere #rr#igned #nd h#s le#ded to the com l#int or the inform#tion. >hen these three conditions #re resent then the #c;uitt#l, conviction of the #ccused, #nd the dismiss#l or termin#tion of the c#se $ithout his e/ ress consent constitutes res =udic#t# #nd is # b#r to #nother rosecution for the offense ch#rged. "n the c#se, it $#s evidently sho$n th#t the #ccused invo8ed their right to # s eedy tri#l #nd #s8ed for the tri#l of the c#se #nd not its termin#tion $hich $ould me#n th#t res ondents h#d no e/ ressed consent to the dismiss#l of the c#se $hich $ould m#8e the c#se filed res =udic#t# #nd h#s been dismissed by the com etent court in order to rotect the res ondents #s $ell for their right to s eedy tri#l $hich $ill be e;uiv#lent to #c;uitt#l of the res ondents $hich $ould be # b#r to further rosecution. +!o4 ! v. 1$%g! +in!%a Fa"ts#
%onsol#cion 9#v#l, the herein riv#te res ondent, $#s se #r#tely #ccused of h#ving committed the crime of est#f# #nd of f#lsific#tion both of the then %ourt of First "nst#nce of 0iC#l. She sought the ;u#sh#l of the l#tter ch#rge on the su osition th#t she is in d#nger of being convicted for the s#me felony. ?er first #ttem t $#s unsuccessful but the ?onor#ble Jregorio J. Pined#, Presiding Judge of @r#nch *1 $#s ersu#ded to the contr#ry there#fter on the belief th#t the #lleged f#lsific#tion $#s # necess#ry me#ns of committing est#f#. )he #ccused filed #n A lic#tion for 0egistr#tion of her #rcel of l#nd, $hich $#s #lre#dy sold #nd encumbered to one &dilberto ,. "l#no. She then sold the s#id #rcel #g#in to sever#l other eo le, $hich s#les $ere registered #nd #nnot#ted $ith the 0egister of Deeds. Des ite sever#l dem#nds from "l#no, 9#v#l refuses to return the #yment of the former. Iss$!s# 13 >hether or not the court belo$ correctly ;u#shed the inform#tion for f#lsific#tion. *3 >hether or not the court belo$ correctly sh#red the notion th#t riv#te res ondent $#s in d#nger of double =eo #rdy. H! %# 13 Assuming th#t f#lsific#tion $#s indeed necess#ry to commit est#f#, $hich ordin#rily constitutes # com le/ crime under Article D. of the 0evised Pen#l %ode #nd thus susce tible to ch#llenge !ia # motion to ;u#sh, still, it $#s serious error of the defend#nt to h#ve # reci#ted this discourse in f#vor of riv#te res ondent since this m#tter $#s not s ecific#lly r#ised in the motion to ;u#sh but only in the motion for reconsider#tion $here riv#te res ondent le#ded this #ddition#l ground #fter her motion to ;u#sh $#s denied. )he theory of # single crime #dv#nced by riv#te res ondent in her bel#ted, n#y, (second( motion to ;u#sh couched #s motion for reconsider#tion is not synonymous $ith ( #rdon, conviction, #c;uitt#l or =eo #rdy(. "n effect, therefore, res ondent =udge #ccommod#ted #nother b#sis for
123
the ;u#sh#l of the inform#tion #lbeit the s#me $#s not so st#ted in the motion therefor. *3 "t $#s simil#rly f#ll#cious for the lo$er court to h#ve sh#red the notion th#t riv#te res ondent is in d#nger of being convicted t$ice for the s#me crimin#l #ct, # circumst#nce recogniCed under Section *Ah3 0ule 116 of the Old 0ules #s suggested in the motion to ;u#sh, bec#use this le# is understood to resu ose th#t the other c#se #g#inst riv#te res ondent h#s been dismissed or other$ise termin#ted $ithout her e/ ress consent, by # court of com etent =urisdiction, u on # v#lid com l#int or inform#tion, #nd #fter the defend#nt h#d le#ded to the ch#rge. "n the Asuncion c#se, Justice 9ocon s#id th#t2 . . . #ccording to # long line of c#ses, in order th#t # defend#nt m#y successfully #llege former =eo #rdy, it is necess#ry th#t he h#d reviously been A13 convicted or A*3 #c;uitted, or A73 in =eo #rdy of being convicted of the offense ch#rged, th#t is, th#t the former c#se #g#inst him for the s#me offense h#s been dismissed or other$ise termin#ted $ithout his e/ ress consent, by # court of com etent =urisdiction, u on # v#lid com l#int or inform#tion, #nd #fter the defend#nt h#d le#ded to the ch#rge. >ith#l, the mere filing of t$o inform#tions ch#rging the s#me offense is not #n # ro ri#te b#sis for the invoc#tion of double =eo #rdy since the first =eo #rdy h#s not yet set in by # revious conviction, #c;uitt#l or termin#tion of the c#se $ithout the consent of the #ccused. +!o4 ! v. Tam4a Fa"ts# 'uis )#m #l, Domingo P#dumon, Arsenio P#dumon, S#muel P#dumon, P#blito Suco, D#rio Suco #nd J#lvino %#dling $ere ch#rged of robbery $ith homicide #nd multi le serious hysic#l in=uries in the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt of P#mbo#ng# $ith ?on. >ilfredo Ochotoren# #s residing =udge. ?o$ever, only riv#te res ondents, 'uis )#m #l, Domingo P#dumon, Arsenio P#dumon, #nd S#muel P#dumon $ere #rrested, $hile the others rem#ined #t l#rge. )he c#se $#s set for he#ring on July *6, 1991, but Assist#nt Provinci#l Prosecutor >ilfredo Ju#ntero moved for ost onement
due to his f#ilure to cont#ct the m#teri#l $itnesses. )he c#se $#s reset $ithout #ny ob=ection from the defense counsel. )he c#se $#s c#lled on Se tember *B, 1991 but the rosecutor $#s not resent. )he res ondent =udge considered the #bsence of the rosecutor #s un=ustified, #nd dismissed the crimin#l c#se for f#ilure to rosecute. )he rosecution filed # motion for reconsidere#tion, cl#iming th#t his #bsence $#s bec#use such d#te $#s # Muslim holid#y #nd the office of the Provinci#l rosecutor $#s closed on th#t d#y. )he motion $#s denied by res ondent =udge. Iss$!s# A13 >hether or 9ot the ost onement is # viol#tion of the right of the #ccused to # s eedy dis osition of their c#ses. A*3 >hether or 9ot the dismiss#l serves #s # b#r to reinst#tement of the c#se. H! %# "n determining the right of #n #ccused to s eedy dis osition of their c#se, courts should do more th#n # m#them#tic#l com ut#tion of the number of ost onements of the scheduled he#rings of the c#se. >h#t #re viol#tive of the right of the #ccused to s eedy tri#l #re un=ustified ost onements $hich rolong tri#l for #n unre#son#ble length of time. "n the f#cts #bove, there $#s no sho$ing th#t there $#s #n un=ust del#y c#used by the rosecution, hence, the res ondent =udge should h#ve given the rosecution # f#ir o ortunity to rosecute its c#se. )he riv#te res ondents c#nnot invo8e their right #g#inst double =eo #rdy. "n sever#l c#ses it $#s held th#t dismiss#l on the grounds of f#ilure to rosecute is e;uiv#lent to #n #c;uitt#l th#t $ould b#r #nother rosecution for the s#me offense, but in this c#se, this does not # ly, considering th#t the rights of the #ccused to # s eedy tri#l $#s not viol#ted by the St#te. )herefore, the order of dismiss#l is #nnulled #nd the c#se is rem#nded to the court of origin for further roceedings. elo v. Peo)le "#A$A%LA&LE
124
+!o4 ! v. A%i FACTS# )he first crimin#l com l#int filed #g#inst res ondent F#m# Jr. on A ril 11, 1961 A%#se 9o. 77713 $#s #s follo$s2 )h#t #t #bout 127B o!cloc8 in the #fternoon of A ril 1*, 1961, #t A;uino 9obleC# St., Munici #lity of J#nu#ry, Province of "loilo, Phili ines, #nd $ithin the =urisdiction of this ?onor#ble %ourt the #boveEn#med #ccused, $hile #rmed $ith # iece of stone, did then #nd there $illfully, unl#$fully #nd feloniously, #ss#ult, #tt#c8 #nd use erson#l violence u on one Miguel ,i#=#r by then hurling the l#tter $ith # stone, hitting s#id Miguel ,i#=#r on the right chee8, thereby inflicting hysic#l in=uries $hich $ould h#ve re;uired #nd $ill re;uire medic#l #ttend#nce for # eriod from 1 to 9 d#ys b#rring com lic#tion #s er medic#l certific#te of the hysici#n hereto #tt#ched. Me#n$hile, on June ., 1961, com l#in#nt ,i#=#r filed # letterE com l#int $ith the Provinci#l Fisc#l of "loilo A%#se 9o. 1*D13 #g#inst Atty. Alfredo F#m#, 0#ul F#m# #nd herein res ondent M#rg#rito F#m#, Jr. $ith serious hysic#l in=uries #rising from the s#me incidents. Iss$!# >hether of not there h#s been # c#se of double =eo #rdy on the #rt of the res ondent. H! %# )he le# of double =eo #rdy of riv#te res ondent F#m# Jr., c#nnot hold. "n brief, $h#t h# ened here $#s th#t $hen %#se 9o. 7771 $#s filed in the inferior court of J#nu#ry, the ch#rge #g#inst F#m# Jr. h#d to be for slight hysic#l in=uries only, bec#use #ccording to the certific#tion of the #ttending hysici#n, the in=uries suffered by the offended #rty ,i#=#r, $ould re;uire medic#l #ttend#nce from 1 to 9
d#ys only (b#ring com lic#tions.( "ndeed, $hen the com l#int $#s filed on A ril 11, 1961, only three d#ys h#d #ssed since the incident in $hich the in=uries $ere sust#ined too8 l#ce, #nd there $ere yet no indic#tions of # gr#ver in=ury or conse;uence to be suffered by s#id offended #rty. &vidently, it $#s only l#ter, #fter %#se 9o. 7771 h#d #lre#dy been filed #nd the $ound on the f#ce of ,i#=#r h#d #lre#dy he#led, th#t the #lleged deformity bec#me # #rent. +!o4 ! v. 1$%g! R! ova FACTS# "n this etition for certior#ri #nd m#nd#mus, Peo le of the Phili ines see8s to set #side the orders of 0es ondent Judge ?on. 0elov# ;u#shing #n inform#tion for theft filed #g#inst Mr. O ulenci# on the ground of double =eo #rdy #nd denying the etitioner4s motion for reconsider#tion.. On Feb.1 1961, @#t#ng#s olice together $ith ersonnel of @#t#ng#s &lectric 'ight System, e;ui ed $ith # se#rch $#rr#nt issued by # city =udge of @#t#ng#s to se#rch #nd e/#mine the remises of the O ulenci# %#r en# "ce Pl#nt o$ned by one M#nuel O ulenci#. )hey discovered electric $iringdevices h#ve been inst#lled $ithout #uthority from the citygovernment #nd #rchitectur#lly conce#led inside the $#lls of the building. S#id devices #re designed ur osely to lo$er or decre#se there#dings of electric current consum tion in the l#nt4s electric meter. )he c#se $#s dismissed on the ground of rescri tion for the com l#int $#s filed nine months rior to discovery $hen it should be *months rior to discovery th#t the #ct being # light felony #nd rescribed the right to file in court. On 9ov *D, 1961, #nother c#se $#s filed #g#inst Mr. O ulenci# by the Assist#nt %ity Fisc#l of @#t#ng#s for # viol#tion of # @#t#ng#s Ordin#nce reg#rding un#uthoriCed electric#linst#ll#tions $ith resulting d#m#ge #nd re=udice to %ity of @#t#ng#s in the #mount of PD1,B6*.16. @efore #rr#ignment, O ulenci# filed # motion to ;u#sh on the ground of double =eo #rdy. )he Assist#nt fisc#l4s cl#im is th#t it is not double =eo #rdy bec#use the first offense ch#rged #g#inst the #ccused $#s un#uthoriCed inst#ll#tion of electric#ldevices $ithout the # rov#l #nd necess#ry #uthority from the %ityJovernment $hich $#s unish#ble by #n ordin#nce, $here in the c#se $#s dismissed, #s o osed to the second offense $hich
125
is theft of electricity $hich is unish#ble by the 0evised Pen#l %ode m#8ing it # different crime ch#rged #g#inst the 1st com l#int #g#inst Mr.O ulenci#. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the #ccused Mr. O ulenci# c#n invo8e double=eo #rdy #s defense to the second offense ch#rged #g#inst him by the #ssist#nt fisc#l of @#t#ng#s on the ground of theft of electricity unish#ble by # st#tute #g#inst the 0evised Pen#l %ode. H! %# Les, Mr. O ulenci# c#n invo8e double =eo #rdy #s defense for the second offense bec#use #s tediously e/ l#ined in the c#se of L# vs 'utero, the bill of rights give t$o inst#nces or 8inds of double=eo #rdy. )he first $ould be th#t G9o erson sh#ll be t$ice ut in =eo #rdy of unishment for the s#me offense #nd the second sentence st#tes th#t G"f #n #ct is unish#ble by # l#$ or #n ordin#nce, the conviction or #c;uitt#l sh#ll b#r to #nother rosecution for the s#me #ctH. "n the c#se #t b#r, it $#s very evident th#t the ch#rges filed #g#inst Mr. O ulenci# $ill f#ll on the *nd 8ind or definition of double=eo #rdy $herein it contem l#tes double =eo #rdy of unishment for the s#me #ct. "t further e/ l#ins th#t even if the offenses ch#rged #re not the s#me, o$ing th#t the first ch#rge constitutes # viol#tion of #n ordin#nce #nd the second ch#rge $#s # viol#tion #g#inst the revised en#l code, the f#ct th#t the t$o ch#rges s rung from one #nd the s#me #ct of conviction or #c;uitt#l under either the l#$ or the ordin#nce sh#ll b#r # rosecution under the other thus m#8ing it #g#inst the logic of double =eo #rdy. )he f#ct th#t Mr. O ulenci# $#s #c;uitted on the first offense should b#r the *nd com l#int #g#inst him coming from the s#me identity #s th#t of the 1st offense ch#rged #g#inst Mr.O ulenci#. Section 22 -- E* Post Facto Law and &ill of Attainder
?on. Judge Simeon Ferrer is the )#rl#c tri#l court =udge th#t decl#red 0A16BB or the AntiESubversive Act of 1916 #s # bill of #tt#inder. )hus, dismissing the inform#tion of subversion #g#inst the follo$ing2 1.3 Felici#no %o for being #n officer-le#der of the %ommunist P#rty of the Phili ines A%PP3 #ggr#v#ted by circumst#nces of contem t #nd insult to ublic officers, subversion by # b#nd #nd #id of #rmed men to #fford im unity. *.3 9ilo )#y#g #nd 1 others, for being members-le#ders of the 9PA, inciting, instig#ting eo le to unite #nd overthro$ the Phili ine Jovernment. Attended by Aggr#v#ting %ircumst#nces of Aid or Armed Men, %r#ft, #nd Fr#ud. )he tri#l court is of o inion th#t 1.3 )he %ongress usur ed the o$ers of the =udge *.3 Assumed =udici#l m#gistr#cy by ronouncing the guilt of the %PP $ithout #ny forms of s#fegu#rd of # =udici#l tri#l. 7.3 "t cre#ted # resum tion of org#niC#tion#l guilt by being members of the %PP reg#rdless of volunt#riness. )he Anti Subversive Act of 1916 $#s # roved *BJune1916. "t is #n #ct to outl#$ the %PP #nd simil#r #ssoci#tions en#liCing membershi therein, #nd for other ur oses. "t defined the %ommunist P#rty being #lthough # olitic#l #rty is in f#ct #n org#niCed cons ir#cy to overthro$ the Jovernment, not only by force #nd violence but #lso by deceit, subversion #nd other illeg#l me#ns. "t decl#res th#t the %PP is # cle#r #nd resent d#nger to the security of the Phili ines. Section D rovided th#t #ffili#tion $ith full 8no$ledge of the illeg#l #cts of the %PP is unish#ble. Section 1 st#tes th#t due investig#tion by # design#ted rosecutor by the Secret#ry of Justice be m#de rior to filing of inform#tion in court. Section 6 rovides for en#lty for furnishing f#lse evidence. Section 6 rovides for * $itnesses in o en court for #cts en#liCed by rision m#yor to de#th. Section . #llo$s the renunci#tion of membershi to the %%P through $riting under o#th. Section 9 decl#res the constitution#lity of the st#tute #nd its v#lid e/ercise under freedom if thought, #ssembly #nd #ssoci#tion. Iss$!s#
+!o4 ! v. F!**!* Fa"ts# A13 >hether or not 0A16BB is # bill of #tt#inder- e/ ost f#cto l#$. A*3 >hether or 9ot 0A16BB viol#tes freedom of e/ ression.
126
H! %# )he court holds the ,A'"D")L Of the AntiESubversion Act of 1916. A bill of #tt#inder is solely # legisl#tive #ct. "t unishes $ithout the benefit of the tri#l. "t is the substitution of =udici#l determin#tion to # legisl#tive determin#tion of guilt. "n order for # st#tute be me#sured #s # bill of #tt#inder, the follo$ing re;uisites must be resent2 1.3 )he st#tute s ecifies ersons, grou s. *.3 the st#tute is # lied retro#ctively #nd re#ch #st conduct. AA bill of #tt#inder rel#tively is #lso #n e/ ost f#cto l#$.3 "n the c#se #t b#r, the st#tute sim ly decl#res the %PP #s #n org#niCed cons ir#cy for the overthro$ of the Jovernment for ur oses of e/#m le of S&%)"O9 D of the Act. )he Act # lies not only to the %PP but #lso to other org#niC#tions h#ving the s#me ur ose #nd their successors. )he Act4s focus is on the conduct not erson. Membershi to this org#niC#tions, to be <9'A>F<', it must be sho$n th#t membershi $#s #c;uired $ith the intent to further the go#ls of the org#niC#tion by overt #cts. )his is the element of M&M@&0S?"P$ith S9O>'&DJ& th#t is unish#ble. )his is the re;uired roof of # member4s direct #rtici #tion. >hy is membershi unished.Membershi renders #id #nd encour#gement to the org#niC#tion.Membershi m#8es himself #rty to its unl#$ful #cts. Furthermore, the st#tute is P0OSP&%)",& in n#ture. Section D rohibits #cts committed #fter # rov#l of the #ct. )he members of the subversive org#niC#tions before the #ssing of this Act is given #n o ortunity to esc# e li#bility by renouncing membershi in #ccord#nce $ith Section .. )he st#tute # lies the rinci le of mut#tis mut#ndis or th#t the necess#ry ch#nges h#ving been m#de. )he decl#r#tion of th#t the %PP is #n org#niCed cons ir#cy to overthro$ the Phili ine Jovernment should not be the b#sis of guilt. )his decl#r#tion is only # b#sis of Section D of the Act. )he &+"S)&9%& OF S<@S)A9)",& &,"' =ustifies the limit#tion to the e/ercise of GFreedom of &/ ression #nd Associ#tionH in this m#tter.
@efore the en#ctment of the st#tute #nd st#tements in the re#mble, c#reful investig#tions by the %ongress $ere done. )he court further stressesth#t $h#tever interest in freedom of s eech #nd #ssoci#tion is e/cluded in the rohibition of membershi in the %PP #re $e#8 considering 9A)"O9A' S&%<0")L #nd P0&S&0,A)"O9 of D&MO%0A%L. )he court set b#sic guidelines to be observed in the rosecution under 0A16BB. "n #ddition to roving circumst#nces- evidences of subversion, the follo$ing elements must #lso be est#blished2 1. Subversive Org#niC#tions besides the %PP, it must be roven th#t the org#niC#tion ur ose is to overthro$ the resent Jovernment of the Phili ines #nd est#blish # domin#tion of # FO0&"J9 PO>&0.Membershi is $illfully #nd 8no$ingly done by overt #cts. *. "n c#se of %PP, the continued ursu#nce of its subversive ur ose.Membershi is $illfully #nd 8no$ingly done by overt #cts. )he court did not m#8e #ny =udgment on the crimes of the #ccused under the Act. )he Su reme %ourt set #side the resolution of the )0"A' %O<0). 6a,ot v. San%igan'a,an Fa"ts# @#yot is one of the sever#l ersons $ho $#s #ccused in more th#n 1BB counts of est#f# thru f#lsific#tion of Public documents before the S#ndig#nb#y#n. )he s#id ch#rges st#rted from his #lleged involvement #s # government #uditor of the commission on #udit #ssigned to the Ministry of educ#tion #nd culture, $ith some otherem loyees from the s#id ministry. )he bure#u of tre#sury #nd the te#cher4s c#m in @#guio %ity for the re #r#tion #nd enc#shment of fictitious )%AA chec8s for the nomEe/istent oblig#tions of the te#cher4s c#m resulting in d#m#ge to the government of sever#l millions. )he 1st 7* c#ses $ere filed on =uly *1, 19.6, $hile @#yot r#n for munici #l m#yor of Am#deo %#vite #nd $#s elected on J#nu#ry 19.B. but on M#y 19.B S#ndig#nb#y#n romulg#ted # decision convicting the #ccused together $ith his
127
other coE#ccused in #ll but one of the thirty t$o c#ses filed #g#inst them. On M#ch 16, 19.* @#t#s P#mb#ns# @lg 191 $#s #ssed #mending 0A 7B19. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot it $ould be viol#tive of the constitution#l gu#r#ntee #g#inst #n e/ ost f#cto l#$. H! %# )he court finds no merit in the etitioner4s contention th#t 0A 7B19 #s #mended by @#t#s P#mb#ns# @lg 191, $hich includes thecrime of est#f# through f#lsific#tion of Public Documents #s #mongcrimes sub=ecting the ublic officer ch#rged there$ith $ith sus ension from ublic office ending #ction in court, is # en#l rovision $hich viol#tes the constitution#l rohibition #g#inst the en#ctment of e/ ost f#cto l#$. Accdg to the 0P% sus ension from em loyment #nd ublic office during tri#l sh#ll not be considered #s # en#lty. "t is not # en#lty bec#use it is not # result of # =udici#l roceeding. "n f#ct, if #c;uitted the offici#l $ho is sus ended sh#ll be entitled to reinst#tement #nd the s#l#ries #nd benefits $hich he f#iled to receive during sus ension. And does not viol#te the constitution#l rovision #g#inst e/ ost f#cto l#$. )he cl#im of the etitioner th#t he c#nnot be sus ended bec#use he is currently occu ying # osition diffren tfrom th#t under $hich he is ch#rged is unten#ble. )he #mend#tory rovision cle#rly st#tes th#t #ny incumbent ublic officer #g#inst $hom #ny crimin#l rosecution under # v#lid inform#tion under 0A 7B19 for #ny offense involving fr#ud u on the government or ublic funds or ro erty or $h#tever st#ge of e/ecution #nd mode of #rtici #tion sh#ll be sus ended from office. )he use of the $ord GofficeH # lies to #ny office $hich the officer ch#rged m#y be holding #nd not only the #rticul#r office under $hich he $#s ch#rged.
+!o4 ! v. San%igan'a,an Fa"ts# )$o letter com l#ints $ere filed $ith the )#nodb#y#n by )eofilo Jel#cio on October *.,19.6 #nd December 9, 19.6, # olitic#l le#der of Jovernor ,#lentin# Pl#C#, $ife of %ongressm#n Democrito Pl#C# of Agus#n del Sur, shortly #fter riv#te res ondent h#d re l#ced Mrs. Pl#C# #s O"%- rovinci#l Jovernor of Agus#n del Sur on M#rch 19.6 )he com l#int ;uestioned the issu#nce to Jovernor P#redes, $hen he $#s still the rovinci#l #ttorney in 1966 of # free #tent title for # lot in the 0os#rio ublic l#nd subdivision in S#n Fr#ncisco, Agus#n del Sur. ?e misre resented to # '#nds "ns ector of the @ure#u of '#nds th#t the l#nds sub=ect herein #re dis os#ble l#nds, thereby inducing s#id ins ector to recommend # rov#l of his # lic#tion for free #tent. On August 1B, 19.9 #n inform#tion for viol#tion of 0A 7B19 AntiEJr#ft #nd %orru t Pr#ctices Act $#s then filed in the S#ndig#nb#y#n #fter #n e/ #rte relimin#ry investig#tion. A motion to ;u#sh the inform#tion $#s filed by the riv#te res ondent contending #mong others th#t he is ch#rged for #n offence $hich h#s rescribed. S#id motion $#s gr#nted. )he crime $#s committed on J#nu#ry *1, 1966, eriod of rescri tion $#s 1B ye#rs, therefore it h#s rescribed in 19.6. 9o$ the motion to ;u#sh $#s being #ss#iled. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot the motion to ;u#sh v#lidly gr#nted. H! %# Les. 0A 7B19, being # s eci#l l#$ the com ut#tion of the eriod for the rescri tion of the crime is governed by Sec. *9 of Act 9o. 77*6, $hich begins to run from the d#y of the commission of the crime #nd not the discovery of it. Addition#lly, @P 191 $hich $#s # roved on M#rch 16, 19.*, #mending Sec. 11 of 0A 7B19 by incre#sing ten to fifteen ye#rs of the eriod for the rescri tion or e/tinguishment of # viol#tion of 0A 7B19 m#y not be given retro#ctive # lic#tion to the crime $hich $#s committed by P#redes, #s it is re=udici#l to the
128
#ccused. )o # ly @P 191 to P#redes $ould m#8e it #n e/ ost f#cto l#$1 for it $ould #lter his situ#tion to his dis#dv#nt#ge by m#8ing him crimin#lly li#ble for # crime th#t h#d #lre#dy been e/tinguished under the l#$ e/isting $hen it $#s committed. Lacson v. E*ecutive Secretar1 et al. "#A$A%LA&LE JE8$a +*ot!"tionK L .6G L Cas!s 6!-o*! t)! San%igan'a,an
overt#8e such resolution to render the issue therein moot, #nd frustr#te the e/ercise of etitioner4s vested rights under the old S#ndig#nb#y#n l#$ A0A 69613. ISSUE# >hether or not the right to e;u#l rotection by '#cson et #l h#s been viol#ted $ith the #ss#ge of 0A .*D9. HELD#
FACTS# On 1. M#y 1991, #lleged members of the Sur#tong @#leleng J#ng $ere shot to de#th. )he incident $#s l#ter sens#tion#liCed #s # rub out. )his im lic#ted '#cson #mong others #s guilty for multi le murder. )he c#se $#s r#ised before the S#ndig#nb#y#n. "n 1996, '#cson et #l filed se #r#te motions ;uestioning the =urisdiction of the S#ndig#nb#y#n, #sserting th#t under the #mended inform#tions, the c#ses f#ll $ithin the =urisdiction of the 0)% ursu#nt to Sec * A #r # #nd c3 of 0A 6961 GAn Act )o Strengthen )he Function#l And Structur#l Org#niC#tion Of )he S#ndig#nb#y#n, Amending For )h#t Pur ose Presidenti#l Decree 16B6, As Amended. )hey contend th#t the s#id l#$ limited the =urisdiction of the S#ndig#nb#y#n to c#ses $here one or more of the G rinci #l #ccusedH #re government offici#ls $ith S#l#ry Jr#de ASJ3 *6 or higher, or P9P offici#ls $ith the r#n8 of %hief Su erintendent A@rig#dier Jener#l3 or higher. )he highest r#n8ing rinci #l #ccused in the #mended inform#tions h#s the r#n8 of only # %hief "ns ector, #nd none h#s the e;uiv#lent of #t le#st SJ *6. "n 1996, 0A .*D9 $#s #ssed $hich b#sic#lly e/ #nded the =urisdiction of the S#ndig#nb#y#n. )he l#$ $#s #uthored by '#gm#n #nd 9e t#li JonC#les. '#cson #ss#iled the l#$ #s it $#s introduced by the #uthors thereof in b#d f#ith #s it $#s m#de to recisely suit the situ#tion in $hich etitioner4s c#ses $ere in #t the S#ndig#nb#y#n by restoring =urisdiction thereover to it, thereby viol#ting his right to rocedur#l due rocess #nd the e;u#l rotection cl#use of the %onstitution. Further, from the $#y the S#ndig#nb#y#n h#s footEdr#gged for nine A93 months the resolution of # ending incident involving the tr#nsfer of the c#ses to the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, the #ss#ge of the l#$ m#y h#ve been timed to )he S% ruled th#t 0A .*D9 did not viol#te the right of '#cson et #l to e;u#l rotection. 9o concrete evidence #nd convincing #rgument $ere resented to $#rr#nt # decl#r#tion of #n #ct of the entire %ongress #nd signed into l#$ by the highest officer of the coEe;u#l e/ecutive de #rtment #s unconstitution#l. &very cl#ssific#tion m#de by l#$ is resumed re#son#ble. )hus, the #rty $ho ch#llenges the l#$ must resent roof of #rbitr#riness. "t is #n est#blished rece t in constitution#l l#$ th#t the gu#r#nty of the e;u#l rotection of the l#$s is not viol#ted by # legisl#tion b#sed on re#son#ble cl#ssific#tion. )he cl#ssific#tion is re#son#ble #nd not #rbitr#ry $hen there is concurrence of four elements, n#mely2 A13 it must rest on subst#nti#l distinction5 A*3 it must be germ#ne to the ur ose of the l#$5 A73 must not be limited to e/isting conditions only, #nd AD3 must # ly e;u#lly to #ll members of the s#me cl#ss )he cl#ssific#tion bet$een those ending c#ses involving the concerned ublic offici#ls $hose tri#l h#s not yet commenced #nd $hose c#ses could h#ve been #ffected by the #mendments of the S#ndig#nb#y#n =urisdiction under 0.A. .*D9, #s #g#inst those c#ses $here tri#l h#d #lre#dy st#rted #s of the # rov#l of the l#$, rests on subst#nti#l distinction th#t m#8es re#l differences. "n the first inst#nce, evidence #g#inst them $ere not yet resented, $here#s in the l#tter the #rties h#d #lre#dy submitted their res ective roofs, e/#mined $itness #nd resented documents. Since it is $ithin the o$er of %ongress to define the =urisdiction of courts sub=ect to the constitution#l limit#tions, it c#n be re#son#bly #ntici #ted th#t #n #lter#tion of th#t =urisdiction $ould necess#rily #ffect ending c#ses,
129
$hich is $hy it h#s to rovide for # remedy in the form of # tr#nsitory rovision. )hus, '#cson et #l c#nnot cl#im th#t Secs D #nd 6 l#ced them under # different c#tegory from those simil#rly situ#ted #s them. Precisely, #r A of Sec D rovides th#t it sh#ll # ly to G#ll c#ses involvingH cert#in ublic offici#ls #nd, under the tr#nsitory rovision in Sec 6, to G#ll c#ses ending in #ny court.H %ontr#ry to etitioner #nd intervenors4 #rguments, the l#$ is not #rticul#rly directed only to the Sur#tong @#leleng c#ses. )he tr#nsitory rovision does not only cover c#ses $hich #re in the S#ndig#nb#y#n but #lso in G#ny court.H "t =ust h# ened th#t the Sur#tong @#leleng c#ses #re one of those #ffected by the l#$. Moreover, those c#ses $here tri#l h#d #lre#dy begun #re not #ffected by the tr#nsitory rovision under Sec 6 of the ne$ l#$ A0.A. .*D93. 9. ARTICLE I9 -- CITI7ENSHI+ T!"son( !t a . v. Commission on E !"tions FACTS# )he c#se #t b#r is # consolid#ted c#se filed by etitioners ;uestioning the certific#te of c#ndid#cy of herein riv#te res ondent 0on#ld All#n Selly Poe #lso 8no$n #s Fern#ndo Poe, Jr. )he l#tter filed his certific#te of c#ndid#cy for the osition of President of the Phili ines under the So#lisyon ng 9#g8#8#is#ng Pili ino AS9P3 #rty. ?e re resented himself in s#id certific#te #s # n#tur#lEborn citiCen of the Phili ines, $hich re#son th#t etitioners filed # etition before the %omelec to dis;u#lify riv#te res ondent Fern#ndo Poe, Jr. #nd to deny due course or to c#ncel his certific#te of c#ndid#cy on the ground th#t the l#tter m#de #m#teri#l misre resent#tion in his certific#te of c#ndid#cy by cl#iming to be # n#tur#lEborn Fili ino$hen in truth his #rents $ere foreigners #nd he is #n illegitim#te child. )he %omelec dismissed the etition. ?ence, this # e#l. ISSUE#
)he controversy in the c#se #t b#r centers on the citiCenshi of Fern#ndo Poe, Jr. #s to $hether or not he is # n#tur#lEborn citiCen of the Phili ines. RULING# @efore discussing on the issue #t h#nd it is $orth stressing th#t since riv#te res ondent Fern#ndo Poe, Jr. $#s born on August *B, 1979, the # lic#ble l#$ then controlling $#s the 1971 constitution. )he issue on riv#te res ondent4s citiCenshi is so essenti#l in vie$ of the constitution#l rovision th#t, G9o erson m#y be elected President unless he is # n#tur#lEborn citiCen of the Phili ines, # registered voter, #ble to re#d #nd $rite, #t le#st forty ye#rs of #ge on the d#y of the election, #nd # resident of the Phili ines for #t le#st ten ye#rs immedi#tely receding such election.H 9#tur#lEborncitiCens #re those $ho #re citiCens of the Phili ines from birth $ithout h#ving to erform #ny #ct to #c;uire or erfect their Phili ine citiCenshi . @#sed on the evidence resented $hich the Su reme consider #s vi#ble is the f#ct th#t the de#th certific#te of 'orenCo Poe, f#ther of All#n Poe, $ho in turn $#s the f#ther of riv#te res ondent Fern#ndo Poe, Jr. indic#tes th#t he died on Se tember 11, 191D #t the #ge of .D ye#rs, in S#n %#rlos, P#ng#sin#n. &vidently, in such de#th certific#te, the residence of 'orenCo Poe $#s st#ted to be S#n %#rlos, P#ng#nsin#n. "n the #bsence of #ny evidence to the contr#ry, it should be sound to conclude, or #t le#st to resume, th#t the l#ce of residence of # erson #t the time of his de#th $#s #lso his residence before de#th. %onsidering th#t the #lleg#tions of etitioners #re not subst#nti#ted $ith roof #nd since 'orenCo Poe m#y h#ve been benefited from the Gen m#sse Fili iniC#tionH th#t the Phili ine @ill h#d effected in 19B*, there is no doubt th#t All#n Poe f#ther of riv#te res ondent Fern#ndo Poe, Jr. $#s # Fili ino citiCen. And, since the l#tter is governed by the rovisions of the 1971 %onstitution $hich constitution considers #s citiCens of the Phili ines those $hose f#thers #re citiCens of the Phili ines, Fern#ndo Poe, Jr. $#s in f#ct # n#tur#lEborn citiCen of the Phili ines reg#rdless of $hether or not he is legitim#te or illegitim#te.
130
Co v. Ho$s! o- R!4*!s!ntativ!s E !"to*a T*i'$na =HRETD Fa"ts# )he ?0&) decl#red th#t res ondent Jose Ong, Jr. is # n#tur#l born Fili ino citiCen #nd # resident of '#o#ng, 9orthern S#m#r for voting ur oses. )he congression#l election for the second district of 9orthernS#m#r $#s held. Among the c#ndid#tes $ho vied for the osition of re resent#tive in the second legisl#tivedistrict #re the etitioners, Si/to @#lin;uit #nd Antonio %o #nd the riv#te res ondent, Jose Ong, Jr. 0es ondentOng $#s rocl#imed the duly elected re resent#tive of the second district of 9orthern S#m#r. )he etitioners filed election rotests on the grounds th#t Jose Ong, Jr. is not # n#tur#l born citiCen of the Phili ines #nd not # resident of the second district of 9orthern S#m#r. Iss$!# >hether or not Jose Ong, Jr. is # citiCen of the Phili H! %# ines.
h#ve # house in order to est#blish hisresidence #nd domicile. "t is enough th#t he should live in the munici #lity or in # rented house or in th#t of #friend or rel#tive. )o re;uire him to o$n ro erty in order to be eligible to run for %ongress $ould be t#nt#mountto # ro erty ;u#lific#tion. )he %onstitution only re;uires th#t the c#ndid#te meet the #ge, citiCenshi , voting#nd residence re;uirements. 3$ v. D!-!nso*-Santiago FACTS# Petitioner Lu, origin#lly # Portuguese n#tion#l, $#s n#tur#liCed #s # Phili ine citiCen on 1BFebru#ry 196.. ?o$ever, on *1 July 19.1, etitioner # lied for #nd $#s issued # rene$ed PortugueseP#ss ort 9o. 71-.1 seri#l 9. 1116D1B by the %onsul#r Section of the Portuguese &mb#ssy in )o8yo. S#id%onsul#r Office certifies th#t his Portuguese #ss ort e/ ired on *B July 19.6.)he %"D det#ined the etitioner ending his de ort#tion c#se. )he etitioner, in turn, filed # etition forh#be#s cor us. An intern#l resolution of 6 9ovember 19.. referred the c#se to the %ourt en b#nc. ISSUE#
Les. "n the ye#r 1.91, the riv#te res ondent4s gr#ndf#ther, Ong )e, #rrived in the Phili ines from%hin# #nd est#blished his residence in the munici #lity of '#o#ng, S#m#r. )he f#ther of the riv#te res ondent,Jose Ong %hu#n $#s born in %hin# in 19B1 but $#s brought by Ong )e to S#m#r in the ye#r 1911, he filed $iththe court #n # lic#tion for n#tur#liC#tion #nd $#s decl#red # Fili ino citiCen. "n 19.D, the riv#te res ondent m#rried # Fili in# n#med Desiree 'im.For the elections of 19.D #nd 19.6, Jose Ong, Jr. registered himself #s # voter of '#o#ng, S#m#r, #nd voted there during those elections. <nder the 1967 %onstitution, those born of Fili ino f#thers #nd those born of Fili ino mothers $ith #n#lien f#ther $ere l#ced on e;u#l footing. )hey $ere both considered #s n#tur#l born citiCens. @esides, riv#teres ondent did more th#n merely e/ercise his right of suffr#ge. ?e h#s est#blished his life here in the Phili ines. On the issue of residence, it is not re;uired th#t # erson should
>hether or not etitioner4s #cts constitute renunci#tion of his Phili ine citiCenshi HELD# Les. Phili ine citiCenshi , it must be stressed, is not # commodity or $ere to be dis l#yed $henre;uired #nd su ressed $hen convenient. Petitioner, $hile still # citiCen of the Phili ines $ho h#drenounced, u on his n#tur#liC#tion, (#bsolutely #nd forever #ll #llegi#nce #nd fidelity to #ny foreign rince, otent#te, st#te or sovereignty( #nd ledged to (m#int#in true f#ith #nd #llegi#nce to the0e ublic of the Phili ines,( he decl#red his n#tion#lity #s Portuguese in commerci#l documents hesigned, s ecific#lly, the %om #nies registry of )#i Shun &st#te 'td. *B filed in ?ong8ong sometime inA ril 19.B. &/ ress renunci#tion $#s held to me#n # renunci#tion th#t is m#de 8no$n distinctly #nde/ licitly #nd not left to
131
inference or im lic#tion. Petitioner, $ith full 8no$ledge, #nd leg#l c# #city,#fter h#ving renounced Portuguese citiCenshi u on n#tur#liC#tion #s # Phili ine citiCen resumed orre#c;uired his rior st#tus #s # Portuguese citiCen, # lied for # rene$#l of his Portuguese #ss ort #ndre resented himself #s such in offici#l documents even #fter he h#d become # n#tur#liCed Phili inecitiCen. Such resum tion or re#c;uisition of Portuguese citiCenshi is grossly inconsistent $ith hism#inten#nce of Phili ine citiCenshi .>?&0&FO0&, remises considered, etitioner!s motion for rele#se from detention is D&9"&D.0es ondent!s motion to lift the tem or#ry restr#ining order is J0A9)&D. )his Decision is immedi#telye/ecutory.>hile still # citiCen of the Phili ines $ho h#d renounced, u on his n#tur#liC#tion, (#bsolutely #ndforever #ll #llegi#nce #nd fidelity to #ny foreign rince, otent#te, st#te or sovereignty( #nd ledged to(m#int#in true f#ith #nd #llegi#nce to the 0e ublic of the Phili ines,( he decl#red his n#tion#lity #sPortuguese in commerci#l documents he signed, s ecific#lly, the %om #nies registry of )#i Shun &st#te'td. filed in ?ong8ong sometime in A ril 19.B. F*iva %o v. Com! !" Fa"ts# Petitioner Ju#n J. Friv#ldo $#s rocl#imed governorEelect of the rovince of Sorsogon on J#nu#ry **, 19.., #nd #ssumed office in due time. On October *6, 19.., the 'e#gue of Munici #lities, Sorsogon %h# ter, re resented by its President, &stuye, $ho $#s #lso suing in his erson#l c# #city, filed $ith the %OM&'&% # etition for the #nnulment of Friv#ldo5 election #nd rocl#m#tion on the ground th#t he $#s not # Fili ino citiCen, h#ving been n#tur#liCed in the <nited St#tes on J#nu#ry *B, 19.7. "n his #ns$er d#ted M#y **, 19.., Friv#ldo #dmitted th#t he $#s n#tur#liCed in the <nited St#tes #s #lleged but le#ded the s eci#l #nd #ffirm#tive defenses th#t he h#d sought Americ#n citiCenshi only to rotect himself #g#inst President M#rcos. ?is n#tur#liC#tion, he s#id, $#s (merely forced u on himself #s # me#ns of surviv#l #g#inst the unrelenting ersecution by the M#rti#l '#$ Dict#tor!s #gents #bro#d.( ?e #dded th#t he h#d returned to the Phili ines #fter the &DSA revolution to
hel in the restor#tion of democr#cy. "n their %omment, the riv#te res ondents reiter#ted their #ssertion th#t Friv#ldo $#s # n#tur#liCed Americ#n citiCen #nd h#d not re#c;uired Phili ine citiCenshi on the d#y of the election on J#nu#ry 1., 19... ?e $#s therefore not ;u#lified to run for #nd be elected governor. )hey #lso #rgued th#t their etition in the %ommission on &lections $#s not re#lly for ;uo $#rr#nto under Section *17 of the Omnibus &lection %ode. )he ultim#te ur ose $#s to revent Friv#ldo from continuing #s governor, his c#ndid#cy #nd election being null #nd void #b initio bec#use of his #lien#ge. S e#8ing for the ublic res ondent, the Solicitor Jener#l su orted the contention th#t Friv#ldo $#s not # citiCen of the Phili ines #nd h#d not re #tri#ted himself #fter his n#tur#liC#tion #s #n Americ#n citiCen. As #n #lien, he $#s dis;u#lified from ublic office in the Phili ines. ?is election did not cure this defect bec#use the elector#te of Sorsogon could not #mend the %onstitution, the 'oc#l Jovernment %ode, #nd the Omnibus &lection %ode. ?e #lso =oined in the riv#te res ondent!s #rgument th#t Section *17 of the Omnibus &lection %ode $#s not # lic#ble bec#use $h#t the 'e#gue #nd &stuye $ere see8ing $#s not only the #nnulment of the rocl#m#tion #nd election of Friv#ldo. ?e #greed th#t they $ere #lso #s8ing for the termin#tion of Friv#ldo!s incumbency #s governor of Sorsogon on the ground th#t he $#s not # Fili ino. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot etitioner Ju#n J. Friv#ldo $#s # citiCen of the Phili ines #t the time of his election on J#nu#ry 1., 19.., #s rovinci#l governor of Sorsogon. H! %# )he re#son for this in;uiry is the rovision in Article +", Section 9, of the %onstitution th#t #ll ublic offici#ls #nd em loyees o$e the St#te #nd the %onstitution (#llegi#nce #t #ll times( #nd the s ecific re;uirement in Section D* of the 'oc#l Jovernment %ode th#t # c#ndid#te for loc#l elective office must be inter #li# # citiCen of the Phili ines #nd # ;u#lified voter of the constituency $here he is running. Section 116 of the Omnibus &lection %ode rovides th#t #
132
;u#lified voter must be, #mong other ;u#lific#tions, # citiCen of the Phili ines, this being #n indis ens#ble re;uirement for suffr#ge under Article ,, Section 1, of the %onstitution. "n the certific#te of c#ndid#cy he filed on 9ovember 19, 19.6, Friv#ldo described himself #s # (n#tur#lEborn( citiCen of the Phili ines, omitting mention of #ny subse;uent loss of such st#tus. )he evidence sho$s, ho$ever, th#t he $#s n#tur#liCed #s # citiCen of the <nited St#tes in 19.7 er the follo$ing certific#tion from the <nited St#tes District %ourt, 9orthern District of %#liforni#, #s duly #uthentic#ted by ,ice %onsul Am#do P. %orteC of the Phili ine %onsul#te Jener#l in S#n Fr#ncisco, %#liforni#, <.S.A. )he %ourt sees no re#son not to believe th#t the etitioner $#s one of the enemies of the M#rcos dict#torshi . &ven so, it c#nnot #gree th#t #s # conse;uence thereof he $#s coerced into embr#cing Americ#n citiCenshi . ?is feeble suggestion th#t his n#tur#liC#tion $#s not the result of his o$n free #nd volunt#ry choice is tot#lly un#cce t#ble #nd must be re=ected outright. )his %ourt $ill not ermit the #nom#ly of # erson sitting #s rovinci#l governor in this country $hile o$ing e/clusive #llegi#nce to #nother country. )he f#ct th#t he $#s elected by the eo le of Sorsogon does not e/cuse this #tent viol#tion of the s#lut#ry rule limiting ublic office #nd em loyment only to the citiCens of this country. )he ;u#lific#tions rescribed for elective office c#nnot be er#sed by the elector#te #lone. )he $ill of the eo le #s e/ ressed through the b#llot c#nnot cure the vice of ineligibility, es eci#lly if they mist#8enly believed, #s in this c#se, th#t the c#ndid#te $#s ;u#lified. Obviously, this rule re;uires strict # lic#tion $hen the deficiency is l#c8 of citiCenshi . "f # erson see8s to serve in the 0e ublic of the Phili ines, he must o$e his tot#l loy#lty to this country only, #b=uring #nd renouncing #ll fe#lty #nd fidelity to #ny other st#te. "t is true #s the etitioner oints out th#t the st#tus of the n#tur#lEborn citiCen is f#vored by the %onstitution #nd our l#$s, $hich is #ll the more re#son $hy it should be tre#sured li8e # e#rl of gre#t rice. @ut once it is surrendered #nd renounced, the gift is gone #nd
c#nnot be lightly restored. )his country of ours, for #ll its difficulties #nd limit#tions, is li8e # =e#lous #nd ossessive mother. Once re=ected, it is not ;uic8 to $elcome b#c8 $ith e#ger #rms its rodig#l if re ent#nt children. )he returning reneg#de must sho$, by #n e/ ress #nd une;uivoc#l #ct, the rene$#l of his loy#lty #nd love. Petition Dismissed. Petitioner J<A9 J. F0",A'DO is hereby decl#red not # citiCen of the Phili ines #nd therefore dis;u#lified from serving #s Jovernor of the Province of Sorsogon. Accordingly, he is ordered to v#c#te his office #nd surrender the s#me to the duly elected ,iceEJovernor of the s#id rovince once this decision becomes fin#l #nd e/ecutory. R!4$' i" o- t)! +)i i44in!s v. 1$%g! %! a Rosa FACTS2 )his c#se is # consolid#tion of 7 etitions th#t rim#rily #ims to decl#re the n#tur#liCed citiCenshi of Ju#n Friv#ldo #s inv#lid #nd conse;uently, nullify his rocl#m#tion #s governor of Sorsogon. "t # e#rs th#t Friv#ldo h#d served #s governor of Sorsogon for si/ terms #lre#dy #nd $#s only com elled to renounce his citiCenshi $hen he sought olitic#l #sylum in <S due to the rec#rious olitic#l #tmos here here in the country during the M#rcos regime. As he $#sn4t #ble to re#c;uire his citiCenshi through re #tri#tion or through #ct of %ongress, he $#s forced to file # etition for n#tur#liC#tion on Se tember 1991. )he =udge set the he#ring on M#rch 16 199* #nd ordered the ublic#tion of the order in the Offici#l J#Cette #nd in # ne$s # er of gener#l circul#tionEEEfor three consecutive $ee8s, #t le#st once every $ee8, the l#st ublic#tion to be m#de si/ months before the scheduled he#ring. ?o$ever, Friv#ldo #s8ed the court if the he#ring could be moved to #n e#rlier d#te #s he intends to #rtici #te in the M#y 199* elections, the l#st d#y of filing of certific#te of c#ndid#cy being M#rch 11 199*, # d#y #he#d of the scheduled he#ring. )he court gr#nted his re;uest #nd set the he#ring on Feb *1 1991. Of this #dv#ncement of he#ring, neither ublic#tion nor osting
133
of notice $#s m#de. Si/ d#ys #fter s#id he#ring, Judge Del# 0os# rendered # decision gr#nting Friv#ldo4s # lic#tion #nd #llo$ed him to t#8e his o#th of #llegi#nce on th#t s#me d#y. )o this, etitioner Iuiterio ?ermo, Friv#ldo4s riv#l for governorshi in Sorsogon, filed # Motion for 0econsider#tion #lleging =urisdiction#l defects in the roceedings. Subse;uently, t$o etitions $ere filed m#inly #lleging th#t Friv#ldo is #n Americ#n citiCen #nd is therefore ineligible to run, #nd th#t the court4s decision is null #nd void for being fr#ught $ith leg#l infirmities. "n one of the etitions, etitioner ?ermo r#yed th#t the votes c#sted in f#vor Friv#ldo be decl#red #s str#y votes #nd th#t he be decl#red $inner inste#d. )hese etitions $ere #ll dismissed by %omelec on the ground th#t such etitions $ere filed out of time, #s it should h#ve been filed $ithin three d#ys. ISSUES2 1. >-9 %omelec $#s correct in dismissing the etitions for being filed out of time: *. >-9 the roceedings $ere inv#lid m#8ing Friv#ldo not # Fili ino citiCen #nd thus ineligible for ublic office: 7. >-9 ?ermo m#y be rocl#imed $inner u on nullific#tion of Friv#ldo4s rocl#m#tion: RULING 1.%omelec erred in dismissing the etitions on the ground th#t they $ere filed out of time. )he etitions, by their n#ture, #re ;uo $#rr#nto. As such, they #re not covered by the 1BEd#y # e#l eriod rovided in Sec. *17 of the Omnibus &lection %ode. *. )he roceedings $ere inv#lid #nd %omelec should h#ve c#ncelled Friv#ldo4s certific#te of c#ndid#cy. )he %ourt never #c;uired =urisdiction over the c#se due to the follo$ing irregul#rities2 A13 there $#s no order ublished #dv#ncing the d#te of the he#ring, A*3 the etition $#s he#rd $ithin 6 months from l#st ublic#tion of the etition, A73 Friv#ldo too8 his o#th of #llegi#nce $hen there $#s still # ending # e#l , #nd AD3 Friv#ldo did not observe the *Eye#r $#iting
eriod. )hus, #s ;u#lific#tions for ublic office is # continuing re;uirement, once lost AcitiCenshi 3, title m#y be se#son#bly ch#llenged. 7. ?ermo c#nnot be rocl#imed #s $inner. >ell settled is the rule th#t u on dis;u#lific#tion of the $inner in #n election, the second l#cer c#nnot be rocl#imed #s $inner h#ving f#iled to obt#in the m#nd#te of the m#=ority of the elector#te. La'o v. Com! !" FACTS# 0#mon '#bo Jr. is # erson gr#nted Austr#li#n citiCenshi in 1966 #lthough this f#ct is still ;uestion#ble since no direct evidence $#s resented to rove th#t he too8 #n o#th of #llegi#nce* #s # n#tur#liCed Austr#li#n citiCen. '#bo returned to the Phili ines in 19.B #nd in 19.., '#bo r#n #nd $on #s m#yor of @#guio %ity but $#s rotested #g#inst by 'uis '#rdiC#b#l, #lleging th#t '#bo is #n #lien#nd therefore, dis;u#lified to run for office. '#rdiC#b#l #s8ed for '#bo4s rocl#m#tion #s m#yor be#nnulled #nd #s the erson $ho got the second highest number of votes in the reviously held election,he be decl#red #s the ne$ m#yor of @#guio %ity. ISSUE# >hether or not # runner u in the elections c#n re l#ce #n ousted offici#l. HELD# 9eg#tive. '#rdiC#b#l c#n not #ssume the osition of m#yor bec#use he h#s not been duly elected by the eo le of @#guio. '#bo4s dis;u#lific#tion #lone does not entitle him to t#8e office."nste#d, the vice m#yor sh#ll re l#ce '#bo. A&na* v. Com! !" Fa"ts#
134
13 On 9ovember 19, 19.6, riv#te res ondent &milio ('ito(OsmeT# filed his certific#te of c#ndid#cy $ith the %OM&'&% for the osition of Provinci#l Jovernor of %ebu Province in the J#nu#ry 1., 19.. loc#l elections. *3 On J#nu#ry **, 19.., etitioner Jose @. ACn#r in his c# #city #s its incumbent Provinci#l %h#irm#n filed $ith the %OM&'&% # etition for the dis;u#lific#tion of riv#te res ondent on the ground th#t he is #llegedly not # Fili ino citiCen, being # citiCen of the <nited St#tes of Americ#. 73 On J#nu#ry *6, 19.., etitioner filed # Form#l M#nifest#tion submitting # %ertific#te issued by the then "mmigr#tion #nd De ort#tion %ommissioner Miri#m Defensor S#nti#go certifying th#t riv#te res ondent is #n Americ#n #nd is # holder of Alien %ertific#te of 0egistr#tion AA%03 9o. @E*1DD. #nd "mmigr#nt %ertific#te of 0esidence A"%03 9o. 177911, issued #t M#nil# on M#rch *6 #nd *., 191., res ectively. AAnne/ (@E1(3 D3 During the he#ring #t the %OM&'&% Priv#te res ondent, m#int#ined th#t he is # Fili ino citiCen, #lleging2 th#t he is the legitim#te child of Dr. &milio D. OsmeT#, # Fili ino #nd son of the l#te President Sergio OsmeT#, Sr.5 th#t he is # holder of # v#lid #nd subsisting Phili ine P#ss ort 9o. B.111B7 issued on M#rch *1, 19.65 th#t he h#s been continuously residing in the Phili ines since birth #nd h#s not gone out of the country for more th#n si/ months5 #nd th#t he h#s been # registered voter in the Phili ines since 19 61. 13 )here#fter, on June 11, 19.., %OM&'&% AFirst Division3 dismissed the etition for dis;u#lific#tion for not h#ving been timely filed #nd for l#c8 of sufficient roof th#t riv#te res ondent is not # Fili ino citiCen. ?ence, the etition for %ertior#ri. ISSUE# >hether or not res ondent Osmen# is no longer # Fili ino citiCen by #c;uiring du#lEcitiCenshi :
HELD# S% dismissed etition for certior#ri u holding %OM&'&%4s decision. )he etitioner f#iled to resent direct roof th#t riv#te res ondent h#d lost his Fili ino citiCenshi by #ny of the modes rovided for under %.A. 9o. 67. these #re2 A13 by n#tur#liC#tion in # foreign country5 A*3 by e/ ress renunci#tion of citiCenshi 5 #nd A73 by subscribing to #n o#th of #llegi# nceto su ort the %onstitution or l#$s of # foreign country. From the evidence, it is cle#r th#t riv#te res ondent OsmeT# did not lose his Phili ine citiCenshi by #ny of the three mentioned herein#bove or by #ny other mode of losing Phili ine citiCenshi ."n the inst#nt c#se, riv#te res ondent vehemently denies h#ving t#8en the o#th of #llegi#nce of the <nited St#tes. ?e is # holder of # v#lid #nd subsisting Phili ine #ss ort #nd h#s continuously #rtici #ted in the elector#l rocess in this country since 1967 u to the resent, both #s # voter #nd #s # c#ndid#te. )hus, riv#te res ondent rem#ins # Fili ino #nd the loss of his Phili ine citiCenshi c#nnot be resumed. %onsidering the f#ct th#t #dmittedly OsmeT# $#s both # Fili ino #nd #n Americ#n, the mere f#ct th#t he h#s # %ertific#te st#ting he is #n Americ#n does not me#n th#t he is not still # Fili ino. "n the c#se of OsmeT#, the %ertific#tion th#t he is #n Americ#n does not me#n th#t he is not still # Fili ino, ossessed #s he is, of both n#tion#lities or citiCenshi s. "ndeed, there is no e/ ress renunci#tion here of Phili ine citiCenshi 5 truth to tell, there is even no im lied renunci#tion of s#id citiCenshi . >hen $e consider th#t the renunci#tion needed to lose Phili ine citiCenshi must be (e/ ress(, it st#nds to re#son th#t there c#n be no such loss of Phili ine !citiCenshi $hen there is no renunci#tion either (!e/ ress( or (im lied( /!*"a%o vs. /an&ano I Com! !" FACTS# &rnesto S. Merc#do #nd &du#rdo @. M#nC#no $ere c#ndid#tes for vice m#yor of the %ity of M#8#ti in the M#y 11, 199. elections. )he other one $#s J#briel ,. D#C# """. "n the results of the elections,
135
M#nC#no obt#ined the highest number of votes, ho$ever his $#s sus ended in vie$ of # ending etition for dis;u#lific#tion filed by # cert#in &rnesto M#m#ril $ho #lleged th#t riv#te res ondent $#s not # citiCen of the Phili ines but of the <nited St#tes. %OM&'&% gr#nted the etition of M#m#ril #nd ordered the c#ncell#tion of the certific#te of c#ndid#cy of M#nC#no on the ground th#t he is # du#l citiCen #nd, under _DBAd3 of the 'oc#l Jovernment %ode, ersons $ith du#l citiCenshi #re dis;u#lified from running for #ny elective osition. M#nC#no #dmitted th#t he is registered #s # foreigner $ith the @ure#u of "mmigr#tion under Alien %ertific#te of 0egistr#tion 9o. @E 7167* #nd #lleged th#t he is # Fili ino citiCen bec#use he $#s born in 1911 of # Fili ino f#ther #nd # Fili ino mother. ?e $#s born in the <nited St#tes, S#n Fr#ncisco, %#liforni#, Se tember 1D, 1911, #nd is considered in Americ#n citiCen under <S '#$s. @ut not$ithst#nding his registr#tion #s #n Americ#n citiCen, he did not lose his Fili ino citiCenshi . M#nC#no filed # motion for reconsider#tion. )he motion rem#ined ending even until #fter the election held on M#y 11, 199.. Pursu#nt to %OM&'&% 0esolution 9o. 7BDD, the @O% t#bul#ted the votes c#st for vice m#yor of M#8#ti %ity but sus ended the rocl#m#tion of the $inner. On M#y 19, 199., Merc#do sought to intervene in the c#se for dis;u#lific#tion Ac#se filed by M#m#ril3 it $#s ho$ever o osed by M#nC#no. Aug. 71, 199., %OM&'&% en b#nc rendered its resolution. ,oting D to 1, $ith one commissioner #bst#ining, it decl#red M#nC#no ;u#lified to run for vice m#yor of the %ity of M#8#ti in the M#y 11, 199. elections. ?e $#s #lso # n#tur#l born Fili ino citiCen by o er#tion of the 1971 Phili ine %onstitution, #s his f#ther #nd mother $ere Fili inos #t the time of his birth. At the #ge of si/ A63, his #rents brought him to the Phili ines using #n Americ#n #ss ort #s tr#vel document. ?is #rents #lso registered him #s #n #lien $ith the Phili ine @ure#u of "mmigr#tion. ?e $#s issued #n #lien certific#te of registr#tion. )his,
ho$ever, did not result in the loss of his Phili ine citiCenshi , #s he did not renounce Phili ine citiCenshi #nd did not t#8e #n o#th of #llegi#nce to the <nited St#tes. "t is #n undis uted f#ct th#t $hen res ondent #tt#ined the #ge of m#=ority, he registered himself #s # voter, #nd voted in the elections of 199*, 1991 #nd 199., $hich effectively renounced his <S citiCenshi under Americ#n l#$. <nder Phili ine l#$, he no longer h#d <.S. citiCenshi . Pursu#nt to the resolution of the %OM&'&% en b#nc, the @O%, M#nC#no #s vice m#yor of the %ity of M#8#ti. ?ence, this etition. ISSUE# 1. *. 7. HELD# ". 0ight to bring suit. At the time Merc#do filed # (Motion for 'e#ve to File "ntervention( on M#y *B, 199., there h#d been no rocl#m#tion of the $inner, #nd etitioner!s ur ose $#s recisely to h#ve riv#te res ondent dis;u#lified (from running for W#nX elective loc#l osition( under _DBAd3 of 0.A. 9o. 616B. "f &rnesto M#m#ril A$ho origin#lly instituted the dis;u#lific#tion roceedings3, # registered voter of M#8#ti %ity, $#s com etent to bring the #ction, so $#s M#rc#do since the he $#s # riv#l c#ndid#te for vice m#yor of M#8#ti %ity. Merc#do h#d # right to intervene #t th#t st#ge of the roceedings for the dis;u#lific#tion #g#inst riv#te res ondent is cle#r from _6 of 0.A. 9o. 66D6, other$ise 8no$n #s the &lector#l 0eform '#$ of 19.6. Any c#ndid#te $ho h#s been decl#red by fin#l =udgment to be dis;u#lified sh#ll not be voted for, #nd the votes c#st for him sh#ll not be counted. "f for #ny re#son # >O9 Merc#do h#s the right to bring suit: >O9 du#l citiCenshi # ground for dis;u#lific#tion: >O9 there $#s # v#lid election of citiCenshi :
136
c#ndid#te is not decl#red by fin#l =udgment before #n election to be dis;u#lified #nd he is voted for #nd receives the $inning number of votes in such election, the %ourt or %ommission sh#ll continue $ith the tri#l #nd he#ring of #ction, in;uiry, or rotest #nd, u on motion of the com l#in#nt or #ny intervenor, m#y during the endency thereof order the sus ension of the rocl#m#tion of such c#ndid#te $henever the evidence of guilt is strong. "". Du#l citiCenshi #s ground for dis;u#lific#tion )he dis;u#lific#tion of M#nC#no is being sought under _DB of the 'oc#l Jovernment %ode of 1991 Gthose $ith du#l citiCenshi .H "t is contended th#t through _DBAd3 of the 'oc#l Jovernment %ode, %ongress h#s (comm#ndWedX in e/ licit terms the ineligibility of ersons ossessing du#l #llegi#nce to hold loc#l elective office.( Du#l citiCenshi #rises $hen, #s # result of the concurrent # lic#tion of the different l#$s of t$o or more st#tes, # erson is simult#neously considered # n#tion#l by the s#id st#tes. For inst#nce, such # situ#tion m#y #rise $hen # erson $hose #rents #re citiCens of # st#te $hich #dheres to the rinci le of =us s#nguinis is born in # st#te $hich follo$s the doctrine of =us soli. Such # erson, i so f#cto #nd $ithout #ny volunt#ry #ct on his #rt, is concurrently considered # citiCen of both st#tes. Du#l #llegi#nce, on the other h#nd, refers to the situ#tion in $hich # erson simult#neously o$es, by some ositive #ct, loy#lty to t$o or more st#tes. >hile du#l citiCenshi is involunt#ry, du#l #llegi#nce is the result of #n individu#l!s volition. )he hr#se (du#l citiCenshi ( in 0.A. 9o. 616B, _DBAd3 #nd in 0.A. 9o. 6.1D, _*B must be understood #s referring to (du#l #llegi#nce.( Persons $ith mere du#l citiCenshi do not f#ll under this dis;u#lific#tion. <nli8e
those $ith du#l #llegi#nce, $ho must, therefore, be sub=ect to strict rocess $ith res ect to the termin#tion of their st#tus, for c#ndid#tes $ith du#l citiCenshi , it should suffice if, u on the filing of their certific#tes of c#ndid#cy, they elect Phili ine citiCenshi to termin#te their st#tus #s ersons $ith du#l citiCenshi considering th#t their condition is the un#void#ble conse;uence of conflicting l#$s of different st#tes. """. &lection of Phili ine %itiCenshi Merc#do #rgues th#t merely t#8ing #rt in Phili ine elections is not sufficient evidence of renunci#tion #nd th#t, in #ny event, #s the #lleged renunci#tion $#s m#de $hen riv#te res ondent $#s #lre#dy 76 ye#rs old, it $#s ineffective #s it should h#ve been m#de $hen he re#ched the #ge of m#=ority. %OM&'&%, ursu#nt to _7D9 of the "mmigr#tion #nd 9#tion#lity Act of the <nited St#tes, $hich rovided th#t (A erson $ho is # n#tion#l of the <nited St#tes, $hether by birth or n#tur#liC#tion, sh#ll lose his n#tion#lity by2\Ae3 ,oting in # olitic#l election in # foreign st#te or #rtici #ting in #n election or lebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory.( )o be sure this rovision $#s decl#red unconstitution#l by the <.S. Su reme %ourt in Afroyim v. 0us8 16 #s beyond the o$er given to the <.S. %ongress to regul#te foreign rel#tions. ?o$ever, by filing # certific#te of c#ndid#cy $hen he r#n for his resent ost, M#nC#no elected Phili ine citiCenshi #nd in effect renounced his Americ#n citiCenshi . M#nC#no4s certific#te of c#ndid#cy, filed on M#rch *6, 199., cont#ined the follo$ing st#tements m#de under o#th2 6. " AM A F"'"P"9O %")"P&9 AS)A)& "F (9A)<0A'E @O09( O0 (9A)<0A'"P&D(3 9A)<0A'E@O09 /// /// ///
137
@y decl#ring in his certific#te of c#ndid#cy th#t he is # Fili ino citiCen5 th#t he is not # erm#nent resident or immigr#nt of #nother country5 th#t he $ill defend #nd su ort the %onstitution of the Phili ines #nd be#r true f#ith #nd #llegi#nce thereto #nd th#t he does so $ithout ment#l reserv#tion, riv#te res ondent h#s, #s f#r #s the l#$s of this country #re concerned, effectively re udi#ted his Americ#n citiCenshi #nd #nything $hich he m#y h#ve s#id before #s # du#l citiCen. Petition is D"SM"SS&D. In *! C)ing
time #llo$ed by resent =uris rudence. E )$o conditions of #n effective election of Phil. %itiCenshi Afrom OSJ32 1st K the mother of the erson m#8ing the election must be # hil citiCen *nd K election must be m#de u on re#ching the #ge of m#=ority A$-c me#ns # re#son#ble time inter reted by the SOJ #s 7 ye#rs from the ,el#yo c#se5 in %uenco, noted th#t this d not infle/ible, ho$ever, held in the s#me c#se th#t 6 ye#rs not re#son#ble time3 E %hing to su ort his c#use invo8es these s eci#l circumst#nces2 continuous #nd uninterru ted st#y in the Phili ines, being # %P, # registered voter, #nd elected ublic offici#l. ISSUE#
FACTS# Petition for Admission to the Phil @#r E A ril 196D2 ,icente %hing born #s the legitim#te son of s s )#t %hing, %hinese citiCen, #nd Prescil# Dul#y, Fili in#, in '# <nion. Since birth, %hing h#s resided in the Phils E During this time, the governing ch#rter is the 1971%onstitution.F#ther4s citiCenshi is follo$ed, $ith # right to elect citiCenshi u on re#ching the #ge of m#=ority E July 199.2 %hing, #fter gr#du#ting from St. 'ouis <niversity in @#guio %ity, filed #n # lic#tion to t#8e the49. @#r &/#min#tions. E Se t 199.2 %ourt #llo$ed %hing to t#8e the e/#ms rovided he must submit roof of his Phil citiCenshi E 9ov 199.2 %hing submitted certific#tion th#t he is %PA, ,oter %ert from %OM&'&%, #nd %ert #s # member of the S#ngguni#ng @#y#n of )ub#o, '# <nion #lso from %OM&'&%. E A ril 19992 results of @#r &/#ms $ere rele#sed #nd %hing #ssed. ?e $#s further re;uired to submit more roof of citiCenshi . E July 19992 %hing filed M#nifest#tion $- Affid#vit of &lection of Phil %itiCenshi #nd his O#th of Allegi#nce. E OSJ commented th#t %hing being the Glegitim#te child of # %hinese f#ther #nd # Fili ino mother #nd born under the 1971 %onsti $#s # %hinese citiCen #nd continued to be so, unless u on re#ching the #ge of m#=ority he elected Phil citiCenshi . "f %hing form#lly elects Phil citiCenshi , it $ould #lre#dy be beyond the re#son#ble >O9 %hing h#s elected Phil citiCenshi $-in # re#son#ble time #nd if so >O9 his citiCenshi h#s retro#cted to the time he too8 the b#r. >O9 %hing4s s eci#l circumst#nces entitle him to citiCenshi . HELD# 9o. %hing4s election $#s cle#rly beyond, by #ny re#son#ble y#rdstic8, the #llo$#ble eriod $ithin $hich to e/ercise the rivilege. @eing born in A ril 1961, he $#s #lre#dy 71 ye#rs old $hen he com lied $ith the re;uirements of %A 9o. 6*1 in June 1999. ?e $#s #lre#dy more th#n 1D ye#rs over the #ge of m#=ority. Although the court is sym #thetic of his light, controlling st#tutes #nd =uris rudence com el the court in its decision. Also, %hing h#s offered no re#son $hy he del#yed his election of Phil. %itiCenshi , the l#tter not being # tedious #nd #inst#8ing rocess. Phili ine citiCenshi c#n never be tre#ted li8e # commodity th#t c#n be cl#imed $hen needed #nd su ressed $hen convenient. "t should be #v#iled of $ith fervor, enthusi#sm #nd rom titude. 9o. )he #bovementioned s eci#l circumst#nces c#nnot vest in him Phili ine citiCenshi #s the l#$ s ecific#lly l#ys do$n the re;uirements for #c;uisition of Phili ine citiCenshi by election.
138
6!ng&on III vs. HRET an% C*$& Fa"ts# 0es ondent )eodoro %ruC $#s # n#tur#lEborn citiCen of the Phili ines. ?e $#s born in S#n %lemente, )#rl#c, on A ril *6, 196B, ofFili ino #rents. )he fund#ment#l l#$ then # lic#ble $#s the 1971%onstitution. On 9ovember 1, 19.1, ho$ever, res ondent %ruC enlisted in the <nited St#tes M#rine %or s #nd $ithout the consent of the 0e ublic of the Phili ines, too8 #n o#th of #llegi#nce to the <nitedSt#tes. As # %onse;uence, he lost his Fili ino citiCenshi for under %ommon$e#lth Act 9o. 67, section 1AD3, # Fili ino citiCen m#y lose his citiCenshi by, #mong other, (rendering service to or #cce ting commission in the #rmed forces of # foreign country.H ?e $#s n#tur#liCed in <S in 199B. On M#rch 16, 199D, res ondent %ruC re#c;uired his Phili ine citiCenshi through re #tri#tion under 0e ublic Act 9o. *67B. ?e r#n for #nd $#s elected #s the 0e resent#tive of the Second District of P#ng#sin#n in the M#y 11, 199. elections. ?e $on over etitioner Antonio @engson """, $ho $#s then running for reelection. Iss$!# >hether or 9ot res ondent %ruC is # n#tur#l born citiCen ofthe Phili ines in vie$ of the constitution#l re;uirement th#t (no erson sh#ll be # Member of the ?ouse of 0e resent#tive unless he is # n#tur#lEborn citiCen.H H! %# 0es ondent is # n#tur#l born citiCen of the Phili ines. As distinguished from the lengthy rocess of n#tur#liC#tion, re #tri#tion
sim ly consists of the t#8ing of #n o#th of #llegi#nce to the 0e ublic of the Phili ine #nd registering s#id o#th in the 'oc#l %ivil 0egistry of the l#ce $here the erson concerned resides or l#st resided. )his me#ns th#t # n#tur#liCed Fili ino $ho lost his citiCenshi $ill be restored to his rior st#tus #s # n#tur#liCed Fili ino citiCen. On the other h#nd, if he $#s origin#lly # n#tur#lEborn citiCen before he lost his Phili ine citiCenshi , he $ill be restored to his former st#tus #s #n#tur#lEborn Fili ino.
139
A++ENDICES
140
A44!n%i: A SOLI9EN vs. /A.ASIAR "n these consolid#ted c#ses, three rinci #l issues $ere r#ised2 A13 $hether or not etitioners $ere denied due rocess $hen inform#tions for libel $ere filed #g#inst them #lthough the finding of the e/istence of # prima facie c#se $#s still under revie$ by the Secret#ry of Justice #nd, subse;uently, by the President5 A*3 $hether or not the constitution#l rights of @eltr#n $ere viol#ted $hen res ondent 0)% =udge issued # $#rr#nt for his #rrest $ithout erson#lly e/#mining the com l#in#nt #nd the $itnesses, if #ny, to determine rob#ble c#use5 #nd A73 $hether or not the President of the Phili ines, under the %onstitution, m#y initi#te crimin#l roceedings #g#inst the etitioners through the filing of # com l#intE #ffid#vit. Subse;uent events h#ve rendered the first issue moot #nd #c#demic. On M#rch 7B, 19.., the Secret#ry of Justice denied etitioners! motion for reconsider#tion #nd u held the resolution of the <ndersecret#ry of Justice sust#ining the %ity Fisc#l!s finding of # prima facie c#se #g#inst etitioners. A second motion for reconsider#tion filed by etitioner @eltr#n $#s denied by the Secret#ry of Justice on A ril 6, 19... On # e#l, the President, through the &/ecutive Secret#ry, #ffirmed the resolution of the Secret#ry of Justice on M#y *, 19... )he motion for reconsider#tion $#s denied by the &/ecutive Secret#ry on M#y 16, 19... >ith these develo ments, etitioner!s contention th#t they h#ve been denied the #dministr#tive remedies #v#il#ble under the l#$ h#s lost f#ctu#l su ort. "t m#y #lso be #dded th#t $ith res ect to etitioner @eltr#n, the #lleg#tion of deni#l of due rocess of l#$ in the relimin#ry investig#tion is neg#ted by the f#ct th#t inste#d of submitting his counterE#ffid#vits, he filed # (Motion to Decl#re Proceeding %losed(, in effect $#iving his right to refute the com l#int by filing counterE #ffid#vits. Due rocess of l#$ does not re;uire th#t the res ondent in # crimin#l c#se #ctu#lly file his counterE#ffid#vits before the relimin#ry investig#tion com leted. All th#t is re;uired is th#t the
res ondent be given the o is so minded.
ortunity to submit counterE#ffid#vits if he
)he second issue, r#ised by etitioner @eltr#n, c#lls for #n inter ret#tion of the constitution#l rovision on the issu#nce of $#rr#nts of #rrest. )he ertinent rovision re#ds2
Art. """, Sec. *. )he right of the eo le to be secure in their ersons, houses, # ers #nd effects #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCures of $h#tever n#ture #nd for #ny ur ose sh#ll be inviol#ble, #nd no se#rch $#rr#nt or $#rr#nt of #rrest sh#ll issue e/ce t u on rob#ble c#use to be determined erson#lly by the =udge #fter e/#min#tion under o#th or #ffirm#tion of the com l#in#nt #nd the $itnesses he m#y roduce, #nd #rticul#rly describing the l#ce to be se#rched #nd the ersons or things to be seiCed. )he #ddition of the $ord ( erson#lly( #fter the $ord (determined( #nd the deletion of the gr#nt of #uthority by the 1967 %onstitution to issue $#rr#nts to (other res onsible officers #s m#y be #uthoriCed by l#$(, h#s # #rently convinced etitioner @eltr#n th#t the %onstitution no$ re;uires the =udge to erson#lly e/#mine the com l#in#nt #nd his $itnesses determin#tion of rob#ble c#use for the issu#nce of $#rr#nts of #rrest. )his is not #n #ccur#te inter ret#tion. >h#t the %onstitution underscores is the e/clusive #nd erson#l res onsibility of the issuing =udge to s#tisfy himself the e/istence of rob#ble c#use. "n s#tisfying himself of the e/istence of rob#ble c#use for the issu#nce of # $#rr#nt of #rrest, the =udge is not re;uired to erson#lly e/#mine the com l#in#nt #nd his $itnesses. Follo$ing est#blished doctrine #nd rocedure, he sh#ll2 A13 erson#lly ev#lu#te the re ort #nd the su orting documents submitted by the fisc#l reg#rding the e/istence of rob#ble c#use #nd, on the b#sis thereof, issue # $#rr#nt of #rrest5 or A*3 if on the
141
b#sis thereof he finds no rob#ble c#use, he m#y disreg#rd the fisc#l!s re ort #nd re;uire the submission of su orting #ffid#vits of $itnesses to #id him in #rriving #t # conclusion #s to the e/istence of rob#ble c#use. Sound olicy dict#tes this rocedure, other$ise =udges $ould be unduly l#den $ith the relimin#ry e/#min#tion #nd investig#tion of crimin#l com l#ints inste#d of concentr#ting on he#ring #nd deciding c#ses filed before their courts. On June 7B, 19.6, the Su reme %ourt un#nimously #do ted %ircul#r 9o. 1*, setting do$n guidelines for the issu#nce of $#rr#nts of #rrest. )he rocedure therein rovided is reiter#ted #nd cl#rified in this resolution. "t h#s not been sho$n th#t res ondent =udge h#s devi#ted from the rescribed rocedure. )hus, $ith reg#rd to the issu#nce of the $#rr#nts of #rrest, # finding of gr#ve #buse of discretion #mounting to l#c8 or e/cess of =urisdiction c#nnot be sust#ined. Anent the third issue, etitioner @eltr#n #rgues th#t (the re#sons $hich necessit#te residenti#l immunity from suit im ose # correl#tive dis#bility to file suit(. ?e contends th#t if crimin#l roceedings ensue by virtue of the President!s filing of her com l#intE #ffid#vit, she m#y subse;uently h#ve to be # $itness for the rosecution, bringing her under the tri#l court!s =urisdiction. )his, continues @eltr#n, $ould in #n indirect $#y defe#t her rivilege of immunity from suit, #s by testifying on the $itness st#nd, she $ould be e/ osing herself to ossible contem t of court or er=ury. )he r#tion#le for the gr#nt to the President of the rivilege of immunity from suit is to #ssure the e/ercise of Presidenti#l duties #nd functions free from #ny hindr#nce or distr#ction, considering th#t being the %hief &/ecutive of the Jovernment is # =ob th#t, #side from re;uiring #ll of the officeEholder!s time, #lso dem#nds undivided #ttention.
@ut this rivilege of immunity from suit, ert#ins to the President by virtue of the office #nd m#y be invo8ed only by the holder of the office5 not by #ny other erson in the President!s beh#lf )hus, #n #ccused in # crimin#l c#se in $hich the President is com l#in#nt c#nnot r#ise the residenti#l rivilege #s # defense to revent the c#se from roceeding #g#inst such #ccused. Moreover, there is nothing in our l#$s th#t $ould revent the President from $#iving the rivilege. )hus, if so minded the President m#y shed the rotection #fforded by the rivilege #nd submit to the court!s =urisdiction. )he choice of $hether to e/ercise the rivilege or to $#ive it is solely the President!s rerog#tive. "t is # decision th#t c#nnot be #ssumed #nd im osed by #ny other erson. As reg#rds the contention of etitioner @eltr#n th#t he could not be held li#ble for libel bec#use of the rivileged ch#r#cter or the ublic#tion, the %ourt reiter#tes th#t it is not # trier of f#cts #nd th#t such # defense is best left to the tri#l court to # reci#te #fter receiving the evidence of the #rties. As to etitioner @eltr#n!s cl#im th#t to #llo$ the libel c#se to roceed $ould roduce # (chilling effect( on ress freedom, the %ourt finds no b#sis #t this st#ge to rule on the oint. )he etitions f#il to est#blish th#t ublic res ondents, through their se #r#te #cts, gr#vely #bused their discretion #s to #mount to l#c8 of =urisdiction. ?ence, the $rits of certior#ri #nd rohibition r#yed for c#nnot issue. >?&0&FO0&, finding no gr#ve #buse of discretion #mounting to e/cess or l#c8 of =urisdiction on the #rt of the ublic res ondents, the %ourt 0esolved to D"SM"SS the etitions in J. 0. 9os. .*1.1, .*.*6 #nd .7969. )he Order to m#int#instatus &uo cont#ined in the 0esolution of the %ourt en banc d#ted A ril 6, 19.. #nd reiter#ted in the 0esolution d#ted A ril *6, 19.. is '"F)&D.
142
Fernan, C.1., 8ar!asa, 2elencio7Herrera, Cru9, 'aras, Feliciano, :anca#co, 'adilla, 6idin, Sarmiento, Cortes, :rio7A&uino, 2edialdea #nd ;e)alado, 11., concur. S!4a*at! O4inions GUTIERRE7, 1R., 1 ., concurrin)2 " concur $ith the m#=ority o inion insof#r #s it revolves the three rinci #l issues mentioned in its o ening st#tement. ?o$ever, #s to the more im ort#nt issue on $hether or not the rosecution of the libel c#se $ould roduce # (chilling effect( on ress freedom, " beg to reserve my vote. " believe this is the more im ort#nt issue in these etitions #nd it should be resolved no$ r#ther th#t l#ter. %onsistent $ith our decision in Salon)a ! Cru9 'ao A17D S%0A D7. W19.1X3, the %ourt should not hesit#te to ;u#sh # crimin#l rosecution in the interest of more enlightened #nd subst#nti#l =ustice $here it is not #lone the crimin#l li#bility of #n #ccused in s seemingly minor libel c#se $hich is involved but bro#der consider#tions of government#l o$er versus # referred freedom. >e h#ve in these four etitions the unusu#l situ#tion $here the highest offici#l of the 0e ublic #nd one $ho en=oys un recedented ublic su ort #s8s for the rosecution of # ne$s # er columnist, the ublisher #nd ch#irm#n of the editori#l bo#rd, the m#n#ging editor #nd the business m#n#ger in # not too indubit#ble # c#se for #lleged libel. " #m fully in #ccord $ith #n #ll out rosecution if the effect $ill be limited to unishing # ne$s # erm#n $ho, inste#d of observing #ccur#cy #nd f#irness, eng#ges in un$#rr#nted erson#l #tt#c8s, irres onsible t$isting of f#cts, of m#licious distortions of h#lfEtruths $hich tend to c#use dishonor, discredit, or contem t of the com l#in#nt. ?o$ever, this c#se is not # sim le rosecution for libel. >e h#ve #s com l#in#nt # o$erful #nd o ul#r President $ho he#ds the investig#tion #nd rosecution service #nd # oints
members of # ell#te courts but $ho feels so terribly m#ligned th#t she h#s t#8en the unorthodo/ ste of going to court ins ite of the invoc#tions of freedom of the ress $hich $ould inevit#bly follo$. " believe th#t this %ourt should h#ve #cted on this issue no$ inste#d of le#ving the m#tter to fisc#ls #nd defense l#$yers to #rgue before # tri#l =udge. )here is #l$#ys bound to be h#r#ssment inherent in #ny crimin#l rosecution. >here the h#r#ssment goes beyond the usu#l difficulties encountered by #ny #ccused #nd results in #n un$illingness of medi# to freely criticiCe government or to ;uestion government h#ndling of sensitive issues #nd ublic #ff#irs, this %ourt #nd not # lo$er tribun#l should dr#$ the dem#rc#tion line. As e#rly #s M#rch ., 191., the decision in United States ! 6ustos A76 Phil. 6713 st#ted th#t (Ac3om lete liberty to comment on the conduct of ublic men is # sc#l el in the c#se of free s eech. )he sh#r incision of its robe relieves the #bscesses of offici#ldom. Men in ublic life m#y suffer under # hostile #nd un=ust #ccus#tion5 the $ound c#n be #ssu#ged $ith the b#lm of # cle#r conscience.( )he %ourt ointed out th#t $hile def#m#tion is not #uthoriCed, criticism is to be e/ ected #nd should be borne for the common good. "n 'eople ! 'erfecto AD7 Phil. ..6 W19**X3, the %ourt st#ted2 /// /// /// (. . . 9o longer is there # Minister of the %ro$n or # erson in #uthority of such e/#lted osition th#t the citiCen must s e#8 of him only $ith b#ted bre#th. !"n the eye of our %onstitution #nd l#$s, every m#n is # sovereign, # ruler #nd # freem#n, #nd h#s e;u#l rights $ith every other m#n.( A#t . 9BB3
143
"n f#ct, the %ourt observed th#t high offici#l osition, inste#d of #ffording immunity from sl#nderous #nd libelous ch#rges $ould #ctu#lly invite #tt#c8s by those $ho desire to cre#te sens#tion. "t $ould seem th#t $h#t $ould ordin#rily be sl#nder if directed #t the ty ic#l erson should be e/#mined from v#rious ers ectives if directed #t # high government offici#l. Ag#in, the Su reme %ourt should dr#$ this fine line inste#d of le#ving it to lo$er tribun#ls. )his %ourt h#s stressed #s #uthorit#tive doctrine in Eli9alde ! :utierre9 A66 S%0A DD. W1966X3 th#t # rosecution for libel l#c8s =ustific#tion if the offending $ords find s#nctu#ry $ithin the shelter of the free ress gu#r#nty. "n other $ords, # rosecution for libel should not be #llo$ed to continue, $here #fter discounting the ossibility th#t the $ords m#y not be re#lly th#t libelous, there is li8ely to be # chilling effect, # #tently inhibiting f#ctor on the $illingness of ne$s # ermen, es eci#lly editors #nd ublishers to cour#geously erform their critic#l role in society. "f, inste#d of merely re#ding more c#refully $h#t # columnist $rites in his d#ily column, the editors tell their eo le to l#y off cert#in issues or cert#in offici#ls, the effect on # free ress $ould be highly in=urious.
'i8e insurrection, contem t, #dvoc#cy of unl#$ful #cts, bre#ch of the e#ce, obscenity, solicit#tion of leg#l business, #nd the other v#rious other formul#e for the re ression of e/ ression th#t h#ve been ch#llenged in this %ourt, libel c#n cl#im no t#lism#nic immunity from constitution#l limit#tions. "t must be me#sured by st#nd#rds th#t s#tisfy the First Amendment. /// /// /// ()hose $ho $on our inde endence believed .. th#t ublic discussion is # olitic#l duty5 #nd th#t this should be # fund#ment#l rinci le of the Americ#n government. )hey recogniCed the ris8 to $hich #ll hum#n institutions #re sub=ect. @ut they 8ne$ th#t order c#nnot be secured merely through fe#r of unishment for its infr#ction5 th#t it is h#C#rdous to discour#ge thought, ho e #nd im#gin#tion5 th#t fe#r breeds re ression5 th#t re ression breeds h#te5 th#t h#te men#ces st#ble government5 th#t the #th of s#fety lies in the o ortunity to discuss freely su osed griev#nces #nd ro osed remedies5 #nd th#t the fitting remedy for evil counsel is good ones. @elieving in the o$er of re#son #s # lied through ublic discussion, they esche$ed silence coerced by l#$ Q the #rgument of force in its $orst form. . . . ()hus $e consider this c#se #g#inst the b#c8ground of # rofound n#tion#l commitment to the rinci le th#t deb#te on ublic issues should be uninhibited, robust, #nd $ide o en, #nd th#t it m#y $ell include vehement, c#ustic, #nd sometimes un le#s#ntly sh#r #tt#c8s on government #nd ublic offici#ls. . . ( A#t . 6BBE 6B13
@ec#use m#ny ;uestions reg#rding ress freedom #re left un#ns$ered by our resolution, " must c#ll #ttention to our decisions $hich c#ution th#t (no inro#ds on ress freedom should be #llo$ed in the guise of unitive #ction visited on $h#t other$ise should be ch#r#cteriCed #s libel.( A'o eC v. %ourt of A e#ls, 7D S%0A 116 W196BX5 See #lso the cit#tions in &liC#lde v. JutierreC, supra3. )he <nited St#tes Su reme %ourt is even more em h#tic, to $it2 ("n deciding the ;uestion no$, $e #re com elled by neither recedent nor olicy to give #ny more $eight to the e ithet !libel! th#n $e h#ve to other !mere l#bels! of st#te l#$. 9.A.A.%.P. v. @utton, 761 <S D11, D*9, 9' ed *d DB1, D11, .7 S %t 7*..
144
Shunting #side the individu#l li#bility of Mr. 'uis @eltr#n, is there # prima facie sho$ing th#t Messrs. M#/imo Soliven, Antonio ,. 0oces, Frederic8 S. Agc#oili, #nd Jodofredo '. M#nC#n#s 8no$ingly #rtici #ted in # $ilful urveying of f#lsehood: %onsidering the free s eech #s ects of these etitions, should not # differenti#ted # ro#ch to their #rticul#r li#bilities be t#8en inste#d of lum ing u everybody $ith the offending columnist: " re#liCe th#t the l#$ includes ublishers #nd editors but erh# s the (chilling effect( issue # lies $ith singul#r effectivity to ublishers #nd editors visE#Evis ne$s # er columnists. )here is no ;uestion th#t, ordin#rily, libel is not rotected by the free s eech cl#use but $e h#ve to underst#nd th#t some rovoc#tive $ords, $hich if t#8en liter#lly m#y # e#r to sh#me or dis #r#ge # ublic figure, m#y re#lly be intended to rovo8e deb#te on ublic issues $hen uttered or $ritten by # medi# erson#lity. >ill not # crimin#l rosecution in the ty e of c#se no$ before us d#m en the vigor #nd limit the v#riety of ublic deb#te: )here #re m#ny other ;uestions #rising from this unusu#l c#se $hich h#ve not been considered. ", of course, concur $ith the %ourt!s o inion bec#use it h#s decided to limit the issues to n#rro$ly dr#$n ones. " see no re#son to dis#gree $ith the $#y the %ourt h#s resolved them. )he first issue on rem#turity is moot. )he second issue discusses # rocedure no$ embodied in the recently #mended 0ules of %ourt on ho$ # Judge should roceed before he issues # $#rr#nt of #rrest. Anent the third issue, consider#tions of ublic olicy dict#te th#t #n incumbent President should not be sued. At the s#me time, the President c#nnot st#nd by hel lessly bereft of leg#l remedies if somebody vilifies or m#ligns him or her. )he %ourt h#s decided to deter the (chilling effect( issue for # l#ter d#y. )o this, " t#8e e/ce tion. " 8no$ th#t most of our fisc#ls #nd =udges #re cour#geous individu#ls $ho $ould not #llo$ #ny consider#tions of ossible conse;uences to their c#reers st#nd in the $#y of ublic duty. @ut $hy should $e sub=ect them to this roblem: And $hy should $e #llo$ ossibility of the tri#l court tre#ting #nd deciding the c#se #s one for ordin#ry libel $ithout bothering to fully e/ lore the more im ort#nt #re#s of concern, the
e/tremely difficult is involving government o$er #nd freedom of e/ ression. ?o$ever, since $e h#ve decided to defer the (chilling effect( issue for # l#ter d#y, " limit myself to reiter#ting the dissenting $ords of Mr. Justice J#c8son in the Americ#n c#se of 6eaurn%ais ! Illinois A7D7 <. S. *1B3 $hen he s#id. ("f one c#n cl#im to #nnounce the =udgment of leg#l history on #ny sub=ect, it is th#t crimin#l libel l#$s #re consistent $ith the conce t of ordered liberty only $hen # lied $ith s#fegu#rds evolved to revent their inv#sion of freedom of e/ ression.( "n the tri#l of the libel c#se #g#inst the etitioners, the s#fegu#rds in the n#me of freedom of e/ ression should be f#ithfully # lied. A44!n%i: 6 Si va vs. +*!si%ing 1$%g!
"n this s eci#l civil #ction for certior#ri, etitioners see8 the nullific#tion of Se#rch >#rr#nt 9o. 1 issued by res ondentJudge #s $ell #s the return of the money in the #mount of P1,*71.BB seiCed from etitioner Antoniet# Silv#. )he #ntecedent f#cts #re #s follo$s2 On June 17, 19.6, M-Sgt. 0#nulfo ,ill#mor, Jr., #s chief of the P% 9#rcom Det#chment in Dum#guete %ity, 9egros Orient#l, filed #n (A lic#tion for Se#rch >#rr#nt( $ith the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, @r#nch +++""", Dum#guete %ity #g#inst etitioners 9icomedes Silv# #nd M#rlon Silv#. 1 )his # lic#tion $#s #ccom #nied by # (De osition of >itness( e/ecuted by Pfc. Arthur M. Alcor#n #nd P#t. 'eon ). Iuindo, #lso d#ted June 17, 19.6. 2
145
On the s#me d#y, Judge 9ic8#rter A. Ont#l, then Presiding Judge of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, @r#nch +++""", Dum#guete %ity, ursu#nt to the s#id (A lic#tion for Se#rch >#rr#nt( #nd (De osition of >itness(, issued Se#rch >#rr#nt 9o. 1, directing the #fores#id olice officers to se#rch the room of M#rlon Silv# in the residence of 9icomedes Silv# for viol#tion of 0e ublic Act 9o. 6D*1, other$ise 8no$n #s the D#ngerous Drugs Act of 196*, #s #mended. Pertinent ortions of Se#rch >#rr#nt 9o. 1 re#d #s follo$s2 r'' ("t # e#ring to the s#tisf#ction of the undersigned #fter e/#mining o#th Asic3 2S:T ;anulfo T $illamor, 1r #nd his $itnesses Asic3 'fc Art%ur 2 Alcoran and 'at Leon T <uindo th#t there is rob#ble c#use to believe th#t possession and control of 2ari=uana dried lea!es, ci)arettes, =oint h#s been committed or is #bout to be committed #nd th#t there #re good #nd sufficient re#sons to believe th#t mari=uana dried lea!es, ci)arettes, =oint h#s in ossession #nd-or control #t Tama>s ;oom +;)t side ,st Floor. loc#ted #t 8ono7Limba)a Dri!e, Tan=a#, 8e) *r $hich is-#re2 (+ ASub=ect of the offense st#ted #bove AStolen or embeCCled or other roceeds of fruits of the offense5 (+ A<sed or intended to be used #s me#ns of committing #n offense. (Lou #re hereby comm#nded to m#8e #n immedi#te se#rch #t #ny time of the d#y Anight3 of the room of TamaSil!a residence of %is fat%er Comedes Sil!a to open +sic. aparadors, loc5ers, cabinets, cartoons, containers, forth$ith seiCe #nd t#8e ossession of the follo$ing ro erty 2ari=uana dried lea!es, ci)arettes, =oint #nd bring the s#id ro erty to the undersigned to be de#lt $ith #s the l#$ directs.( F
"n the course of the se#rch, the serving officers #lso seiCed money belonging to Antoniet# Silv# in the #mount of P1,*71.DB. On June 16, 19.6, Antoniet# Silv# filed # motion for the return of the s#id #mount on the grounds th#t the se#rch $#rr#nt only #uthoriCed the serving officers to seiCe m#ri=u#n# dried le#ves, cig#rettes #nd =oint, #nd th#t s#id officers f#iled or refused to m#8e # return of the s#id se#rch $#rr#nt in gross viol#tion of Section 11, 0ule 1*6 of the 0ules of %ourt. H Acting on s#id motion, Judge Ont#l issued #n Order d#ted July 1, 19.6, st#ting th#t the court (holds in #bey#nce the dis osition of the s#id #mount of P1,*71.DB ending the filing of # ro ri#te ch#rges in connection $ith the se#rch $#rr#nt.( G On July *., 19.6, etitioners filed # motion to ;u#sh Se#rch >#rr#nt 9o. 1 on the grounds th#t A13 it $#s issued on the sole b#sis of # mimeogr# hed (A lic#tion for Se#rch >#rr#nt( #nd (De osition of >itness(, $hich $ere #ccom lished by merely filling in the bl#n8s #nd A*3 the =udge f#iled to erson#lly e/#mine the com l#in#nt #nd $itnesses by se#rching ;uestions #nd #ns$ers in viol#tion of Section 7, 0ule 1*6 of the 0ules of %ourt. ? On August 11, 19.6, res ondent tri#l court, through Judge &ugenio M. %ruC, $ho, by then, h#d re l#ced retired JudgeOnt#l, issued #n Order denying the motion for l#c8 of merit, finding the re;uisites necess#ry for the issu#nce of # v#lid se#rch $#rr#nt duly com lied $ith. @ A motion for reconsider#tion d#ted Se tember 1, 19.6 filed by etitioners $#s li8e$ise denied by Judge %ruC in #n order d#ted October 19, 19.6. ?ence, this s eci#l civil #ction for certior#ri. Petitioners #llege th#t the issu#nce of Se#rch >#rr#nt 9o. 1 $#s t#inted $ith illeg#lity #nd th#t res ondent Judge should be vie$ed to h#ve #cted $ithout or in e/cess of =urisdiction, or committed gr#ve
146
#buse of discretion #mounting to l#c8 of =urisdiction $hen he issued the Order d#ted August 11, 19.6, denying their motion to ;u#sh Se#rch >#rr#nt 9o. 1. >e rule for etitioners. Section *, Article """ A@ill of 0ights3 of the 19.6 %onstitution gu#r#ntees the right to erson#l liberty #nd security of homes #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCures. )his section rovides2 '' r (S&%)"O9 *.)he right of the eo le to be secure in their ersons, houses, # ers, #nd effects #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCures of $h#tever n#ture #nd for #ny ur ose sh#ll be inviol#ble, #nd no se#rch $#rr#nt or $#rr#nt of #rrest sh#ll issue e/ce t u on rob#ble c#use to be determined erson#lly by the =udge#fter e/#min#tion under o#th or #ffirm#tion of the com l#in#nt #nd the $itnesses he m#y roduce, #nd #rticul#rly describing the l#ce to be se#rched #nd the ersons or things to be seiCed.( )he ur ose of the constitution#l rovision #g#inst unl#$ful se#rches #nd seiCures is to revent viol#tions of riv#te security in erson #nd ro erty, #nd unl#$ful inv#sion of the s#nctity of the home, by officers of the l#$ #cting under legisl#tive or =udici#l s#nction, #nd to give remedy #g#inst such usur #tions $hen #ttem ted. > )hus, Sections 7 #nd D, 0ule 1*6 of the 0ules of %ourt rovide for the re;uisites for the issu#nce of # se#rch $#rr#nt, to $it2 (S&%)"O9 7.;e&uisite for issuin) searc% 4arrant. Q A se#rch $#rr#nt sh#ll not issue but u on rob#ble c#use in connection $ith one s ecific offense to be determined erson#lly by the =udge #fter e/#min#tion under o#th or #ffirm#tion of the com l#in#nt #nd the $itnesses
he m#y roduce, #nd #rticul#rly describing the l#ce to be se#rched #nd the things to be seiCed. (S&%)"O9 D.E"amination of complainant5 record. Q )he =udge must, before issuing the $#rr#nt, erson#lly e/#mine in the form of se#rching ;uestions #nd #ns$ers, in $riting #nd under o#th the com l#in#nt #nd #ny $itnesses he m#y roduce on f#cts erson#lly 8no$n to them #nd #tt#ch to the record their s$orn st#tements together $ith #ny #ffid#vits submitted.( @#sed on the #forecited constitution#l #nd st#tutory rovisions, the =udge must, before issuing # se#rch $#rr#nt, determine $hether there is rob#ble c#use by e/#mining the com l#in#nt #nd $itnesses through se#rching ;uestions #nd #ns$ers. "n the c#se of 'rudente !s. Da#rit, J.0. 9o. .*.6B, December 1D, 19.9, 1.B S%0A 69, 666 this %ourt defined ( rob#ble c#use( #s follo$s2 ()he ! rob#ble c#use! for # v#lid se#rch $#rr#nt, h#s been defined !#s such f#cts #nd circumst#nces $hich $ould le#d # re#son#bly discreet #nd rudent m#n to believe th#t #n offense h#s been committed, #nd th#t ob=ects sought in connection $ith the offense #re in the l#ce sought to be se#rched!. )his rob#ble c#use must be sho$n to be $ithin the erson#l 8no$ledge of the com l#in#nt or the $itnesses he m#y roduce #nd not b#sed on mere he#rs#y.(
"n the c#se #t b#r, $e h#ve c#refully e/#mined the ;uestioned se#rch $#rr#nt #s $ell #s the (A lic#tion for Se#rch >#rr#nt( #nd (De osition of >itness(, #nd found th#t Judge Ont#l f#iled to com ly $ith the leg#l re;uirement th#t he must e/#mine the # lic#nt #nd
147
his $itnesses in the form of se#rching ;uestions #nd #ns$ers in order to determine the e/istence of rob#ble c#use. )he =oint (De osition of >itness( e/ecuted by Pfc. Alcor#n #nd P#t. Iuindo, $hich $#s submitted together $ith the (A lic#tion for Se#rch >#rr#nt( cont#ined, for the most #rt, suggestive ;uestions #ns$er#ble by merely l#cing (yes( or (no( in the bl#n8s rovided thereon. "n f#ct there $ere only four AD3 ;uestions #s8ed, to $it2 (IDo you erson#lly 8no$ 2?S)t ;anulfo $illamor, 1r. the # lic#nt for # se#rch $#rr#nt:( A@es, sir. (IDo you h#ve erson#l 8no$ledge th#t the s#id remises sub=ect of the offense st#ted #bove, #nd other roceeds of fruit of the offense, used or obt#in Asic3 or intended to be used #s me#ns of committing #n offense:( A @es, sir. 'e/'ib (IDo you 8no$ erson#lly $ho is-#re the erson $ho h#s h#ve the ro erty in his-their ossession #nd control:( A@es, sir. (I?o$ did you 8no$ #ll this Asic3 things:( AT%rou)% discreet sur!eillance.( B )he #bove de osition did not only cont#in le#ding ;uestions but it $#s #lso very bro#d. )he ;uestions ro ounded to the $itnesses $ere in f#ct, not robing but $ere merely routin#ry. )he de osition $#s #lre#dy mimeogr# hed #nd #ll th#t the $itnesses h#d to do $#s fill in their #ns$ers on the bl#n8s rovided.
"n the c#se of 8olasco !s. 'ao, J.0. 9o. 69.B7, October ., 19.6, 179 S%0A 11*, 167, this %ourt held2 ()he ! rob#ble c#use! re;uired to =ustify the issu#nce of # se#rch $#rr#nt com rehends such f#cts #nd circumst#nces #s $ill induce # c#utious m#n to rely u on them #nd #ct in ursu#nt thereof Of the . ;uestions #s8ed, the 1st, *nd #nd Dth ert#in to identity. )he 7rd #nd 1th #re le#ding not se#rching ;uestions. )he 6th, 6th #nd .th refer to the descri tion of the erson#lities to be seiCed, $hich is identic#l to th#t in the Se#rch >#rr#nt #nd suffers from the s#me l#c8 of #rticul#rity. )he e/#min#tion conducted $#s gener#l in n#ture #nd merely re etitious of the de osition of s#id $itness. Mere gener#liC#tion $ill not suffice #nd does not s#tisfy the re;uirements or rob#ble c#use u on $hich # $#rr#nt m#y issue.( 'i8e$ise, in the Prudente c#se cited e#rlier, this %ourt decl#red the se#rch $#rr#nt issued #s inv#lid due to the f#ilure of the =udge to e/#mine the $itness in the form of se#rching ;uestions #nd #ns$ers. Pertinent ortion of the decision re#ds2 (Moreover, # erus#l of the de osition of P-'t. Florencio Angeles sho$s th#t it $#s too brief #nd short. 0es ondent Judge did not e/#mine him !in the form of se#rching ;uestions #nd #ns$ers!. On the contr#ry, the ;uestions #s8ed $ere le#ding #s they c#lled for # sim le !yes! or !no! #ns$er. As held in Iuintero vs. 9@", !the ;uestions ro ounded by res ondent &/ecutive Judge to the # lic#nt!s $itness #re not sufficiently se#rching to est#blish rob#ble c#use. As8ing of le#ding ;uestions to the de onent in #n # lic#tion for se#rch $#rr#nt, #nd conducting of e/#min#tion in # gener#l m#nner, $ould not s#tisfy the re;uirements for issu#nce of # v#lid se#rch $#rr#nt.( 10
148
)hus, in issuing # se#rch $#rr#nt, the =udge must strictly com ly $ith the constitution#l #nd st#tutory re;uirement th#t he must determine the e/istence of rob#ble c#use by erson#lly e/#mining the # lic#nt #nd his $itnesses in the form of se#rching ;uestions #nd #ns$ers. ?is f#ilure to com ly $ith this re;uirement constitutes gr#ve #buse of discretion. As decl#red in 2arcelo !s. De :u9man, J.0. 9o. 'E*9B66, June *9, 19.*, 11D S%0A 666, (the c# ricious disreg#rd by the=udge in not com lying $ith the re;uirements before issu#nce of se#rch $#rr#nts constitutes #buse of discretion(. )he officers im lementing the se#rch $#rr#nt cle#rly #bused their #uthority $hen they seiCed the money of Antoniet#Silv#. )his is highly irregul#r considering th#t Antoniet# Silv# $#s not even n#med #s one of the res ondents, th#t the $#rr#nt did not indic#te the seiCure of money but only of m#ri=u#n# le#ves, cig#rettes #nd =oints, #nd th#t the se#rch $#rr#nt $#s issued for the seiCure of erson#l ro erty A#3 sub=ect of the offense #nd Ab3 used or intended to be used #s me#ns of committing #n offense #nd 9O) for erson#l ro erty stolen or embeCCled or other roceeds of fruits of the offense. )hus, the then residing Judge Ont#l li8e$ise #bused his discretion $hen he re=ected the motion of etitioner Antoniet# Silv# see8ing the return of her seiCed money. >?&0&FO0&, the etition is gr#nted. Se#rch >#rr#nt 9o. 1 is hereby decl#red null #nd void. 0es ondent Judge of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt of 9egros Orient#l, @r#nch +++""" is directed to order the return to etitioner Antoniet# Silv# of the #mount of P1,*71.DB $hich h#d e#rlier been seiCed from her by virtue of the illeg#l se#rch $#rr#nt. )his decision is immedi#tely e/ecutory. 9o costs. 'e/'ib A44!n%i: C /o*ano vs. 9ivo
$#s Fu L#n Fun, her minor son #lso by the first m#rri#ge, born in ?ong8ong on Se tember 11, 1916. %h#n S#u >#h #nd her minor son Fu L#n Fun $ere ermitted entry into the Phili ines under # tem or#ry visitor!s vis# for t$o A*3 months #nd #fter they osted # c#sh bond of PD,BBB.BB. On J#nu#ry *D, 196*, %h#n S#u >#h m#rried &steb#n Mor#no, # n#tiveEborn Fili ino citiCen. @orn to this union on Se tember 16, 196* $#s &steb#n Mor#no, Jr. )o rolong their st#y in the Phili ines, %h#n S#u >#h #nd Fu L#n Fun obt#ined sever#l e/tensions. )he l#st e/tension e/ ired on Se tember 1B, 196*. "n # letter d#ted August 71, 196*, the %ommissioner of "mmigr#tion ordered %h#n S#u >#h #nd her son, Fu L#n Fun, to le#ve the country on or before Se tember 1B, 196* $ith # $#rning th#t u on f#ilure to do so, he $ill issue # $#rr#nt for their #rrest #nd $ill c#use the confisc#tion of their bond. "nste#d of le#ving the country, on Se tember 1B, 196*, %h#n S#u >#h A$ith her husb#nd &steb#n Mor#no3 #nd Fu L#n Fun etitioned the %ourt of First "nst#nce of M#nil# for m#nd#mus to com el the %ommissioner of "mmigr#tion to c#ncel etitioner!s Alien %ertific#tes of 0egistr#tion5 rohibition to sto the %ommissioner from issuing $#rr#nts of #rrest ending resolution of this c#se. 1 )he tri#l court, on 9ovember 7, 196*, issued the $rit of relimin#ry in=unction r#yed for, u on # P*,BBBEbond. After tri#l #nd the sti ul#tions of f#cts filed by the #rties, the %ourt of First "nst#nce rendered =udgment, !i92 ("9 ,"&> OF A'' )?& FO0&JO"9J, =udgment is hereby rendered #s follo$s2 A#3Jr#nting this etition for M#nd#mus #nd Prohibition $ith res ect to etitioner %?A9 SA< >A?, $ho is hereby decl#red # citiCen of the
%h#n S#u >#h, # %hinese citiCen born in Fu8ien, %hin# on J#nu#ry 6, 197*, #rrived in the Phili ines on 9ovember *7, 1961 to visit her cousin, S#muel 'ee M#l# s. She left in m#inl#nd %hin# t$o of her children by # first m#rri#ge2 Fu )se ?#$ #nd Fu L#n S#i. >ith her
149
Phili ines5 ordering the res ondent to c#ncel her Alien %ertific#te of 0egistr#tion #nd other immigr#tion # ers u on the #yment of ro er dues5 #nd decl#ring the relimin#ry in=unction $ith res ect to her erm#nent #dmission, rohibiting the res ondent, his re resent#tives or subordin#tes from #rresting #nd-or de orting s#id etitioner5 Ab3Dismissing this etition $ith res ect to etitioner F< LA9 F<9, #nd dissolving the $rit of relimin#ry in=unction issued herein, restr#ining the res ondent, his re resent#tives or subordin#tes from #rresting #nd-or de orting s#id etitioner5 Ac3AuthoriCing res ondent %ommissioner to forfeit the bond filed by herein etitioners %?A9 SA< >A? #nd F< LA9 F<9 in the #mount of PD,BBB.BB5 #nd Ad3Denying, for l#c8 of merit, the r#yer to decl#re Sec. 76 A#3 of the Phili ine "mmigr#tion Act of 19DB unconstitution#l >ithout ronouncement #s to costs.( Petitioners #nd res ondent %ommissioner both # >e $ill de#l $ith the cl#ims of both # se;uence. e#led.
Pl#ced to the fore is #r#gr# h 1, Section 11 of %ommon$e#lth Act D67 W0evised 9#tur#liC#tion ActX, $hich re#ds2 !Sec. 11.Effect of t%e naturali9ation on 4ife and c%ildren. Q Any $om#n $ho is no$ or m#y here#fter be m#rried to # citiCen of the Phili ines, #nd $ho might herself be l#$fully n#tur#liCed sh#ll be deemed # citiCen of the Phili ines.( )o # ly this rovision, t$o re;uisites must concur2 A#3 # v#lid m#rri#ge of #n #lien $om#n to # citiCen of the Phili ines5 #nd Ab3 the #lien $om#n herself might be l#$fully n#tur#liCed. >e m#y concede th#t the first re;uisite h#s been ro erly met. )he v#lidity of the m#rri#ge is resumed. @ut c#n the s#me be s#id of the second re;uisite: )his ;uestion by #ll me#ns is not ne$. "n # series of c#ses, this court h#s decl#red th#t the m#rri#ge of #n #lien $om#n to # Fili ino citiCen does not ipso facto m#8e her # Fili ino citiCen. She must s#tisf#ctorily sho$ th#t she h#s #ll the ;u#lific#tions #nd none of the dis;u#lific#tions re;uired by the 9#tur#liC#tion '#$. F 'y Jio8 ?# #li#s >y Jio8 ?#, et #l. !s. &milio J#l#ng, 'E*177*, M#rch 1., 1966, cle#rly $rites do$n the hiloso hy behind the rule in the follo$ing e/ ressive l#ngu#ge, !i92 (0eflection $ill reve#l $hy this must be so. )he ;u#lific#tions rescribed under section * of the 9#tur#liC#tion Act, #nd the dis;u#lific#tions enumer#ted in its section D, #re not mutu#lly e/clusive5 #nd if #ll th#t $ere to be re;uired is th#t the $ife of # Fili ino be not dis;u#lified under section D, the result might $ell he th#t citiCenshi $ould be conferred u on ersons in viol#tion of the olicy of the st#tute. For e/#m le, section D dis;u#lified only Q
ell#nts in their ro er
1.)he Solicitor Jener#l!s brief #ss#ils the tri#l court!s decl#r#tion th#t %h#n S#u >#h is # citiCen of the Phili ines. )he court a &uo too8 the osition th#t (%h#n S#u >#h bec#me, by virtue of, #nd u on, her m#rri#ge to &steb#n Mor#no, # n#tur#lEborn Fili ino, # Fili ino citiCen.( 2
150
Ac3Polyg#mists or believers in the r#ctice of olyg#my5 #nd Ad3Persons convicted of crimes involving mor#l tur itude!, so th#t # bl#c8m#iler, or # m#int#iner of g#mbling or b#$dy houses, not reviously convicted by # com etent court, $ould not be thereby dis;u#lified5 still, it is cert#in th#t the l#$ did not intend such # erson to be #dmitted #s # citiCen in vie$ of the re;uirement of section * th#t #n # lic#nt for citiCenshi !must be of good mor#l ch#r#cter!. Simil#rly, the citiCen!s $ife might be # convinced believer in r#ci#l su rem#cy, in government by cert#in selected cl#sses, in the right to vote e/clusively by cert#in (herrenvol8!, #nd thus disbelieve in the rinci les underlying the Phili ine %onstitution5 yet she $ould not be dis;u#lified under section D, #s long #s she is not !o osed to org#niCed government!, nor #ffili#ted to grou s !u holding or te#ching doctrines o osing #ll org#niCed governments!, nor !defending or te#ching the necessity or ro riety of violence, erson#l #ss#ult or #ss#ssin#tion for the success or redomin#nce of their ide#s!. Et sic de caeteris.( < on the rinci le of selective citiCenshi , $e c#nnot #fford to de #rt from the $ise rece t #ffirmed #nd re#ffirmed in the c#ses heretofore noted. "n the #ddition#l sti ul#tion of f#cts of July 7, 1967, etitioners #dmit th#t %h#n S#u >#h is not ossessed of #ll the ;u#lific#tions re;uired by the 9#tur#liC#tion '#$.
@ec#use of #ll these, $e #re left under no doubt th#t etitioner %h#n S#u >#h did not become # Fili ino citiCen.
*.S;u#rely ut in issue by etitioners is the constitution#lity of Section 76A#3 of the "mmigr#tion Act of 19DB, $hich re#ds2 (Sec. 76.A#3 )he follo$ing #liens sh#ll be #rrested u on the $#rr#nt of the %ommissioner of "mmigr#tion or of #ny other officer design#ted by him for the ur ose #nd de orted u on the $#rr#nt of the %ommission of "mmigr#tion #fter # determin#tion by the @o#rd of %ommissioners of the e/istence of the ground for de ort#tion #s ch#rged #g#inst the #lien2 /// /// /// A63Any #lien $ho rem#ins in the Phili ines in viol#tion of #ny limit#tion or condition under $hich he $#s #dmitted #s # nonimmigr#nt.( Petitioners #rgue th#t the leg#l rece t =ust ;uoted trenches u on the constitution#l m#nd#te in Section 1 A73, Article """ W@ill of 0ightX of the %onstitution, to $it2 (A73)he right of the eo le to be secure in their ersons, houses, # ers, #nd effects #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCures shell not be viol#ted, #nd no $#rr#nts sh#ll issue but u on rob#ble c#use, to be determined by the =udge #fter e/#min#tion under o#th or #ffirm#tion of the com l#in#nt #nd the $itnesses he m#y roduce, #nd #rticul#rly describing the l#ce to be se#rched, #nd the ersons or things to be seiCed.(
151
)hey s#y th#t the %onstitution limits to =udges the #uthority to issue $#rr#nts of #rrest #nd th#t the legisl#tive deleg#tion of such o$er to the %ommissioner of "mmigr#tion is thus viol#tive of the @ill of 0ights. Section 1 A73, Article """ of the %onstitution, $e erceive, does not re;uire =udici#l intervention in the e/ecution of # fin#l order of de ort#tion issued in #ccord#nce $ith l#$. )he constitution#l limit#tion contem l#tes #n order of #rrest in the e/ercise of =udici#l o$er H #s # ste relimin#ry or incident#l to rosecution or roceedings for # given offense or #dministr#tive #ction, not #s # me#sure indis ens#ble to c#rry out # v#lid decision by # com etent offici#l, such #s # leg#l order of de ort#tion, issued by the %ommissioner of "mmigr#tion, in ursu#nce of # v#lid legisl#tion. )he follo$ing from Americ#n Juris rudence, G is illumin#ting2 ("t is thoroughly est#blished th#t %ongress h#s o$er to order the de ort#tion of #liens $hose resence in the country it deems hurtful. O$ing to the n#ture of the roceeding, the de ort#tion of #n #lien $ho is found in this country in viol#tion of l#$ is not # de riv#tion of liberty $ithout due rocess of l#$. )his is so, #lthough the in;uiry devolves u on e/ecutive officers, #nd their findings of f#ct, #fter A f#ir though summ#ry he#ring, #re m#de conclusive.( /// /// /// ()he determin#tion of the ro riety of de ort#tion is not # rosecution for, or # conviction of, crime5 nor is the de ort#tion # unishment, even though the f#cts underlying the decision m#y constitute # crime under loc#l l#$. )he roceeding is in effect sim ly # refus#l by the government to h#rbor ersons $hom it does not $#nt. )he coincidence of loc#l en#l l#$ $ith the olicy of congress is
urely #ccident#l, #nd, though su orted by the s#me f#cts, # crimin#l rosecution #nd # roceeding for de ort#tion #re se #r#te #nd inde endent.( "n conse;uence, the constitution#l gu#r#ntee set forth in Section 1A73, Article """ of the %onstitution #fores#id re;uiring th#t the issue of rob#ble c#use be determined by # =udge, does not e/tend to de ort#tion roceedings. ? )he vie$, $e, here e/ ress funds su ort in the discussions during the constitution#l convention. )he convention recogniCed, #s s#nctioned by due rocess, ossibilities #nd c#ses of de riv#tion of liberty, other th#n by order of # com etent court. @ "ndeed, the o$er to de ort or e/ el #liens is #n #ttribute of sovereignty. Such o$er is l#nted on the (#cce ted m#/im of intern#tion#l l#$, th#t every sovereign n#tion h#s the o$er, #s inherent in sovereignty, #nd essenti#l to selfE reserv#tion, to forbid the entr#nce of foreigners $ithin its dominions.( > So it is, th#t this %ourt once # tly rem#r8ed th#t there c#n be no controversy on the f#ct th#t $here #liens #re #dmitted #s tem or#ry visitors, (the l#$ is to the effect th#t tem or#ry visitors $ho do not de #rt u on the e/ ir#tion of the eriod of st#y gr#nted them #re sub=ect to de ort#tion by the %ommissioner of "mmigr#tion, for h#ving viol#ted the limit#tion or condition under $hich they $ere #dmitted #s nonE immigr#nts A"mmigr#tion '#$, Sec. 76A#3, subsection A63 %.A. 617, #s #mended3( B And, in # c#se directly in oint, $here the o$er of the %ommissioner to issue $#rr#nts of #rrest 4as c%allen)ed as unconstitutional bec#use (such o$er is only vested in # =udge by Section 1, #r#gr# h 7, Article """ of our %onstitution(, this %ourt decl#red Q ()his #rgument overloo8s the f#ct th#t the st#y of # ell#nt 9g ?u# )o #s tem or#ry visitor is sub=ect to cert#in contr#ctu#l sti ul#tions #s
152
cont#ined in the c#sh bond ut u by him, #mong them, th#t in c#se of bre#ch the %ommissioner m#y re;uire the recommitment of the erson in $hose f#vor the bond h#s been filed. )he %ommissioner did nothing but to enforce such condition. Such # ste is necess#ry to en#ble the %ommissioner to re #re the ground for his de ort#tion under section 76 A#3 of %ommon$e#lth Act 617. A contr#ry inter ret#tion $ould render such o$er nug#tory to the detriment of the St#te.( 10 "t is in this conte/t th#t $e rule th#t Section 76 A#3 of the "mmigr#tion Act of 19DB is not constitution#lly roscribed. 7.A se;uel to the ;uestion =ust discussed is the second error set forth in the government!s brief. )he Solicitor Jener#l b#l8s #t the lo$er court!s ruling th#t etitioner %h#n S#u >#h is entitled to erm#nent residence in the Phili ines $ithout first com lying $ith the re;uirements of Sections 9 #nd 17 of the "mmigr#tion Act of 19DB, #s #mended by 0e ublic Act 1B7. >e first go to the l#$, !i9: (S&%. 9 Wl#st #r#gr# hX An #lien $ho is #dmitted #s # nonimmigr#nt c#nnot rem#in in the Phili ines erm#nently. )o obt#in erm#nent #dmission, # nonimmigr#nt #lien must de #rt volunt#rily to some foreign country #nd rocure from the # ro ri#te Phili ine consul the ro er vis# #nd there#fter undergo e/#min#tion by the officers of the @ure#u of "mmigr#tion #t # Phili ine ort of entry for determin#tion of his #dmissibility in #ccord#nce $ith the re;uirements of this Act.( /// /// ///
(Sec. 17.<nder the conditions set forth in this Act, there m#y be #dmitted into the Phili ines immigr#nts, termed !;uot# immigr#nts! not in e/cess of fifty A1B3 of #ny one n#tion#lity or $ithout n#tion#lity for #ny one c#lend#r ye#r, e/ce t th#t the follo$ing immigr#nts, termed !non;uot# immigr#nts, m#y be #dmitted $ithout reg#rd to such numeric#l limit#tions. )he corres onding Phili ine %onsul#r re resent#tive #bro#d sh#ll investig#te #nd certify the eligibility of # ;uot# immigr#nt revious to his #dmission into the Phili ines. Iu#lified #nd desir#ble #liens $ho #re in the Phili ines under tem or#ry st#y m#y be #dmitted $ithin the ;uot#, sub=ect to the rovision of the l#st #r#gr# h of section 9 of this Act. A#3)he $ife or the husb#nd or the unm#rried child under t$entyE one ye#rs of #ge of # Phili ine citiCen, if #ccom #nying or follo$ing to =oin such citiCen2 Ab3A child of #lien #rents born during the tem or#ry visit #bro#d of the mother, the mother h#ving been reviously l#$fully #dmitted into the Phili ines for erm#nent residence, if the child is #ccom #nying or coming to =oin # #rent #nd # lies for #dmission $ithin five ye#rs from the d#te of its birth5( %oncededly, %h#n S#u >#h entered the Phili ines on # tourist temporar# visitor!s vis#. She is # nonEimmigr#nt. <nder Section 11 =ust ;uoted, she m#y therefore be #dmitted if she $ere # ;u#lified #nd desir#ble #lien #nd sub=ect to the rovisions of the l#st #r#gr# h of Section 9. )herefore, first, she must de #rt volunt#rily to some foreign country5second, she must rocure from the # ro ri#te consul the ro er vis#5 #nd t%ird, she must there#fter undergo e/#min#tion by the offici#ls of the @ure#u of "mmigr#tion #t
153
the ort of entry for determin#tion of her #dmissibility in #ccord#nce $ith the re;uirements of the "mmigr#tion Act. )his %ourt in # number of c#ses h#s ruled, #nd consistently too, th#t #n #lien #dmitted #s # tem or#ry visitor c#nnot ch#nge his or her st#tus $ithout first de #rting from the country #nd com lying $ith the re;uirements of Section 9 of the "mmigr#tion Act. 11 )he gr#v#men of etitioner!s #rgument is th#t %h#n S#u >#h h#s, since her entry, m#rried in M#nil# # n#tiveEborn Fili ino, &steb#n Mor#no. "t $ill not #rticul#rly hel #n#lysis for etitioners to # e#l to f#mily solid#rity in #n effort to th$#rt her de ort#tion. %h#n S#u >#h, seemingly is not one $ho h#s # high reg#rd for such solid#rity. Proof2 She left t$o of her children by the first m#rri#ge, both minors, in the c#re of neighbors in Fu8ien, %hin#. )hen, the $ording of the st#tute heretofore #dverted to is # forbidding obst#cle $hich $ill revent this %ourt from $riting into the l#$ #n #ddition#l rovision th#t m#rri#ge of # tem or#ry #lien visitor to # Fili ino $ould ipso facto m#8e her # erm#nent resident in this country. )his is # field closed to =udici#l #ction. 9o bre#dth of discretion is #llo$ed us. >e c#nnot insul#te her from the St#te!s o$er of de ort#tion. 0e#lly, it $ould be #n e#sy m#tter for #n #lien $om#n to enter the Phili ines #s # tem or#ry visitor, go through # moc8 m#rri#ge, but #ctu#lly live $ith #nother m#n #s husb#nd #nd $ife, #nd thereby s8irt the rovisions of our immigr#tion l#$. Also, # $om#n of undesir#ble ch#r#cter m#y enter this country, ly # ernicious tr#de, m#rry # Fili ino, #nd #g#in thro$ overbo#rd Sections 9 #nd 17 of the Act. Such # fl#n8ing movement, $e #re confident, is im ermissible. 0ecently $e confirmed the rule th#t #n #lien $ife of # Fili ino m#y not st#y erm#nently $ithout first de #rting from the Phili ines. 0e#son2 Discour#ge entry under f#lse retenses. 12
)he ruling of the tri#l court on this score should be reversed. D."t is etitioner!s turn to oint #s error the dismiss#l of the etition for m#nd#mus #nd rohibition $ith res ect to etitioner Fu L#n Fun. Petitioner!s line of thought is this2 Fu L#n Fun follo$s the citiCenshi of his mother. )hey cite Section 11, #r#gr# h 7, %ommon$e#lth Act D67, $hich s#ys th#t2 (A foreignEborn minor child, if d$elling in the Phili ines #t the time of the n#tur#liC#tion of the #rent, shell #utom#tic#lly be come # Phili ine citiCen. . . .( Petitioner!s osition is b#sed on the #ssum tion th#t %h#n S#u >#h, the mother, is # Fili ino citiCen. >e h#ve held th#t she is not. At best, Fu L#n Fun is # ste Eson of &steb#n Mor#no, husb#nd of %h#n S#u >#h. A ste Eson is not # foreignEborn child of the ste Ef#ther. )he $ord c%ild, $e #re cert#in, me#ns legitim#te child, not # ste E child. >e #re not $#nting in recedents. )hus, $hen the %onstitution rovides th#t (WtXhose $hose f#thers #re citiCens of the Phili ines( #re citiCens thereof, 1F the fund#ment#l ch#rter intends (those( to # ly to legitim#te children. 1H "n #nother c#se, the term (minor children( or (minor child( in Section 11 of the 0evised 9#tur#liC#tion '#$ refers only to legitim#te children of Fili ino citiCens. )his %ourt, thru Mr. %hief Justice 0oberto %once cion, there s#id2 1G ("t is cl#imed th#t the hr#ses !minor children! #nd !minor child!, used in these rovisions, include #do ted children. )he #rgument is redic#ted u on the theory th#t #n #do ted child is, for #ll intents #nd ur oses, # legitim#te child. >henever, the $ord !children! or !child! is used in st#tutes, it is gener#lly understood, ho$ever, to refer to legitim#te children, unless the conte/t of the l#$ #nd its s irit indic#te cle#rly the contr#ry. )hus, for inst#nce, $hen the %onstitution rovides th#t !those $hose f#thers #re citiCens of the Phili ines!, #nd !those $hose mothers #re citiCens of the Phili ines! $ho sh#ll elect
154
Phili ine citiCenshi u on re#ching the #ge of m#=ority #re citiCens of the Phili ines Article ",, Section 1, subdivisions W7X #nd ADX3, our fund#ment#l l#$ cle#rly refers to le)itimate children A%hiongbi#n !s. De 'eon, D6 Off. J#C., 761*E761D5 Serr# !s. 0e ublic, 'ED**7, M#y 1*, 191*3.( At #ny r#te, Fu L#n Fun entered the Phili ines #s # tem or#ry visitor. )he st#tus of # tem or#ry visitor c#nnot be converted into th#t of # erm#nent resident, #s $e h#ve heretofore held, $ithout first com lying $ith Section 9 of the "mmigr#tion '#$. 1.Petitioners fin#lly #ver th#t the lo$er court erred in #uthoriCing res ondent %ommissioner to forfeit the bond filed by etitioners %h#n S#u >#h #nd Fu L#n Fun in the #mount of PD,BBB.BB. ?ere is etitioner!s osture. )hey en=oyed their st#y in the Phili ines u on # bond. 9o$ they come to court #nd s#y th#t #s the rescribed form of this bond $#s not e/ ressly # roved by the Secret#ry of Justice in #ccord#nce $ith Section 7 of %ommon$e#lth Act 617, $hich re#ds Q (Sec. 7.. . . ?e W%ommissioner of "mmigr#tionX sh#ll, sub=ect to the # rov#l of the De #rtment ?e#d, such rules #nd regul#tions #nd rescribe such forms of bond, re orts, #nd other # ers, #nd sh#ll issue from time to time such instruction, not inconsistent $ith l#$, #s he sh#ll deem best c#lcul#ted to c#rry out the rovisions of the immigr#tion l#$s . . .( th#t bond is void. 0e#sons there #re $hich revent us from giving our im rim#tur to this #rgument. )he rovision re;uiring offici#l # rov#l of # bond is merely directory. ("rregul#rity or entire f#ilure in this res ect does not #ffect the v#lidity
of the bond.( 1? )he re#son for the rule is found in 9 %.J., . *6 Afootnote3, $hich re#ds2 (A#3;eason for rule. Q !St#tutes re;uiring bonds to be # roved by cert#in offici#ls are not for t%e purpose of protectin) t%e obli)ors in the bond, but #re #imed to rotect the ublic, to insure their solvency, #nd to cre#te evidence of #n unim e#ch#ble ch#r#cter of the f#ct of their e/ecution. >hen they #re e/ecuted for # leg#l ur ose, before # ro er tribun#l, #nd #re in f#ct #cce ted #nd # roved by the officer or body, $hose duty it $#s to # rove them, it could serve no useful ur ose of the l#$ to hold them inv#lid, to rele#se #ll the oblig#tion thereon, #nd to defe#t every ur ose of its e/ecution, sim ly bec#use the f#ct of # rov#l $#s not indorsed recisely #s h#d been directed by the 'egisl#ture.! Americ#n @oo8 %o., !s. >ells, .7 S> 6**, 6*6, *6 Syl 1119.( Aemp%asis supplied3 And #nother. )his bond $#s #cce ted by the government. "t h#s been there. )he form of the bond here used is of long continued us#ge. "f the government did not ;uestion the form of the bond #t #ll, then $e must #ssume th#t it counted $ith the Secret#ry!s # rov#l. For the resum tion is th#t offici#l duty h#s been leg#lly erformed. Surely enough, e;uit#ble consider#tions $ill sto etitioners from le#ding inv#lidity of the bond. )hey offered th#t bond to en#ble them to enter #nd st#y in this country. )hey en=oyed benefits therefrom. )hey c#nnot, (in l#$ #nd good conscience, be #llo$ed to re# the fruits( of th#t bond, #nd then =ettison the s#me. )hey #re ( recluded from #tt#c8ing the v#lidity( of such bond. 1@ Actu#lly, to etitioners the bond $#s good $hile they sought entry into the Phili ines5 they offered it #s security for the undert#8ing th#t they ($ill #ctu#lly de #rt from the Phili ines( $hen their term of st#y e/ ires. 9o$ th#t the bond is being confisc#ted bec#use they overst#yed, they m#8e #n #boutEf#ce #nd s#y th#t such bond is null
155
#nd void. )hey sh#ll not rofit from this inconsistent osition. )heir bond should be confisc#ted. %onform#bly to the foregoing, the =udgment under revie$ is hereby modified #s follo$s2 A13)he ortion thereof $hich re#ds2 (A#3Jr#nting this etition for M#nd#mus #nd Prohibition $ith res ect to etitioner %?A9 SA< >A?, $ho is hereby decl#red # citiCen of the Phili ines5 ordering the res ondent to c#ncel her Alien %ertific#te of 0egistr#tion #nd other immigr#tion # ers, u on the #yment of ro er dues5 #nd decl#ring the relimin#ry in=unction $ith res ect to her erm#nent, rohibiting the res ondent, his re resent#tives or subordin#tes from #rresting #nd-or de orting s#id etitioner5( is hereby reversed5 #nd, in conse;uence Q )he etition for m#nd#mus #nd rohibition $ith res ect to etitioner %h#n S#u >#h is hereby denied5 #nd the =udgment decl#ring her # citiCen of the Phili ines, directing res ondent to c#ncel her Alien %ertific#te of 0egistr#tion #nd other immigr#tion # ers, #nd decl#ring the relimin#ry in=unction $ith res ect to her erm#nent, #re #ll hereby set #side5 #nd A*3"n #ll other res ects, the decision # #ffirmed. 9o costs. So ordered. Concepcion, C .1 ., ;e#es, 1 .6.L., 2a5alintal, 6en)9on, 1 .'., Aaldi!ar #nd Castro, 11 ., concur. S!4a*at! O4inions e#led from is hereby
DI7ON, 1 ., concurrin)2 " concur Ain the result3 $ith the m#=ority o inion enned by Mr. Justice %onr#do S#ncheC, for the re#son th#t, #s st#ted therein, Q ("n the #ddition#l sti ul#tion of f#cts of July 7, 1967, etitioners #dmit th#t %h#n S#u >#h is not ossessed of #ll the ;u#lific#tions re;uired by the 9#tur#liC#tion '#$(. A44!n%i: D /i"*oso-t Co*4. vs. /a:i"o*4 In".
)his etition for revie$ on certiorari 1 see8s to reverse the %ourt of A e#ls! Decision 2 d#ted *7 December 199. #nd its 0esolution d#ted *9 9ovember 1999 in %AEJ.0. SP 9o. DD666. )he %ourt of A e#ls reversed the Order F of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, @r#nch *7, M#nil# A(0)%(3, denying res ondent M#/icor , "nc.!s A(M#/icor (3 motion to ;u#sh the se#rch $#rr#nt th#t the 0)% issued #g#inst M#/icor . Petitioners #re the riv#te com l#in#nts #g#inst M#/icor for co yright infringement under Section *9 of Presidenti#l Decree 9o. D9 A(Section *9 of PD D9(3 H #nd for unf#ir com etition under Article 1.9 of the 0evised Pen#l %ode A(0P%(3. G Antecedent Facts On *1 July 1996, 9#tion#l @ure#u of "nvestig#tion A(9@"(3 Agent Domin#dor S#mi#no, Jr. A(9@" Agent S#mi#no(3 filed sever#l # lic#tions for se#rch $#rr#nts in the 0)% #g#inst M#/icor for #lleged viol#tion of Section *9 of PD D9 #nd Article 1.9 of the 0P%. After conducting # relimin#ry e/#min#tion of the # lic#nt #nd his $itnesses, Judge >illi#m M. @#yhon issued Se#rch >#rr#nts 9os. 96ED11, 96ED1*, 96ED17 #nd 96ED1D, #ll d#ted *1 July 1996, #g#inst M#/icor . Armed $ith the se#rch $#rr#nts, 9@" #gents conducted on *1 July 1996 # se#rch of M#/icor !s remises #nd seiCed ro erty fitting the descri tion st#ted in the se#rch $#rr#nts.
156
On * Se tember 1996, M#/icor filed # motion to ;u#sh the se#rch $#rr#nts #lleging th#t there $#s no rob#ble c#use for their issu#nce #nd th#t the $#rr#nts #re in the form of (gener#l $#rr#nts.( )he 0)% denied M#/icor !s motion on ** J#nu#ry 1996. )he 0)% #lso denied M#/icor !s motion for reconsider#tion. )he 0)% found rob#ble c#use to issue the se#rch $#rr#nts #fter e/#mining 9@" Agent S#mi#no, John @enedict S#criC A(S#criC(3, #nd com uter technici#n Feli/berto P#nte A(P#nte(3. )he three testified on $h#t they discovered during their res ective visits to M#/icor . 9@" Agent S#mi#no #lso resented certific#tions from etitioners th#t they h#ve not #uthoriCed M#/icor to erform the $itnessed #ctivities using etitioners! roducts. On *D July 1996, M#/icor filed # etition for certiorari $ith the %ourt of A e#ls see8ing to set #side the 0)%!s order. On *7 December 199., the %ourt of A e#ls reversed the 0)%!s order denying M#/icor !s motion to ;u#sh the se#rch $#rr#nts. Petitioners moved for reconsider#tion. )he %ourt of A e#ls denied etitioners! motion on *9 9ovember 1999. )he %ourt of A e#ls held th#t 9@" Agent S#mi#no f#iled to resent during the relimin#ry e/#min#tion conclusive evidence th#t M#/icor roduced or sold the counterfeit roducts. )he %ourt of A e#ls ointed out th#t the s#les recei t 9@" Agent S#mi#no resented #s evidence th#t he bought the roducts from M#/icor $#s in the n#me of # cert#in (Joel Di#C.( ?ence, this etition. T%e Issues Petitioners see8 # revers#l #nd r#ise the follo$ing issues for resolution2 1.>?&)?&0 )?& P&)")"O9 0A"S&S I<&S)"O9S OF 'A>5
*.>?&)?&0 P&)")"O9&0S ?A,& '&JA' P&0SO9A'")L )O F"'& )?& P&)")"O95 7.>?&)?&0 )?&0& >AS P0O@A@'& %A<S& )O "SS<& )?& S&A0%? >A00A9)S5 D.>?&)?&0 )?& S&A0%? >A00A9)S A0& (J&9&0A' >A00A9)S.( "#&%c? T%e ;ulin) of t%e Court )he etition h#s merit. *n B%et%er t%e 'etition ;aises <uestions of La4 M#/icor #ss#ils this etition #s defective since it f#iled to r#ise ;uestions of l#$. M#/icor insists th#t the #rguments etitioners resented #re ;uestions of f#ct, $hich this %ourt should not consider in # 0ule D1 etition for revie$. Petitioners counter th#t #ll the issues they resented in this etition involve ;uestions of l#$. Petitioners oint out th#t the f#cts #re not in dis ute. A etition for revie$ under 0ule D1 of the 0ules of %ourt should cover ;uestions of l#$. ? Iuestions of f#ct #re not revie$#ble. As # rule, the findings of f#ct of the %ourt of A e#ls #re fin#l #nd conclusive #nd this %ourt $ill not revie$ them on # e#l, @ sub=ect to e/ce tions #s $hen the findings of the # ell#te court conflict $ith the findings of the tri#l court. > )he distinction bet$een ;uestions of l#$ #nd ;uestions of f#ct is settled. A ;uestion of l#$ e/ists $hen the doubt or difference centers on $h#t the l#$ is on # cert#in st#te of f#cts. A ;uestion of f#ct e/ists if the doubt centers on the truth or f#lsity of the #lleged f#cts. )hough this deline#tion seems sim le, determining the true n#ture #nd e/tent of the distinction is sometimes roblem#tic. For e/#m le, it is incorrect to resume th#t all c#ses $here the f#cts #re not in dis ute #utom#tic#lly involve urely ;uestions of l#$.
157
)here is # ;uestion of l#$ if the issue r#ised is c# #ble of being resolved $ithout need of revie$ing the rob#tive v#lue of the evidence. B )he resolution of the issue must rest solely on $h#t the l#$ rovides on the given set of circumst#nces. Once it is cle#r th#t the issue invites # revie$ of the evidence resented, the ;uestion osed is one of f#ct. 10 "f the ;uery re;uires # reEev#lu#tion of the credibility of $itnesses, or the e/istence or relev#nce of surrounding circumst#nces #nd their rel#tion to e#ch other, the issue in th#t ;uery is f#ctu#l. 11 Our ruling in 'aterno !. 'aterno 12 is illustr#tive on this oint2 Such ;uestions #s $hether cert#in items of evidence should be #ccorded rob#tive v#lue or $eight, or re=ected #s feeble or s urious, or $hether or not the roofs on one side or the other #re cle#r #nd convincing #nd #de;u#te to est#blish # ro osition in issue, #re $ithout doubt ;uestions of f#ct. >hether or not the body of roofs resented by # #rty, $eighed #nd #n#lyCed in rel#tion to contr#ry evidence submitted by #dverse #rty, m#y be s#id to be strong, cle#r #nd convincing5 $hether or not cert#in documents resented by one side should be #ccorded full f#ith #nd credit in the f#ce of rotests #s to their s urious ch#r#cter by the other side5 $hether or not inconsistencies in the body of roofs of # #rty #re of such gr#vity #s to =ustify refusing to give s#id roofs $eight Q #ll these #re issues of f#ct. "t is true th#t M#/icor did not contest the f#cts #lleged by etitioners. @ut this situ#tion does not #utom#tic#lly tr#nsform all issues r#ised in the etition into ;uestions of l#$. )he issues must meet the tests outlined in 'aterno. Of the three m#in issues r#ised in this etition Q the leg#l erson#lity of the etitioners, the n#ture of the $#rr#nts issued #nd the resence of rob#ble c#use Q only the first t$o ;u#lify #s ;uestions of l#$. )he ivot#l issue of $hether there $#s rob#ble
c#use to issue the se#rch $#rr#nts is # ;uestion of f#ct. At first gl#nce, this issue # e#rs to involve # ;uestion of l#$ since it does not concern itself $ith the truth or f#lsity of cert#in f#cts. Still, the resolution of this issue $ould re;uire this %ourt to in;uire into the rob#tive v#lue of the evidence resented before the 0)%. For # ;uestion to be one of l#$, it must not involve #n e/#min#tion of the rob#tive v#lue of the evidence resented by the litig#nts or #ny of them. 1F Let, this is recisely $h#t the etitioners #s8 us to do by r#ising #rguments re;uiring #n e/#min#tion of the )S9s #nd the document#ry evidence resented during the se#rch $#rr#nt roceedings. "n short, etitioners $ould h#ve us substitute our o$n =udgment to th#t of the 0)% #nd the %ourt of A e#ls by conducting our o$n ev#lu#tion of the evidence. )his is e/#ctly the situ#tion $hich Section 1, 0ule D1 of the 0ules of %ourt rohibits by re;uiring the etition to r#ise only ;uestions of l#$. )his %ourt is not # trier of f#cts. "t is not the function of this court to #n#lyCe or $eigh evidence. 1H >hen $e give due course to such situ#tions, it is solely by $#y of e/ce tion. Such e/ce tions # ly only in the resence of e/tremely meritorious circumst#nces. 1G "ndeed, this c#se f#lls under one of the e/ce tions bec#use the findings of the %ourt of A e#ls conflict $ith the findings of the 0)%. 1? Since etitioners ro erly r#ised the conflicting findings of the lo$er courts, it is ro er for this %ourt to resolve such contr#diction. *n B%et%er 'etitioners %a!e t%e Le)al 'ersonalit# to File t%is 'etition M#/icor #rgues th#t etitioners h#ve no leg#l erson#lity to file this etition since the ro er #rty to do so in # crimin#l c#se is the Office of the Solicitor Jener#l #s re resent#tive of the Peo le of the Phili ines. M#/icor st#tes the gener#l rule but the e/ce tion governs this c#se. 1@ >e ruled in Columbia 'ictures Entertainment, Inc. !. Court of Appeals 1> th#t the etitionerE com l#in#nt in # etition for revie$ under 0ule D1 could #rgue its c#se before this %ourt in lieu of the Solicitor Jener#l if there is gr#ve
158
error committed by the lo$er court or l#c8 of due rocess. )his #voids # situ#tion $here # com l#in#nt $ho #ctively #rtici #ted in the rosecution of # c#se $ould suddenly find itself o$erless to ursue # remedy due to circumst#nces beyond its control. )he circumst#nces in Columbia 'ictures Entertainment #re sufficiently simil#r to the resent c#se to $#rr#nt the # lic#tion of this doctrine. *n B%et%er t%ere 4as 'robable Cause to Issue t%e Searc% Barrants Petitioners #rgue th#t the %ourt of A e#ls erred in reversing the 0)% b#sed on the f#ct th#t the s#les recei t $#s not in the n#me of 9@" Agent S#mi#no. Petitioners oint out th#t the %ourt of A e#ls disreg#rded the over$helming evidence th#t the 0)% considered in determining the e/istence of rob#ble c#use. M#/icor counters th#t the %ourt of A e#ls did not err in reversing the 0)%. M#/icor m#int#ins th#t the entire relimin#ry e/#min#tion th#t the 0)% conducted $#s defective. )he %ourt of A e#ls b#sed its revers#l on t$o f#ctu#l findings of the 0)%. First, the f#ct th#t the s#les recei t resented by 9@" Agent S#mi#no #s roof th#t he bought counterfeit goods from M#/icor $#s in the n#me of # cert#in (Joel Di#C.( Second, the f#ct th#t etitioners! other $itness, John @enedict S#criC, #dmitted th#t he did not buy counterfeit goods from M#/icor .
sought in connection $ith th#t offense #re in the l#ce to be se#rched. 20 )he =udge determining rob#ble c#use must do so only #fter erson#lly e/#mining under o#th the com l#in#nt #nd his $itnesses. )he o#th re;uired must refer to (the truth of the f#cts $ithin the personal 5no4led)e of the etitioner or his $itnesses, bec#use the ur ose thereof is to convince the committing m#gistr#te, not the individu#l m#8ing the #ffid#vit #nd see8ing the issu#nce of the $#rr#nt, of the e/istence of rob#ble c#use.( 21 )he # lic#nt must h#ve erson#l 8no$ledge of the circumst#nces. (0eli#ble inform#tion( is insufficient. 22 Mere #ffid#vits #re not enough, #nd the =udge must de ose in $riting the com l#in#nt #nd his $itnesses. 2F )he %ourt of A e#ls! revers#l of the findings of the 0)% centers on the f#ct th#t the t$o $itnesses for etitioners during the relimin#ry e/#min#tion f#iled to rove conclusively th#t they bought counterfeit soft$#re from M#/icor . )he %ourt of A e#ls ruled th#t this #mounted to # f#ilure to rove the e/istence of # connection bet$een the offense ch#rged #nd the l#ce se#rched. )he offense ch#rged #g#inst M#/icor is co yright infringement under Section *9 of PD D9 #nd unf#ir com etition under Article 1.9 of the 0P%. )o su ort these ch#rges, etitioners resented the testimonies of 9@" Agent S#mi#no, com uter technici#n P#nte, #nd S#criC, # civili#n. )he offenses th#t etitioners ch#rged M#/icor contem l#te sever#l overt #cts. )he s#le of counterfeit roducts is but one of these #cts. @oth 9@" Agent S#mi#no #nd S#criC rel#ted to the 0)% ho$ they erson#lly s#$ M#/icor commit #cts of infringement #nd unf#ir com etition. During the relimin#ry e/#min#tion, the 0)% sub=ected the testimonies of the $itnesses to the re;uisite e/#min#tion. 9@" Agent S#mi#no testified th#t he s#$ M#/icor dis l#y #nd offer for s#le counterfeit soft$#re in its remises. ?e #lso s#$ ho$ the counterfeit soft$#re $ere roduced #nd #c8#ged $ithin M#/icor !s remises. 9@" Agent S#mi#no c#tegoric#lly st#ted th#t he $#s cert#in the roducts $ere counterfeit bec#use M#/icor sold them to its
>e rule th#t the %ourt of A findings.
e#ls erred in reversing the 0)%!s
Prob#ble c#use me#ns (such re#sons, su orted by f#cts #nd circumst#nces #s $ill $#rr#nt # c#utious m#n in the belief th#t his #ction #nd the me#ns t#8en in rosecuting it #re leg#lly =ust #nd ro er.( 1B )hus, rob#ble c#use for # se#rch $#rr#nt re;uires such f#cts #nd circumst#nces th#t $ould le#d # re#son#bly rudent m#n to believe th#t #n offense h#s been committed #nd the ob=ects
159
customers $ithout giving the #ccom #nying o$nershi m#nu#ls, license #greements #nd certific#tes of #uthenticity. S#criC testified th#t during his visits to M#/icor , he $itnessed sever#l inst#nces $hen M#/icor inst#lled etitioners! soft$#re into com uters it h#d #ssembled. S#criC #lso testified th#t he s#$ the s#le of etitioners! soft$#re $ithinM#/icor !s remises. Petitioners never #uthoriCed M#/icor to inst#ll or sell their soft$#re. )he testimonies of these t$o $itnesses, cou led $ith the ob=ect #nd document#ry evidence they resented, #re sufficient to est#blish the e/istence of rob#ble c#use. From $h#t they h#ve $itnessed, there is re#son to believe th#tM#/icor eng#ged in co yright infringement #nd unf#ir com etition to the re=udice of etitioners. @oth 9@" Agent S#mi#no #nd S#criC $ere cle#r #nd insistent th#t the counterfeit soft$#re $ere not only dis l#yed #nd sold $ithinM#/icor !s remises, they $ere #lso roduced, #c8#ged #nd in some c#ses, inst#lled there. )he determin#tion of rob#ble c#use does not c#ll for the # lic#tion of rules #nd st#nd#rds of roof th#t # =udgment of conviction re;uires #fter tri#l on the merits. As im lied by the $ords themselves, ( rob#ble c#use( is concerned $ith rob#bility, not #bsolute or even mor#l cert#inty. )he rosecution need not resent #t this st#ge roof beyond re#son#ble doubt. )he st#nd#rds of =udgment #re those of # re#son#bly rudent m#n, 2H not the e/#cting c#libr#tions of # =udge #fter # fullEblo$n tri#l. 9o l#$ or rule st#tes th#t rob#ble c#use re;uires # s ecific 8ind of evidence. 9o formul# or fi/ed rule for its determin#tion e/ists. 2G Prob#ble c#use is determined in the light of conditions obt#ining in # given situ#tion. 2? )hus, it $#s im ro er for the %ourt of A e#ls to reverse the 0)%!s findings sim ly bec#use the s#les recei t evidencing 9@" Agent S#mi#no!s urch#se of counterfeit goods is not in his n#me. For ur oses of determining rob#ble c#use, the s#les recei t is not the only roof th#t the s#le of etitioners! soft$#re occurred. During
the se#rch $#rr#nt # lic#tion roceedings, 9@" Agent S#mi#no resented to the =udge the com uter unit th#t he urch#sed from M#/icor , in $hich com uter unit M#/icor h#d reEinst#lled etitioners! soft$#re. 2@ S#criC, $ho $#s resent $hen 9@" Agent S#mi#no urch#sed the com uter unit, #ffirmed th#t 9@" Agent S#mi#no urch#sed the com uter unit. 2> P#nte, the com uter technici#n, demonstr#ted to the =udge the resence of etitioners! soft$#re on the s#me com uter unit. 2B )here $#s # com #rison bet$een etitioners! genuine soft$#re #nd M#/icor !s soft$#re reE inst#lled in the com uter unit th#t 9@" Agent S#mbi#no urch#sed. F0 &ven if $e disreg#rd the s#les recei t issued in the n#me of (Joel Di#C,( $hich etitioners e/ l#ined $#s the #li#s 9@" Agent S#mi#no used in the o er#tion, there still rem#ins more th#n sufficient evidence to est#blish rob#ble c#use for the issu#nce of the se#rch $#rr#nts. )his #lso # lies to the %ourt of A e#ls! ruling on S#criC!s testimony. )he f#ct th#t S#criC did not #ctu#lly urch#se counterfeit soft$#re from M#/icor does not elimin#te the e/istence of rob#ble c#use. %o yright infringement #nd unf#ir com etition #re not limited to the #ct of selling counterfeit goods. )hey cover # $hole r#nge of #cts, from co ying, #ssembling, #c8#ging to m#r8eting, including the mere offering for s#le of the counterfeit goods. )he cle#r #nd firm testimonies of etitioners! $itnesses on such other #cts st#nd unt#rnished. )he %onstitution #nd the 0ules of %ourt only re;uire th#t the =udge e/#mine erson#lly #nd thoroughly the # lic#nt for the $#rr#nt #nd his $itnesses to determine rob#ble c#use. )he 0)% com lied #de;u#tely $ith the re;uirement of the %onstitution #nd the 0ules of %ourt. 'ib'e/ Prob#ble c#use is de endent l#rgely on the o inion #nd findings of the =udge $ho conducted the e/#min#tion #nd $ho h#d the o ortunity to ;uestion the # lic#nt #nd his $itnesses. F1 For this re#son, the findings of the =udge deserve gre#t $eight. )he revie$ing court should overturn such findings only u on roof th#t the =udge disreg#rded the f#cts before him or ignored the cle#r dict#tes of re#son. F2 9othing in the records of the relimin#ry e/#min#tion roceedings reve#l #ny im ro riety on the #rt of the =udge in this c#se. As one c#n re#dily see, here the =udge e/#mined thoroughly
160
the # lic#nt #nd his $itnesses. )o dem#nd # higher degree of roof is unnecess#ry #nd untimely. )he rosecution $ould be l#ced in # com romising situ#tion if it $ere re;uired to resent #ll its evidence #t such relimin#ry st#ge. Proof beyond re#son#ble doubt is best left for tri#l. *n B%et%er t%e Searc% Barrants are in t%e 8ature of :eneral Barrants A se#rch $#rr#nt must st#te #rticul#rly the l#ce to be se#rched #nd the ob=ects to be seiCed. )he evident ur ose for this re;uirement is to limit the #rticles to be seiCed only to those #rticul#rly described in the se#rch $#rr#nt. )his is # rotection #g#inst otenti#l #buse. "t is necess#ry to le#ve the officers of the l#$ $ith no discretion reg#rding $h#t #rticles they sh#ll seiCe, to the end th#t no unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCures be committed. FF "n #ddition, under Section D, 0ule 1*6 of the 0ules of %rimin#l Procedure, # se#rch $#rr#nt sh#ll issue (in connection $ith one s ecific offense.( )he #rticles described must be#r # direct rel#tion to the offense for $hich the $#rr#nt is issued. FH )hus, this rule re;uires th#t the $#rr#nt must st#te th#t the #rticles sub=ect of the se#rch #nd seiCure #re used or intended for use in the commission of # s ecific offense. M#/icor #rgues th#t the $#rr#nts issued #g#inst it #re too bro#d in sco e #nd l#c8 the s ecificity re;uired $ith res ect to the ob=ects to be seiCed. After e/#mining the $ording of the $#rr#nts issued, the %ourt of A e#ls ruled in f#vor ofM#/icor #nd reversed the 0)%!s Order thus2 <nder the foregoing l#ngu#ge, #lmost #ny item in the etitioner!s store c#n be seiCed on the ground th#t it is (used or intended to be used( in the illeg#l or un#uthoriCed co ying or re roduction of the riv#te res ondents! soft$#re #nd their m#nu#ls. FG
)he %ourt of A e#ls b#sed its revers#l on its erceived infirmity of #r#gr# h Ae3 of the se#rch $#rr#nts the 0)% issued. )he # ell#te court found th#t simil#rly $orded $#rr#nts, #ll of $hich notice#bly em loy the hr#se (used or intended to be used,( $ere reviously held void by this %ourt. F? )he dis uted te/t of the se#rch $#rr#nts in this c#se st#tes2 #3%om lete or #rti#lly com lete re roductions or co ies of Microsoft soft$#re be#ring the Microsoftco yrights #nd-or tr#dem#r8s o$ned by M"%0OSOF) %O0PO0A)"O9 cont#in ed in %DE0OMs, dis8ettes #nd h#rd dis8s5 b3%om lete or #rti#lly com lete re roductions or co ies of Microsoft instruction m#nu#ls #nd-or liter#ture be#ring the Microsoft co yrights #nd-or tr#dem#r8s o$ned by M"%0OSOF) %O0PO0A)"O95 c3Sundry items such #s l#bels, bo/es, rints, #c8#ges, $r# ers, rece t#cles, #dvertisements #nd other #r# hern#li# be#ring the co yrights #nd-or tr#dem#r8s o$ned by M"%0OSOF) %O0PO0A)"O95 d3S#les invoices, delivery recei ts, offici#l recei ts, ledgers, =ourn#ls, urch#se orders #nd #ll other boo8s of #ccounts #nd documents used in the recording of the re roduction #nd-or #ssembly, distribution #nd s#les, #nd other tr#ns#ctions in connection $ith f#8e or counterfeit roducts be#ring the Microsoftco yrights #nd-or tr#dem#r8s o$ned by M"%0OSOF) %O0PO0A)"O95
161
e3Computer %ard4are, includin) central processin) units includin) %ard dis5s, CD7 ;*2 dri!es, 5e#boards, monitor screens and dis5ettes, p%otocop#in) mac%ines and ot%er e&uipment or parap%ernalia used or intended to be used in t%e ille)al and unaut%ori9ed cop#in) or reproduction of 2icrosoft soft4are and t%eir manuals, or 4%ic% contain, displa# or ot%er4ise e"%ibit, 4it%out t%e aut%orit# of 2IC;*S*FTC*;'*;ATI*8, an# and all 2icrosoft trademar5s and cop#ri)%ts5 and f3Documents rel#ting to #ny #ss$ords or rotocols in order to #ccess #ll com uter h#rd drives, d#t# b#ses #nd other inform#tion stor#ge devices cont#ining un#uthoriCed Microsoft soft$#re. F@ A&m h#sis su lied3 "t is only re;uired th#t # se#rch $#rr#nt be s ecific #s f#r #s the circumst#nces $ill ordin#rily #llo$. F> )he descri tion of the ro erty to be seiCed need not be technic#lly #ccur#te or recise. )he n#ture of the descri tion should v#ry #ccording to $hether the identity of the ro erty or its ch#r#cter is # m#tter of concern. FB Me#sured #g#inst this st#nd#rd $e find th#t #r#gr# h Ae3 is not # gener#l $#rr#nt. )he #rticles to be seiCed $ere not only sufficiently identified hysic#lly, they $ere #lso s ecific#lly identified by st#ting their rel#tion to the offense ch#rged. P#r#gr# h Ae3 s ecific#lly refers to those #rticles used or intended for use in the illeg#l #nd un#uthoriCed co ying of etitioners! soft$#re. )his l#ngu#ge meets the test of s ecificity. H0 )he c#ses cited by the %ourt of A e#ls #re in# lic#ble. "n those c#ses, the %ourt found the $#rr#nts too bro#d bec#use of #rticul#r circumst#nces, not bec#use of the mere use of the hr#se (used or intended to be used.( "nColumbia 'ictures, Inc. !. Flores, the
$#rr#nts ordering the seiCure of (television sets, video c#ssette recorders, re$inders #nd t# e cle#ners . . .( $ere found too bro#d since the defend#nt there $#s # licensed distributor of video t# es. H1 )he mere resence of counterfeit video t# es in the defend#nt!s store does not me#n th#t the m#chines $ere used to roduce the counterfeit t# es. )he situ#tion in this c#se is different. M#/icor is not # licensed distributor of etitioners. "n 6ac%e C Co. +'%il.., Inc., et al. !. 1ud)e ;ui9, et al., the %ourt voided the $#rr#nts bec#use they #uthoriCed the seiCure of records ert#ining to (#ll business tr#ns#ctions( of the defend#nt. H2 And in DEt% Centur# Fo" Film Corp. !. Court of Appeals, the %ourt ;u#shed the $#rr#nt bec#use it merely g#ve # list of #rticles to be seiCed, #ggr#v#ted by the f#ct th#t such # li#nces #re (gener#lly connected $ith the legitim#te business of renting out bet#m#/ t# es.( HF ?o$ever, $e find #r#gr# h Ac3 of the se#rch $#rr#nts l#c8ing in #rticul#rity. P#r#gr# h Ac3 st#tes2 c3Sundry items such #s l#bels, bo/es, rints, #c8#ges, $r# ers, rece t#cles, #dvertisements #nd other #r# hern#li# be#ring the co yrights #nd-or tr#dem#r8s o$ned by M"%0OSOF) %O0PO0A)"O95 )he sco e of this descri tion is #llEembr#cing since it covers ro erty used for erson#l or other ur oses not rel#ted to co yright infringement or unf#ir com etition. Moreover, the descri tion covers ro erty th#t M#/icor m#y h#ve bought legitim#tely from Microsoft or its licensed distributors. P#r#gr# h Ac3 sim ly c#lls for the seiCure of #ll items be#ring the Microsoft logo, $hether legitim#tely ossessed or not. 9either does it limit the seiCure to roducts used in co yright infringement or unf#ir com etition. Still, no rovision of l#$ e/ists $hich re;uires th#t # $#rr#nt, #rti#lly defective in s ecifying some items sought to be seiCed yet #rticul#r $ith res ect to the other items, should be nullified #s # $hole. A #rti#lly defective $#rr#nt rem#ins v#lid #s to the items s ecific#lly
162
described in the $#rr#nt. HH A se#rch $#rr#nt is sever#ble, the items not sufficiently described m#y be cut off $ithout destroying the $hole $#rr#nt. HG )he e/clusion#ry rule found in Section 7A*3 of Article """ of the %onstitution renders in#dmissible in #ny roceeding #ll evidence obt#ined through unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCure. )hus, #ll items seiCed under #r#gr# h Ac3 of the se#rch $#rr#nts, not f#lling under #r#gr# hs #, b, d, e or f, should be returned to M#/icor . >?&0&FO0&, $e PA0)"A''L J0A9) the inst#nt etition. )he Decision of the %ourt of A e#ls d#ted *7 December 199. #nd its 0esolution d#ted *9 9ovember 1999 in %AEJ.0. SP 9o. DD666 #re 0&,&0S&D #nd S&) AS"D& e/ce t $ith res ect to #rticles seiCed under #r#gr# h Ac3 of Se#rch >#rr#nts 9os. 96ED11, 96ED1*, 96E D17 #nd 96ED1D. All #rticles seiCed under #r#gr# h Ac3 of the se#rch $#rr#nts, not f#lling under #r#gr# hs #, b, d, e or f, #re ordered returned toM#/icor , "nc. immedi#tely. A44!n%i: E Rami*!& vs. CA an% Ga*"ia
Pl#intiff Soccoro D. 0#mireC A%huchi3 Jood #fternoon M#!#m. Defend#nt &ster S. J#rci# A&SJ3 Ano b# #ng n#ngy#ri s# !yo, n#8#limot 8# n# 8ung ##no 8# n# unt# rito, or8e member 8# n#, m#gsumbong 8# 8ung #no #ng g#g#$in 8o s# iyo. %?<%?" S#si, n#8# duty #8o noon. &SJ )# os ini$#n no. ASic3 %?<%?"
A civil c#se for d#m#ges $#s filed by etitioner Socorro D. 0#mireC in the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt of IueCon %ity #lleging th#t the riv#te res ondent, &ster S. J#rci#, in # confront#tion in the l#tter!s office, #llegedly ve/ed, insulted #nd humili#ted her in # (hostile #nd furious mood( #nd in # m#nner offensive to etitioner!s dignity #nd erson#lity,( contr#ry to mor#ls, good customs #nd ublic olicy.( 1 "n su ort of her cl#im, etitioner roduced # verb#tim tr#nscri t of the event #nd sought mor#l d#m#ges, #ttorney!s fees #nd other e/ enses of litig#tion in the #mount of P61B,BBB.BB, in #ddition to costs, interests #nd other reliefs #$#rd#ble #t the tri#l court!s discretion. )he tr#nscri t on $hich the civil c#se $#s b#sed $#s culled from # t# e recording of the confront#tion m#de by etitioner. 2 )he tr#nscri t re#ds #s follo$s2
?indi m#!#m, ero il#n beses n# nil# #8ong bin#li8#n, s#bing g#noon. &SJ "to #nd Asic3 m#s#s#bi 8o s# !yo, #y#$ 8ung Asic3 m#g e/ l#in 8#, 8#si h#ngg#ng, 1B2BB .m., 8in#bu8#s#n hindi 8# n# um#so8. 9g#yon #8o #ng b#b#li8 s# !yo, n#gE## ly 8# s# St#tes, n#gE## ly 8# s# revie$ mo, 8ung 8#8#il#ng#nin #ng certific#tion mo, 8#limut#n mo n# 8#si hindi 8# s# #8in m#8#8#hingi. %?<%?"
163
?indi M#!#m. S#si #ng #no 8o t#l#g# noon iEcocontinue 8o u to 1B2BB .m. &SJ
%?<%?" &h, b#8it #8o #ng n#8uh# ni Dr. )#m#yo. &SJ
6astos 5a, n#8#limut#n mo n# 8ung ##no 8# um#so8 dito s# hotel. M#gsumbong 8# s# <nion 8ung gusto mo. 9#8#limut#n mo n# 8ung ##no 8# n#8# #so8 dito (Do you thin8 th#t on your o$n m#8#8# #so8 8# 8ung hindi #8o. P#nunumbyoy#n n# 8it# ASinusumb#t#n n# 8it#3. %?<%?" "tutuloy 8o n# M#!#m s#n# #ng duty 8o. &SJ S#so il#ng beses n# #8ong bin#b#li8#n doon ng mg# no Asic3 8o. &SJ 9#8#limut#n mo n# b# 8ung ##no 8# um#so8 s# hotel, 8ung on your o$n merit #l#m 8o n#m#n 8ung g##no 8# (8# bobo( mo. M#r#mi #ng n#gE## ly #l#m 8ong hindi 8# # #s#. %?<%?" Su8uh# 8#mi ng e/#m noon. &SJ Oo, ero hindi 8# # #s#.
Su8unin 8# 8#si #8o. %?<%?" &h, di s#n# Q &SJ ?u$#g mong i #gm#l#8i n# m#y ut#8 8# 8#si 4ala 5an) uta5. A8#l# mo b# m#8u8uh# 8# dito 8ung hindi #8o. %?<%?" M#gEee/ l#in #8o. &SJ ?u$#g n#, hindi #8o m#gE # #Ee/ l#in s# !yo, m#8##l#l# 8# 8ung ##no 8# um#E rito. ('utan)7ina( s#s#biEs#bihin mo 8#m#gE#n#8 ng n#n#y #t t#t#y mo #ng mg# m#gul#ng 8o. &SJ >#l# n# #8ong #8i#l#m, d#hil n#ndito 8# s# loob, n#s# l#b#s 8# u$ede 8# ng hindi um#so8, o8ey y#n n#s#loob 8# um#lis 8# doon.
164
%?<%?" S#si M!#m, bin#b#li8#n #8o ng mg# t#g# <nion. &SJ 9#ndiy#n n# rin #8o, ero hu$#g mong 8#limut#n n# hindi 8# m#8#8# #so8 8ung hindi #8o. Sung hindi mo 8ini8il#l# y#n o8ey l#ng s# #8in, d#hil t# os 8# n#. %?<%?" "n#E#no 8o m#!#m n# ut#ng n# loob. &SJ ?u$#g n# l#ng, hindi mo ut#ng n# loob, 8#si 8ung b#g# s# no, nil# #st#ng#n#n mo #8o. %?<%?" P##no 8it# nil# #st#ng#n#n: &SJ M#buti # lum#b#s 8# n#. ?indi n# #8o m#8i8i #gus# s# !yo. 'um#b#s 8# n#. M#gsumbong 8#. 7 As # result of etitioner!s recording of the event #nd #lleging th#t the s#id #ct of secretly t# ing the confront#tion $#s illeg#l, riv#te res ondent filed # crimin#l c#se before the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt of P#s#y %ity for viol#tion of 0e ublic Act D*BB, entitled (An Act to rohibit #nd en#liCe $ire t# ing #nd other rel#ted viol#tions of
riv#te communic#tion, #nd other ur oses.( An inform#tion ch#rging etitioner of viol#tion of the s#id Act, d#ted October 6, 19.. is ;uoted here$ith2 "9FO0MA)"O9 )he <ndersigned Assist#nt %ity Fisc#l Accuses Socorro D. 0#mireC of ,iol#tion of 0e ublic Act 9o. D*BB, committed #s follo$s2 )h#t on or #bout the **nd d#y of Febru#ry, 19.., in P#s#y %ity, Metro M#nil#, Phili ines, #nd $ithin the =urisdiction of this honor#ble court, the #boveE n#med #ccused, Socorro D. 0#mireCnot being #uthoriCed by &ster S. J#rci# to record the l#tter!s convers#tion $ith s#id #ccused, did then #nd there $ilfully, unl#$fully #nd feloniously, $ith the use of # t# e recorder secretly record the s#id convers#tion #nd there#fter communic#te in $riting the contents of the s#id recording to other erson. %ontr#ry to '#$. P#s#y %ity, Metro M#nil#, Se tember 16, 19... MA0"A9O M. %<9&)A Asst. %ity Fisc#l
165
< on #rr#ignment, in lieu of # le#, etitioner filed # Motion to Iu#sh the "nform#tion on the ground th#t the f#cts ch#rged do not constitute #n offense, #rticul#rly # viol#tion of 0.A. D*BB. "n #n order M#y 7, 19.9, the tri#lcourt gr#nted the Motion to Iu#sh, #greeing $ith etitioner th#t 13 the f#cts ch#rged do not constitute #n offense under 0.A. D*BB5 #nd th#t *3 the viol#tion unished by 0.A. D*BB refers to the t# ing of # communic#tion by # ersonot%er th#n # #rtici #nt to the communic#tion. D From the tri#l court!s Order, the riv#te res ondent filed # Petition for 0evie$ on Certiorari $ith this %ourt, $hich forth$ith referred the c#se to the %ourt of A e#ls in # 0esolution Aby the First Division3 of June 19, 19.9. cdt#i
merely refers to the un#uthoriCed t# ing of # riv#te convers#tion by # #rty other th#n those involved in the communic#tion. > "n rel#tion to this, etitioner #vers th#t the subst#nce or content of the convers#tion must be #lleged in the "nform#tion, other$ise the f#cts ch#rged $ould not constitute # viol#tion of 0.A. D*BB. B Fin#lly, etitioner #rgues th#t 0.A. D*BB en#liCes the t# ing of # ( riv#te communic#tion,( not # ( riv#te convers#tion( #nd th#t conse;uently, her #ct of secretly t# ing her convers#tion $ith riv#te res ondent $#s not illeg#l under the s#id #ct. 1B >e dis#gree. r'' First, legisl#tive intent is determined rinci #lly from the l#ngu#ge of # st#tute. >here the l#ngu#ge of # st#tute is cle#r #nd un#mbiguous, the l#$ is # lied #ccording to its e/ ress terms, #nd inter ret#tion $ould be resorted to only $here # liter#l inter ret#tion $ould be either im ossible 11 or #bsurd or $ould le#d to #n in=ustice. 1* Section 1 of 0.A. D*BB entitled, (An Act to Prohibit #nd Pen#liCe >ire )# ing #nd Other 0el#ted ,iol#tions of Priv#te %ommunic#tion #nd Other Pur oses,( rovides2 S&%)"O9 1."t sh#ll be unl#$ful for #ny erson, not being #uthoriCed by #ll the #rties to #ny riv#te communic#tion or s o8en $ord, to t# #ny $ire or c#ble, or by using #ny other device or #rr#ngement, to secretly overhe#r, interce t, or record such communic#tion or s o8en $ord by using # device commonly 8no$n #s # dict# hone or dict#gr# h or detect# hone or $#l8ieEt#l8ie or t# e recorder, or ho$ever other$ise described. )he #forest#ted rovision cle#rly #nd une;uivoc#lly m#8es it illeg#l for an# erson, not #uthoriCed by #ll the #rties to #ny riv#te communic#tion to secretly record such communic#tion by me#ns of # t# e recorder. )he l#$ m#8es no
On Febru#ry 9, 199B, res ondent %ourt of A e#ls romulg#ted its #ss#iled Decision decl#ring the tri#l court!sorder of M#y 7, 19.9 null #nd void, #nd holding th#t2 (W)Xhe #lleg#tions sufficiently constitute #n offense unish#ble under Section 1 of 0.A. D*BB. "n thus ;u#shing the inform#tion b#sed on the ground th#t the f#cts #lleged do not constitute #n offense, the res ondent =udge #cted in gr#ve #buse of discretion correctible by certiorari.( 1 %onse;uently, on Febru#ry *1, 199B, etitioner filed # Motion for 0econsider#tion $hich res ondent %ourt ofA e#ls denied in its 0esolution ? d#ted June 19, 199B. ?ence, the inst#nt etition. Petitioner vigorously #rgues, #s her (m#in #nd rinci #l issue( @ th#t the # lic#ble rovision of 0e ublic Act D*BB does not # ly to the t# ing of # riv#te convers#tion by one of the #rties to the convers#tion. She contends th#t the rovision
166
distinction #s to $hether the #rty sought to be en#liCed by the st#tute ought to be # #rty other th#n or different from those involved in the riv#te communic#tion. )he st#tute!s intent to en#liCe #ll ersons un#uthoriCed to m#8e such recording is underscored by the use of the ;u#lifier (#ny.( %onse;uently, #s res ondent %ourt ofA e#ls correctly concluded, (even # A erson3 rivy to # communic#tion $ho records his riv#te convers#tion $ith #nother $ithout the 8no$ledge of the l#tter A$ill3 ;u#lify #s # viol#tor( 1F under this rovision of 0.A. D*BB. A erus#l of the Sen#te %ongression#l 0ecords, moreover, su orts the res ondent court!s conclusion th#t in en#cting 0.A. D*BB our l#$m#8ers indeed contem l#ted to m#8e illeg#l, un#uthoriCed t# e recording of riv#te convers#tions or communic#tions t#8en either by the #rties themselves or by third ersons. )hus2 /// /// /// Senator Taada2 )he ;u#lified only !overhe#r.! Senator 'adilla2 So th#t $hen it is interce ted or recorded, the element of secrecy $ould not # e#r to be m#teri#l. 9o$, su ose, Lour ?onor, the recording is not m#de by #ll the #rties but by some #rties #nd involved not crimin#l c#ses th#t $ould be mentioned under Section 7 but $ould cover, for e/#m le civil c#ses or s eci#l roceedings $hereby # recording is m#de not necess#rily by #ll the #rties but erh# s by some in #n effort to sho$ the intent of the #rties bec#use the #ctu#tion of the #rties rior, simult#neous even subse;uent to the contr#ct or the #ct m#y be indic#tive of their intention.
Su ose there is such # recording, $ould you s#y, Lour ?onor, th#t the intention is to cover it $ithin the urvie$ of this bill or outside: Senator Taada2 )h#t is covered by the urvie$ of this bill, Lour ?onor. Senator 'adilla2 &ven if the record should be used not in the rosecution of offense but #s evidence to be used in %ivil %#ses or s eci#l roceedings: Senator Taada2 )h#t is right. )his is # complete ban on tape recorded con!ersations ta5en 4it%out t%e aut%ori9ation of all t%e parties. Senator 'adilla2 9o$, $ould th#t be re#son#ble, Lour ?onor: Senator Taada2 " believe it is re#son#ble bec#use it is not sportin) to record t%e obser!ation of one 4it%out %is 5no4in) it and t%en usin) it a)ainst %im. It is not fair, it is not sportsmanli5e. "f the ur ose5 Lour honor, is to record the intention of the #rties. " believe th#t #ll the #rties should 8no$ th#t the observ#tions #re being recorded.
167
Senator 'adilla2 )his might reduce the utility of recorders.
A%ongression#l 0ecord, ,ol. """, 9o. 71, . 1.D, M#rch 1*, 196D3 Senator Dio5no2
Senator Taada2 >ell no. For e/#m le, " $#s to s#y th#t in meetings of the bo#rd of directors $here # t# e recording is t#8en, there is no ob=ection to this if #ll the #rties 8no$. "t is but f#ir th#t the eo le $hose rem#r8s #nd observ#tions #re being m#de should 8no$ th#t these #re being recorded. Senator 'adilla2 9o$, " c#n underst#nd. Senator Taada2 )h#t is $hy $hen $e t#8e st#tements of ersons, $e s#y2 (Ple#se be informed th#t $h#tever you s#y here m#y be used #g#inst you.( )h#t is f#irness #nd th#t is $h#t $e dem#nd. 9o$, in s ite of th#t $#rning, he m#8es d#m#ging st#tements #g#inst his o$n interest, $ell, he c#nnot com l#in #ny more.6ut if #ou are )oin) to ta5e a recordin) of t%e obser!ations and remar5s of a person 4it%out %im 5no4in) t%at it is bein) taped or recorded, 4it%out %im 5no4in) t%at 4%at is bein) recorded ma# be used a)ainst %im, I t%in5 it is unfair. /// /// /// Do you underst#nd, Mr. Sen#tor, th#t under Section 1 of the bill #s no$ $orded, if a part# secretl# records a public speec%, he $ould be en#liCed under Section 1: @ec#use the s eech is ublic, but the recording is done secretly. Senator Taada2 >ell, th#t #rticul#r #s ect is not contem l#ted by the bill. It is t%e communication bet4een one person and anot%er person F not bet4een a spea5er and a public. /// /// /// A%ongression#l 0ecord, ,ol. """. 9o. 77, . 6*6, M#rch 1*, 196D3 /// /// /// )he un#mbiguity of the e/ ress $ords of the rovision, t#8en together $ith the #boveE;uoted deliber#tions from the %ongression#l 0ecord, therefore l#inly su orts the vie$ held by the res ondent court th#t the rovision see8s to en#liCe even those rivy to the riv#te communic#tions. >here the l#$ m#8es no distinctions, one does not distinguish. cdle/ Second, the n#ture of the convers#tion is imm#teri#l to # viol#tion of the st#tute. )he subst#nce of the s#me need not be s ecific#lly #lleged in the inform#tion. >h#t 0.A. D*BB en#liCes #re the #cts of secretly o!er%earin),interceptin) or
168
recordin) riv#te communic#tions by me#ns of the devices enumer#ted therein. )he mere #lleg#tion th#t #n individu#l m#de # secret recording of # riv#te communic#tion by me#ns of # t# e recorder $ould suffice to constitute #n offense under Section 1 of 0.A. D*BB. As the Solicitor Jener#l ointed out in his %OMM&9) before the respondent court: (9o$here Ain the s#id l#$3 is it re;uired th#t before one c#n be reg#rded #s # viol#tor, the n#ture of the convers#tion, #s $ell #s its communic#tion to # third erson should be rofessed.( 1D Fin#lly, etitioner!s contention th#t the hr#se ( riv#te communic#tion( in Section 1 of 0.A. D*BB does not include ( riv#te convers#tions( n#rro$s the ordin#ry me#ning of the $ord (communic#tion( to # oint of #bsurdity. )he $ord communic#te comes from the l#tin $ord communicare, me#ning (to sh#re or to im #rt.( "n its ordin#ry signific#tion, communic#tion connotes the #ct of sh#ring or im #rting, #s in # con!ersation, 1G or signifies the ( rocess by $hich me#nings or thoughts #re sh#red bet$een individu#ls through # common system of symbols A#s l#ngu#ge signs or gestures3.( 1? )hese definitions #re bro#d enough to include verb#l or nonEverb#l, $ritten or e/ ressive communic#tions of (me#nings or thoughts( $hich #re li8ely to include the emotion#llyEch#rged e/ch#nge, on Febru#ry **, 19.., bet$een etitioner #nd riv#te res ondent, in the riv#cy of the l#tter!s office. Any doubts #bout the legisl#tive body!s me#ning of the hr#se ( riv#te communic#tion( #re, furthermore, ut to rest by the f#ct th#t the terms (convers#tion( #nd (communic#tion( $ere interch#nge#bly used by Sen#tor )#T#d# in his &/ l#n#tory 9ote to the bill ;uoted belo$2 ("t h#s been s#id th#t innocent eo le h#ve nothing to fe#r from their con!ersations being overhe#rd. @ut this st#tement ignores the usu#l n#ture of con!ersations #s $ell #s the undeni#ble f#ct th#t most, if not #ll, civiliCed eo le h#ve some #s ects of their lives they do not $ish to e/ ose. Free con!ersations #re often ch#r#cteriCed by e/#gger#tions, obscenity, #gree#ble f#lsehoods, #nd the e/ ression of #ntiE
soci#l desires of vie$s not intended to be t#8en seriously. )he right to the pri!ac# of communication, #mong others, h#s e/ ressly been #ssured by our %onstitution. 9eedless to st#te here, the fr#mers of our %onstitution must h#ve recogniCed the n#ture of con!ersations bet$een individu#ls #nd the signific#nce of m#n!s s iritu#l n#ture, of his feelings #nd of his intellect. )hey must h#ve 8no$n th#t #rt of the le#sures #nd s#tisf#ctions of life #re to be found in the un#udited, #nd free e/ch#nge of communication bet$een individu#ls Q free from every un=ustifi#ble intrusion by $h#tever me#ns.( 16
"n :aanan !s. Intermediate Appellate Court, 1> # c#se $hich de#lt $ith the issue of tele hone $iret# ing, $e held th#t the use of # tele hone e/tension for the ur ose of overhe#ring # riv#te convers#tion $ithout #uthoriC#tion did not viol#te 0.A. D*BB bec#use # tele hone e/tension devise $#s neither #mong those devises enumer#ted in Section 1 of the l#$ nor $#s it simil#r to those (deviceAs3 or #rr#ngementAs3( enumer#ted therein,( 1Bfollo$ing the rinci le th#t ( en#l st#tutes must be construed strictly in f#vor of the #ccused.( 20 )he inst#nt c#se turns on # different note, bec#use the # lic#ble f#cts #nd circumst#nces ointing to # viol#tion of 0.A. D*BB suffer from no #mbiguity, #nd the st#tute itself e/ licitly mentions the un#uthoriCed (recording( of riv#te communic#tions $ith the use of t# eErecorders #s #mong the #cts unish#ble. cdt#i >?&0&FO0&, bec#use the l#$, #s # lied to the c#se #t bench is cle#r #nd un#mbiguous #nd le#ves us $ith no discretion, the inst#nt etition is hereby D&9"&D. )he decision # e#led from is AFF"0M&D. %osts #g#inst etitioner.
A44!n%i: F
169
6a,an( .a*a4atan( ./+ vs. E*mita
dis ersed, c#using in=uries on one of them. H )hree other r#llyists $ere #rrested. All etitioners #ss#il @#t#s P#mb#ns# 9o. ..B, some of them in toto #nd others only Sections D, 1, 6, 1*, 17A#3, #nd 1DA#3, #s $ell #s the olicy of %P0. )hey see8 to sto violent dis ers#ls of r#llies under the (no ermit, no r#lly( olicy #nd the %P0 olicy recently #nnounced. %)&#Dc @.P. 9o. ..B, ()he Public Assembly Act of 19.1,( rovides2 @#t#s P#mb#ns# @lg. ..B A9 A%) &9S<0"9J )?& F0&& &+&0%"S& @L )?& P&OP'& OF )?&"0 0"J?) P&A%&A@'L )O ASS&M@'& A9D P&)")"O9 )?& JO,&09M&9) WA9DX FO0 O)?&0 P<0POS&S 6e it enacted b# t%e 6atasan) 'ambansa in session assembled2 S&%)"O9 1. Title . Q )his Act sh#ll be 8no$n #s ()he Public Assembly Act of 19.1.( S&%. *.Declaration of polic#. Q )he constitution#l right of the eo le e#ce#bly to #ssemble #nd etition the government for redress of griev#nces is essenti#l #nd vit#l to the strength #nd st#bility of the St#te. )o this end, the St#te sh#ll ensure the free e/ercise of such right $ithout re=udice to the rights of others to life, liberty #nd e;u#l rotection of the l#$. S&%. 7.Definition of terms. Q For ur oses of this Act2
Petitioners come in three grou s. )he first etitioners, 6a,an( !t a ., in J.0. 9o. 169.7., 1 #llege th#t they #re citiCens #nd t#/ #yers of the Phili ines #nd th#t their rights #s org#niC#tions #nd individu#ls $ere viol#ted $hen the r#lly they #rtici #ted in on October 6, *BB1 $#s violently dis ersed by olicemen im lementing @#t#s P#mb#ns# [email protected] 9o. ..B. )he second grou consists of *6 individu#l etitioners, 1!ss %! +*a%o( !t a ., in J.0. 9o. 169.D., 2 $ho #llege th#t they $ere in=ured, #rrested #nd det#ined $hen # e#ceful m#ss #ction they held on Se tember *6, *BB1 $#s reem ted #nd violently dis ersed by the olice. )hey further #ssert th#t on October 1, *BB1, # grou they #rtici #ted in m#rched to M#l#c#T#ng to rotest issu#nces of the P#l#ce $hich, they cl#im, ut the country under #n (undecl#red( m#rti#l rule, #nd the rotest $#s li8e$ise dis ersed violently #nd m#ny #mong them $ere #rrested #nd suffered in=uries. )he third grou , .i $sang /a,o Uno =./UD( !t a ., etitioners in J.0. 9o. 169..1, F #llege th#t they conduct e#ceful m#ss #ctions #nd th#t their rights #s org#niC#tions #nd those of their individu#l members #s citiCens, s ecific#lly the right to e#ceful #ssembly, #re #ffected by @#t#s P#mb#ns# 9o. ..B #nd the olicy of (%#libr#ted Preem tive 0es onse( A%P03 being follo$ed to im lement it. ./U( !t a ., cl#im th#t on October D, *BB1, # r#lly SM< coE s onsored $#s to be conducted #t the Mendiol# bridge but olice bloc8ed them #long %.M. 0ecto #nd 'e #nto Streets #nd forcibly dis ersed them, c#using in=uries to sever#l of their members. )hey further #llege th#t on October 6, *BB1, # multiEsector#l r#lly $hich SM< #lso coEs onsored $#s scheduled to roceed #long &s #T# Avenue in front of the <niversity of S#nto )om#s #nd going to$#rds Mendiol# bridge. Police officers bloc8ed them #long Mor#yt# Street #nd revented them from roceeding further. )hey $ere then forcibly
170
A#3(Public #ssembly( me#ns #ny r#lly, demonstr#tion, m#rch, #r#de, rocession or #ny other form of m#ss or concerted #ction held in # ublic l#ce for the ur ose of resenting # l#$ful c#use5 or e/ ressing #n o inion to the gener#l ublic on #ny #rticul#r issue5 or rotesting or influencing #ny st#te of #ff#irs $hether olitic#l, economic or soci#l5 or etitioning the government for redress of griev#nces. )he rocessions, r#llies, #r#des, demonstr#tions, ublic meetings #nd #ssembl#ges for religious ur oses sh#ll be governed by loc#l ordin#nces5 'ro!ided, %o4e!er, )h#t the decl#r#tion of olicy #s rovided in Section * of this Act sh#ll be f#ithfully observed. )he definition herein cont#ined sh#ll not include ic8eting #nd other concerted #ction in stri8e #re#s by $or8ers #nd em loyees resulting from # l#bor dis ute #s defined by the '#bor %ode, its im lementing rules #nd regul#tions, #nd by the @#t#s P#mb#ns# @il#ng **6. Ab3(Public l#ce( sh#ll include #ny high$#y, boulev#rd, #venue, ro#d, street, bridge or other thoroughf#re, #r8, l#C# s;u#re, #nd-or #ny o en s #ce of ublic o$nershi $here the eo le #re #llo$ed #ccess. Ac3(M#/imum toler#nce( me#ns the highest degree of restr#int th#t the milit#ry, olice #nd other e#ce 8ee ing #uthorities sh#ll observe during # ublic #ssembly or in the dis ers#l of the s#me. Ad3(Modific#tion of # ermit( sh#ll include the ch#nge of the l#ce #nd time of the ublic #ssembly, rerouting of the #r#de or street m#rch,
the volume of loudEs e#8ers or sound system #nd simil#r ch#nges. S&%. D.'ermit 4%en re&uired and 4%en not re&uired. Q A $ritten ermit sh#ll be re;uired for #ny erson or ersons to org#niCe #nd hold # ublic #ssembly in # ublic l#ce. ?o$ever, no ermit sh#ll be re;uired if the ublic #ssembly sh#ll be done or m#de in # freedom #r8 duly est#blished by l#$ or ordin#nce or in riv#te ro erty, in $hich c#se only the consent of the o$ner or the one entitled to its leg#l ossession is re;uired, or in the c#m us of # governmentEo$ned #nd o er#ted educ#tion#l institution $hich sh#ll be sub=ect to the rules #nd regul#tions of s#id educ#tion#l institution. Politic#l meetings or r#llies held during #ny election c#m #ign eriod #s rovided for by l#$ #re not covered by this Act. S&%. 1.Application re&uirements. Q All # lic#tions for # ermit sh#ll com ly $ith the follo$ing guidelines2 A#3)he # lic#tions sh#ll be in $riting #nd sh#ll include the n#mes of the le#ders or org#niCers5 the ur ose of such ublic #ssembly5 the d#te, time #nd dur#tion thereof, #nd l#ce or streets to be used for the intended #ctivity5 #nd the rob#ble number of ersons #rtici #ting, the tr#ns ort #nd the ublic #ddress systems to be used. ?&%#)D Ab3)he # lic#tion sh#ll incor or#te the duty #nd res onsibility of # lic#nt under Section . hereof. Ac3)he # lic#tion sh#ll be filed $ith the office of the m#yor of the city or munici #lity in $hose =urisdiction the intended #ctivity is to be held, #t
171
le#st five A13 $or8ing d#ys before the scheduled ublic #ssembly. Ad3< on recei t of the # lic#tion, $hich must be duly #c8no$ledged in $riting, the office of the city or munici #l m#yor sh#ll c#use the s#me to immedi#tely be osted #t # cons icuous l#ce in the city or munici #l building. S&%. 6.Action to be ta5en on t%e application. Q A#3"t sh#ll be the duty of the m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf to issue or gr#nt # ermit unless there is cle#r #nd convincing evidence th#t the ublic #ssembly $ill cre#te # cle#r #nd resent d#nger to ublic order, ublic s#fety, ublic convenience, ublic mor#ls or ublic he#lth. Ab3)he m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf sh#ll #ct on the # lic#tion $ithin t$o A*3 $or8ing d#ys from the d#te the # lic#tion $#s filed, f#iling $hich, the ermit sh#ll be deemed gr#nted. Should for #ny re#son the m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf refuse to #cce t the # lic#tion for # ermit, s#id # lic#tion sh#ll be osted by the # lic#nt on the remises of the office of the m#yor #nd sh#ll be deemed to h#ve been filed. Ac3"f the m#yor is of the vie$ th#t there is imminent #nd gr#ve d#nger of # subst#ntive evil $#rr#nting the deni#l or modific#tion of the ermit, he sh#ll immedi#tely inform the # lic#nt $ho must be he#rd on the m#tter. Ad3)he #ction on the ermit sh#ll be in $riting #nd served on the # lic#WntX $ithin t$entyEfour hours.
Ae3"f the m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf denies the # lic#tion or modifies the terms thereof in his ermit, the # lic#nt m#y contest the decision in #n # ro ri#te court of l#$. Af3"n c#se suit is brought before the Metro olit#n )ri#l %ourt, the Munici #l )ri#l %ourt, the Munici #l %ircuit )ri#l %ourt, the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, or the "ntermedi#te A ell#te court, its decisions m#y be # e#led to the # ro ri#te court $ithin fortyEeight AD.3 hours #fter recei t of the s#me. 9o # e#l bond #nd record on # e#l sh#ll be re;uired. A decision gr#nting such ermit or modifying if in terms s#tisf#ctory to the # lic#nt sh#ll be immedi#tely e/ecutory.
Ag3All c#ses filed in court under this section sh#ll be decided $ithin t$entyEfour A*D3 hours from d#te of filing. %#ses filed hereunder sh#ll be immedi#tely endorsed to the e/ecutive =udge for dis osition or, in his #bsence, to the ne/t in r#n8. Ah3"n #ll c#ses, #ny decision m#y be # the Su reme %ourt. e#led to
Ai3)elegr# hic # e#ls to be follo$ed by form#l # e#ls #re hereby #llo$ed. S&%. 6.Use of 'ublic t%rorou)%fare. Q Should the ro osed ublic #ssembly involve the use, for #n # reci#ble length of time, of #ny ublic high$#y, boulev#rd, #venue, ro#d or street, the m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf m#y, to revent gr#ve ublic inconvenience, design#te the route thereof $hich is convenient to the #rtici #nts or reroute the vehicul#r tr#ffic to #nother direction so
172
th#t there $ill be no serious or undue interference $ith the free flo$ of commerce #nd tr#de. )AcD?S S&%. ..;esponsibilit# of applicant. Q "t sh#ll be the duty #nd res onsibility of the le#ders #nd org#niCers of # ublic #ssembly to t#8e #ll re#son#ble me#sures #nd ste s to the end th#t the intended ublic #ssembly sh#ll be conducted e#cefully in #ccord#nce $ith the terms of the ermit. )hese sh#ll include but not be limited to the follo$ing2 A#3)o inform the #rtici #nts of their res onsibility under the ermit5 Ab3)o olice the r#n8s of the demonstr#tors in order to revent nonEdemonstr#tors from disru ting the l#$ful #ctivities of the ublic #ssembly5 Ac3)o confer $ith loc#l government offici#ls concerned #nd l#$ enforcers to the end th#t the ublic #ssembly m#y be held e#cefully5 Ad3)o see to it th#t the ublic #ssembly undert#8en sh#ll not go beyond the time st#ted in the ermit5 #nd Ae3)o t#8e ositive ste s th#t demonstr#tors do not molest #ny erson or do #ny #ct unduly interfering $ith the rights of other ersons not #rtici #ting in the ublic #ssembly. S&%. 9.8on7interference b# la4 enforcement aut%orities. Q '#$ enforcement #gencies sh#ll not interfere $ith the holding of # ublic #ssembly. ?o$ever, to #de;u#tely ensure ublic s#fety, #
l#$ enforcement contingent under the comm#nd of # res onsible olice officer m#y be det#iled #nd st#tioned in # l#ce #t le#st one hundred A1BB3 meters #$#y from the #re# of #ctivity re#dy to m#int#in e#ce #nd order #t #ll times. S&%. 1B.'olice assistance 4%en re&uested. Q "t sh#ll be im er#tive for l#$ enforcement #gencies, $hen their #ssist#nce is re;uested by the le#ders or org#niCers, to erform their duties #l$#ys mindful th#t their res onsibility to rovide ro er rotection to those e/ercising their right e#ce#bly to #ssemble #nd the freedom of e/ ression is rimordi#l. )o$#rds this end, l#$ enforcement #gencies sh#ll observe the follo$ing guidelines2 A#3Members of the l#$ enforcement contingent $ho de#l $ith the demonstr#tors sh#ll be in com lete uniform $ith their n#me l#tes #nd units to $hich they belong dis l#yed rominently on the front #nd dors#l #rts of their uniform #nd must observe the olicy of (m#/imum toler#nce( #s herein defined5 Ab3)he members of the l#$ enforcement contingent sh#ll not c#rry #ny 8ind of fire#rms but m#y be e;ui ed $ith b#ton or riot stic8s, shields, cr#sh helmets $ith visor, g#s m#s8s, boots or #n8le high shoes $ith shin gu#rds5 Ac3)e#r g#s, smo8e gren#des, $#ter c#nnons, or #ny simil#r #ntiEriot device sh#ll not be used unless the ublic #ssembly is #ttended by #ctu#l violence or serious thre#ts of violence, or deliber#te destruction of ro erty. Sec. 11.Dispersal of public assembl# 4it% permit. Q 9o ublic #ssembly $ith # ermit sh#ll be
173
dis ersed. ?o$ever, $hen #n #ssembly becomes violent, the olice m#y dis erse such ublic #ssembly #s follo$s2 A#3At the first sign of im ending violence, the r#n8ing officer of the l#$ enforcement contingent sh#ll c#ll the #ttention of the le#ders of the ublic #ssembly #nd #s8 the l#tter to revent #ny ossible disturb#nce5 Ab3"f #ctu#l violence st#rts to # oint $here roc8s or other h#rmful ob=ects from the #rtici #nts #re thro$n #t the olice or #t the nonE #rtici #nts, or #t #ny ro erty c#using d#m#ge to such ro erty, the r#n8ing officer of the l#$ enforcement contingent sh#ll #udibly $#rn the #rtici #nts th#t if the disturb#nce ersists, the ublic #ssembly $ill be dis ersed5 %S?cD) Ac3"f the violence or disturb#nce rev#iling #s st#ted in the receding sub #r#gr# h should not sto or #b#te, the r#n8ing officer of the l#$ enforcement contingent sh#ll #udibly issue # $#rning to the #rtici #nts of the ublic #ssembly, #nd #fter #llo$ing # re#son#ble eriod of time to l# se, sh#ll immedi#tely order it to forth$ith dis erse5 Ad39o #rrest of #ny le#der, org#niCer or #rtici #nt sh#ll #lso be m#de during the ublic #ssembly unless he viol#tes during the #ssembly # l#$, st#tute, ordin#nce or #ny rovision of this Act. Such #rrest sh#ll be governed by Article 1*1 of the 0evised Pen#l %ode, #s #mended5 Ae3"sol#ted #cts or incidents of disorder or bre#ch of the e#ce during the ublic #ssembly m#y be e#cefully dis ersed.
S&%. 1*.Dispersal of public assembl# 4it%out permit. Q >hen the ublic #ssembly is held $ithout # ermit $here # ermit is re;uired, the s#id ublic #ssembly m#y be e#cefully dis ersed. S&%. 17.'ro%ibited acts. Q )he follo$ing sh#ll constitute viol#tions of the Act2 A#3)he holding of #ny ublic #ssembly #s defined in this Act by #ny le#der or org#niCer $ithout h#ving first secured th#t $ritten ermit $here # ermit is re;uired from the office concerned, or the use of such ermit for such ur oses in #ny l#ce other th#n those set out in s#id ermit2 'ro!ided, %o4e!er, )h#t no erson c#n be unished or held crimin#lly li#ble for #rtici #ting in or #ttending #n other$ise e#ceful #ssembly5 Ab3Arbitr#ry #nd un=ustified deni#l or modific#tion of # ermit in viol#tion of the rovisions of this Act by the m#yor or #ny other offici#l #cting in his beh#lf5 Ac3)he un=ustified #nd #rbitr#ry refus#l to #cce t or #c8no$ledge recei t of the # lic#tion for # ermit by the m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf5 Ad3Obstructing, im eding, disru ting or other$ise denying the e/ercise of the right to e#ceful #ssembly5 Ae3)he unnecess#ry firing of fire#rms by # member of #ny l#$ enforcement #gency or #ny erson to dis erse the ublic #ssembly5 Af3Acts in viol#tion of Section 1B hereof5
174
Ag3Acts described hereunder if committed $ithin one hundred A1BB3 meters from the #re# of #ctivity of the ublic #ssembly or on the occ#sion thereof2 1.the c#rrying of # de#dly or offensive $e# on or device such #s fire#rm, illbo/, bomb, #nd the li8e5 *.the c#rrying of # bl#ded $e# on #nd the li8e5 7.the m#licious burning of #ny ob=ect in the streets or thoroughf#res5 D.the c#rrying of fire#rms by members of the l#$ enforcement unit5 1.the interfering $ith or intention#lly disturbing the holding of # ublic #ssembly by the use of # motor vehicle, its horns #nd loud sound systems. S&%. 1D.'enalties. Q Any erson found guilty #nd convicted of #ny of the rohibited #cts defined in the immedi#tely receding section sh#ll be unished #s follo$s2 A#3viol#tion of sub #r#gr# h A#3 sh#ll be unished by im risonment of one month #nd one d#y to si/ months5 &%D#)" Ab3viol#tions of sub #r#gr# hs Ab3, Ac3, Ad3, Ae3, Af3, #nd item D, sub #r#gr# h Ag3 sh#ll be unished by im risonment of si/ months #nd one d#y to si/ ye#rs5
Ac3viol#tion of item 1, sub #r#gr# h Ag3 sh#ll be unished by im risonment of si/ months #nd one d#y to si/ ye#rs $ithout re=udice to rosecution under Presidenti#l Decree 9o. 1.665 Ad3viol#tions of item *, item 7, or item 1 of sub #r#gr# h Ag3 sh#ll be unished by im risonment of one d#y to thirty d#ys. S&%. 11.Freedom par5s. Q &very city #nd munici #lity in the country sh#ll $ithin si/ months #fter the effectivity of this Act est#blish or design#te #t le#st one suit#ble (freedom #r8( or m#ll in their res ective =urisdictions $hich, #s f#r #s r#ctic#ble, sh#ll be centr#lly loc#ted $ithin the obl#cion $here demonstr#tions #nd meetings m#y be held #t #ny time $ithout the need of #ny rior ermit. "n the cities #nd munici #lities of Metro olit#n M#nil#, the res ective m#yors sh#ll est#blish the freedom #r8s $ithin the eriod of si/ months from the effectivity this Act. S&%. 16.Constitutionalit#. Q Should #ny rovision of this Act be decl#red inv#lid or unconstitution#l, the v#lidity or constitution#lity of the other rovisions sh#ll not be #ffected thereby. S&%. 16.;epealin) clause. Q All l#$s, decrees, letters of instructions, resolutions, orders, ordin#nces or #rts thereof $hich #re inconsistent $ith the rovisions of this Act #re hereby re e#led, #mended, or modified #ccordingly. S&%. 1..Effecti!it#. Q )his Act sh#ll t#8e effect u on its # rov#l.
175
roved, October **, 19.1.
%P0, on the other h#nd, is # olicy set forth in # ress rele#se by M#l#c#T#ng d#ted Se tember *1, *BB1, sho$n in Anne/ (A( to the Petition in J.0. 9o. 169.D., thus2 M#l#c#T#ngOffici#l M#nil#, Phili ines9&>S
<nl#$ful m#ss #ctions $ill be dis ersed. )he m#=ority of l#$E#biding citiCens h#ve the right to be rotected by # vigil#nt #nd ro#ctive government.
>e # e#l to the detr#ctors of the government to eng#ge in l#$ful #nd e#ceful conduct befitting of # democr#tic society. &c?)%D )he President!s c#ll for unity #nd reconcili#tion st#nds, b#sed on the rule of l#$. Petitioners 6a,an( !t a ., contend th#t @#t#s P#mb#ns# 9o. ..B is cle#rly # viol#tion of the %onstitution #nd the "ntern#tion#l %oven#nt on %ivil #nd Politic#l 0ights #nd other hum#n rights tre#ties of $hich the Phili ines is # sign#tory. G )hey #rgue th#t @.P. 9o. ..B re;uires # ermit before one c#n st#ge # ublic #ssembly reg#rdless of the resence or #bsence of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger. "t #lso curt#ils the choice of venue #nd is thus re ugn#nt to the freedom of e/ ression cl#use #s the time #nd l#ce of # ublic #ssembly form #rt of the mess#ge for $hich the e/ ression is sought. Furthermore, it is not contentEneutr#l #s it does not # ly to m#ss #ctions in su ort of the government. )he $ords (l#$ful c#use,( (o inion,( ( rotesting or influencing( suggest the e/ osition of some c#use not es oused by the government. Also, the hr#se (m#/imum toler#nce( sho$s th#t the l#$ # lies to #ssemblies #g#inst the government bec#use they #re being toler#ted. As # contentEb#sed legisl#tion, it c#nnot #ss the strict scrutiny test. Petitioners 1!ss %! +*a%o( !t a ., in turn, #rgue th#t @.P. 9o. ..B is unconstitution#l #s it is # curt#ilment of the right to e#cefully #ssemble #nd etition for redress of griev#nces bec#use it uts # condition for the v#lid e/ercise of th#t right. "t #lso ch#r#cteriCes ublic #ssemblies $ithout # ermit #s illeg#l #nd en#liCes them #nd
0ele#se 9o. *Se tember *1, *BB1 S)A)&M&9) OF &+&%<)",& S&%0&)A0L &D<A0DO &0M")A *n Unla4ful 2ass Actions "n vie$ of intelligence re orts ointing to credible l#ns of #ntiEgovernment grou s to infl#me the olitic#l situ#tion, so$ disorder #nd incite eo le #g#inst the duty constituted #uthorities, $e h#ve instructed the P9P #s $ell #s the loc#l government units to strictly enforce # (no ermit, no r#lly( olicy, dis erse grou s th#t run #foul of this st#nd#rd #nd #rrest #ll ersons viol#ting the l#$s of the l#nd #s $ell #s ordin#nces on the ro er conduct of m#ss #ctions #nd demonstr#tions. )he rule of c#libr#ted reem tive res onse is no$ in force, in lieu of m#/imum toler#nce. )he #uthorities $ill not st#nd #side $hile those $ith ill intent #re herding # $itting or un$itting m#ss of eo le #nd inciting them into #ctions th#t #re inimic#l to ublic order, #nd the e#ce of mind of the n#tion#l community.
176
#llo$s their dis ers#l. )hus, its rovisions #re not mere regul#tions but #re #ctu#lly rohibitions. Furthermore, the l#$ deleg#tes o$ers to the M#yor $ithout roviding cle#r st#nd#rds. )he t$o st#nd#rds st#ted in the l#$s Acle#r #nd resent d#nger #nd imminent #nd gr#ve d#nger3 #re inconsistent. 0eg#rding the %P0 olicy, it is void for being #n ultra !ires #ct th#t #lters the st#nd#rd of m#/imum toler#nce set forth in @.P. 9o. ..B, #side from being void for being v#gue #nd for l#c8 of ublic#tion. Fin#lly, etitioners ./U( !t a ., #rgue th#t the %onstitution sets no limits on the right to #ssembly #nd therefore @.P. 9o. ..B c#nnot ut the rior re;uirement of securing # ermit. And even #ssuming th#t the legisl#ture c#n set limits to this right, the limits rovided #re unre#son#ble2 First, #llo$ing the M#yor to deny the ermit on cle#r #nd convincing evidence of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger is too com rehensive. Second, the fiveEd#y re;uirement to # ly for # ermit is too long #s cert#in events re;uire inst#nt ublic #ssembly, other$ise interest on the issue $ould ossibly $#ne. As to the %P0 olicy, they #rgue th#t it is reem tive, th#t the government t#8es #ction even before the r#llyists c#n erform their #ct, #nd th#t no l#$, ordin#nce or e/ecutive order su orts the olicy. Furthermore, it contr#venes the m#/imum toler#nce olicy of @.P. 9o. ..B #nd viol#tes the %onstitution #s it c#uses # chilling effect on the e/ercise by the eo le of the right to e#ce#bly #ssemble. 0es ondents in G.R. No. 1?B>F> #re E%$a*%o E*mita, #s &/ecutive Secret#ry, M#nil# %ity /a,o* Lito Ati!n&a, %hief, of the Phili ine 9#tion#l Police AP9P3 G!n. A*t$*o Lomi'ao, 9#tion#l %# it#l 0egion Police Office A9%0PO3 %hief, P9P /a0. G!n. 9i%a 5$!*o , #nd M#nil# Police District AMPD3 %hief G!n. +!%*o 6$ aong. 0es ondents in G.R. No. 1?B>H> #re E%$a*%o E*mita #s &/ecutive Secret#ry #nd in his erson#l c# #city5 Ang! o R!,!s, #s Secret#ry
of the "nterior #nd 'oc#l Jovernments5 A*t$*o Lomi'ao, #s %hief 9i%a 5$!*o , #s %hief, 9%0PO5 +!%*o 6$ aong, #s %hief, MPD, #nd #ll other ublic officers #nd riv#te individu#ls #cting under their control, su ervision #nd instruction. 0es ondents in G.R. No. 1?B>>1 #re the ?onor#ble E:!"$tiv! S!"*!ta*,, P9P Di*!"to* G!n!*a A*t$*o Lomi'ao, the ?onor#ble /a,o* 1os! ito Ati!n&a, #nd P9P MPD C)i!- +!%*o 6$ aong. %Ac&#S 0es ondents #rgue th#t2 1.Petitioners h#ve no st#nding bec#use they h#ve not resented evidence th#t they h#d been (in=ured, #rrested or det#ined bec#use of the %P0,( #nd th#t (those #rrested st#nd to be ch#rged $ith viol#ting @#t#s P#mb#ns# W9o.X ..B #nd other offenses.( *.9either @.P. 9o. ..B nor %P0 is void on its f#ce. Petitioners c#nnot honestly cl#im th#t the time, l#ce #nd m#nner regul#tion embodied in @.P. 9o. ..B viol#tes the threeE ronged test for such # me#sure, to $it2 A#3 @.P. 9o. ..B is contentEneutr#l, i e , it h#s no reference to content of regul#ted s eech5 Ab3 @.P. 9o. ..B is n#rro$ly t#ilored to serve # signific#nt government#l interest, i e , the interest c#nnot be e;u#lly $ell served by # me#ns th#t is less intrusive of free s eech interests5 #nd Ac3 @.P. 9o. ..B le#ves o en #ltern#tive ch#nnels for communic#tion of the inform#tion. ? [email protected]. 9o. ..B is contentEneutr#l #s seen from the te/t of the l#$. Section 1 re;uires the st#tement of the ublic #ssembly!s time, l#ce #nd m#nner of conduct. "t ent#ils tr#ffic reErouting to revent gr#ve ublic inconvenience #nd serious or undue interference in the free flo$ of commerce #nd tr#de. Furthermore, nothing in @.P. 9o. ..B #uthoriCes the deni#l of # ermit on the b#sis of # r#lly!s rogr#m content or the st#tements of the s e#8ers therein, e/ce t under the constitution#l rece t of the (cle#r #nd resent d#nger test.( )he st#tus of @.P. 9o. ..B #s # contentEneutr#l regul#tion h#s been recogniCed in *smea ! Comelec. @
177
D.Adion) ! Comelec > held th#t @.P. 9o. ..B is # contentEneutr#l regul#tion of the time, l#ce #nd m#nner of holding ublic #ssemblies #nd the l#$ #sses the test for such regul#tion, n#mely, these regul#tions need only # subst#nti#l government#l interest to su ort them. 1.San)alan) ! Intermediate Appellate Court B held th#t # loc#l chief e/ecutive h#s the #uthority to e/ercise olice o$er to meet (the dem#nds of the common good in terms of tr#ffic decongestion #nd ublic convenience.( Furthermore, the discretion given to the m#yor is n#rro$ly circumscribed by Sections 1 Ad3, #nd 6 A#3, Ab3, Ac3, Ad3, Ae3, 17 #nd 11 of the l#$. 6.)he st#nd#rds set forth in the l#$ #re not inconsistent. (%le#r #nd convincing evidence th#t the ublic #ssembly $ill cre#te # cle#r #nd resent d#nger to ublic order, ublic s#fety, ublic convenience, ublic mor#ls or ublic he#lth( #nd (imminent #nd gr#ve d#nger of # subst#ntive evil( both e/ ress the me#ning of the (cle#r #nd resent d#nger test.(10 6.%P0 is sim ly the res onsible #nd =udicious use of me#ns #llo$ed by e/isting l#$s #nd ordin#nces to rotect ublic interest #nd restore ublic order. )hus, it is not #ccur#te to c#ll it # ne$ rule but r#ther it is # more roE#ctive #nd dyn#mic enforcement of e/isting l#$s, regul#tions #nd ordin#nces to revent ch#os in the streets. "t does not re l#ce the rule of m#/imum toler#nce in @.P. 9o. ..B. 0es ondent M#yor Joselito AtienC#, for his #rt, submitted in his %omment th#t the etition in J.0. 9o. 169.7. should be dismissed on the ground th#t 0e ublic Act 9o. 616B gives the M#yor o$er to deny # ermit inde endently of @.P. 9o. ..B5 th#t his deni#ls of ermits $ere under the (cle#r #nd resent d#nger( rule #s there $#s # cl#mor to sto r#llies th#t disru t the economy #nd to rotect the lives of other eo le5 th#t 1 6 L ;e#es ! 6a)atsin), 11 'rimicias ! Fu)oso, 12 #nd 1acinto ! CA, 1F h#ve #ffirmed the constitution#lity of re;uiring # ermit5 th#t the ermit is for the use of # ublic l#ce #nd not for the e/ercise of rights5 #nd th#t @.P. 9o. ..B is not # contentEb#sed regul#tion bec#use it covers #ll r#llies.
)he etitions $ere ordered consolid#ted on Febru#ry 1D, *BB6. After the submission of #ll the %omments, the %ourt set the c#ses for or#l #rguments on A ril D, *BB6, 1H st#ting the rinci #l issues, #s follo$s2 1.On the constitution#lity of @#t#s P#mb#ns# 9o. ..B, s ecific#lly Sections D, 1, 6, 1* 17A#3 #nd 1DA#3 thereof, #nd 0e ublic Act 9o. 616B2 A#3Are these contentEneutr#l or contentE b#sed regul#tions: Ab3Are they void on grounds of overbre#dth or v#gueness: Ac3Do they constitute rior restr#int: A)%#D& Ad3Are they undue deleg#tions of o$ers to M#yors: Ae3Do they viol#te intern#tion#l hum#n rights tre#ties #nd the <nivers#l Decl#r#tion of ?um#n 0ights: *.On the constitution#lity #nd leg#lity of the olicy of %#libr#ted Preem tive 0es onse A%P032 A#3"s the olicy void on its f#ce or due to v#gueness: Ab3"s it void for l#c8 of ublic#tion:
178
Ac3"s the olicy of %P0 void #s # lied to the r#llies of Se tember *6 #nd October D, 1 #nd 6, *BB1: During the course of the or#l #rguments, the follo$ing develo ments too8 l#ce #nd $ere # roved #nd-or noted by the %ourt2 1.Petitioners, in the interest of # s eedy resolution of the etitions, $ithdre$ the ortions of their etitions r#ising f#ctu#l issues, #rticul#rly those r#ising the issue of $hether @.P. 9o. ..B #nd-or %P0 is void #s # lied to the r#llies of Se tember *B, October D, 1 #nd 6, *BB1. *.)he Solicitor Jener#l #greed $ith the observ#tion of the %hief Justice th#t %P0 should no longer be used #s # leg#l term in#smuch #s, #ccording to res ondents, it $#s merely # (c#tch$ord( intended to cl#rify $h#t $#s thought to be # misunderst#nding of the m#/imum toler#nce olicy set forth in @.P. 9o. ..B #nd th#t, #s st#ted in the #ffid#vit e/ecuted by &/ecutive Secret#ry &du#rdo &rmit# #nd submitted to the Ombudsm#n, it does not re l#ce @.P. 9o. ..B #nd the m#/imum toler#nce olicy embodied in th#t l#$. )he %ourt $ill no$ roceed to #ddress the rinci #l issues, t#8ing into #ccount the foregoing develo ments. Petitioners! st#nding c#nnot be seriously ch#llenged. )heir right #s citiCens to eng#ge in e#ceful #ssembly #nd e/ercise the right of etition, #s gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution, is directly #ffected by @.P. 9o. ..B $hich re;uires # ermit for #ll $ho $ould ublicly #ssemble in the n#tion!s streets #nd #r8s. )hey h#ve, in f#ct, ur osely eng#ged in ublic #ssemblies $ithout the re;uired ermits to ress their cl#im th#t no such ermit c#n be v#lidly re;uired $ithout viol#ting the %onstitution#l gu#r#ntee. 0es ondents, on the other h#nd, h#ve ch#llenged such #ction #s contr#ry to l#$ #nd dis ersed the ublic #ssemblies held $ithout the ermit.
Section D of Article """ of the %onstitution rovides2 S&%. D.9o l#$ sh#ll be #ssed #bridging the freedom of s eech, of e/ ression, or of the ress, or the right of the eo le e#ce#bly to #ssemble #nd etition the government for redress of griev#nces. )he first oint to m#r8 is th#t the right to e#ce#bly #ssemble #nd etition for redress of griev#nces is, together $ith freedom of s eech, of e/ ression, #nd of the ress, # right th#t en=oys rim#cy in the re#lm of constitution#l rotection. For these rights constitute the very b#sis of # function#l democr#tic olity, $ithout $hich #ll the other rights $ould be me#ningless #nd un rotected. As st#ted in 1acinto ! CA, 1G the %ourt, #s e#rly #s the onset of this century, in U S ! Apurado, 1? #lre#dy u held the right to #ssembly #nd etition, #s follo$s2 )here is no ;uestion #s to the etitioners! rights to e#ceful #ssembly to etition the government for # redress of griev#nces #nd, for th#t m#tter, to org#niCe or form #ssoci#tions for ur oses not contr#ry to l#$, #s $ell #s to eng#ge in e#ceful concerted #ctivities. )hese rights #re gu#r#nteed by no less th#n the %onstitution, #rticul#rly Sections D #nd . of the @ill of 0ights, Section *A13 of Article "+, #nd Section 7 of Article +""". Juris rudence #bounds $ith h#llo$ed ronouncements defending #nd romoting the eo le!s e/ercise of these rights. As e#rly #s the onset of this century, this %ourt in U S !s Apurado, #lre#dy u held the right to #ssembly #nd etition #nd even $ent #s f#r #s to #c8no$ledge2 ("t is r#ther to be e/ ected th#t more or less disorder $ill m#r8 the ublic #ssembly of the eo le to rotest #g#inst griev#nces $hether re#l or im#gin#ry, bec#use on such occ#sions feeling is #l$#ys $rought to # high itch of e/citement,
179
#nd the gre#ter, the griev#nce #nd the more intense the feeling, the less erfect, #s # rule $ill be the disci lin#ry control of the le#ders over their irres onsible follo$ers. @ut if the rosecution be ermitted to seiCe u on every inst#nce of such disorderly conduct by individu#l members of # cro$d #s #n e/cuse to ch#r#cteriCe the #ssembly #s # seditious #nd tumultuous rising #g#inst the #uthorities, then the right to #ssemble #nd to etition for redress of griev#nces $ould e/ ose #ll those $ho too8 #rt therein to the severest #nd most unmerited unishment, if the ur oses $hich they sought to #tt#in did not h# en to be le#sing to the rosecuting #uthorities. "f inst#nces of disorderly conduct occur on such occ#sions, the guilty individu#ls should be sought out #nd unished therefor, but the utmost discretion must be e/ercised in dr#$ing the line bet$een disorderly #nd seditious conduct #nd bet$een #n essenti#lly e#ce#ble #ssembly #nd # tumultuous u rising.( Ag#in, in 'rimicias ! Fu)oso, 1@ the %ourt li8e$ise sust#ined the rim#cy of freedom of s eech #nd to #ssembly #nd etition over comfort #nd convenience in the use of streets #nd #r8s. c"D?S% 9e/t, ho$ever, it must be remembered th#t the right, $hile s#cros#nct, is not #bsolute. "n 'rimicias, this %ourt s#id2 )he right to freedom of s eech, #nd to e#cefully #ssemble #nd etition the government for redress of griev#nces, #re fund#ment#l erson#l rights of the eo le recogniCed #nd gu#r#nteed by the constitutions of democr#tic countries. @ut it is # settled rinci le gro$ing out of the n#ture of $ellE ordered civil societies th#t the e/ercise of those rights is not #bsolute for it m#y be so regul#ted th#t it sh#ll not be in=urious to the e;u#l en=oyment of others h#ving e;u#l rights, nor in=urious to the
rights of the community or society. )he o$er to regul#te the e/ercise of such #nd other constitution#l rights is termed the sovereign ( olice o$er,( $hich is the o$er to rescribe regul#tions, to romote the he#lth, mor#ls, e#ce, educ#tion, good order or s#fety, #nd gener#l $elf#re of the eo le. )his sovereign olice o$er is e/ercised by the government through its legisl#tive br#nch by the en#ctment of l#$s regul#ting those #nd other constitution#l #nd civil rights, #nd it m#y be deleg#ted to olitic#l subdivisions, such #s to$ns, munici #lities #nd cities by #uthoriCing their legisl#tive bodies c#lled munici #l #nd city councils en#ct ordin#nces for ur ose. 1> ;e#es ! 6a)atsin) 1B further e/ ounded on the right #nd its limits, #s follo$s2 1."t is thus cle#r th#t the %ourt is c#lled u on to rotect the e/ercise of the cogn#te rights to free s eech #nd e#ceful #ssembly, #rising from the deni#l of # ermit. )he %onstitution is ;uite e/ licit2 (9o l#$ sh#ll be #ssed #bridging the freedom of s eech, or of the ress, or the right of the eo le e#ce#bly to #ssemble #nd etition the Jovernment for redress of griev#nces.( Free s eech, li8e free ress, m#y be identified $ith the liberty to discuss ublicly #nd truthfully #ny m#tter of ublic concern $ithout censorshi or unishment. )here is to be then no revious restr#int on the communic#tion of vie$s or subse;uent li#bility $hether in libel suits, rosecution for sedition, or #ction for d#m#ges, or contem t roceedings unless there be # (cle#r #nd resent d#nger of # subst#ntive evil th#t Wthe St#teX h#s # right to revent.( Freedom of #ssembly connotes the right of the eo le to meet e#ce#bly for consult#tion #nd discussion of
180
m#tters of ublic concern. "t is entitled to be #ccorded the utmost deference #nd res ect. "t is not to be limited, much less denied, e/ce t on # sho$ing, #s is the c#se $ith freedom of e/ ression, of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger of # subst#ntive evil th#t the st#te h#s # right to revent. &ven rior to the 1971 %onstitution, Justice M#lcolm h#d occ#sion to stress th#t it is # necess#ry conse;uence of our re ublic#n institutions #nd com lements the right of free s eech. )o #r# hr#se the o inion of Justice 0utledge, s e#8ing for the m#=ority of the Americ#n Su reme %ourt in T%omas ! Collins, it $#s not by #ccident or coincidence th#t the rights to freedom of s eech #nd of the ress $ere cou led in # single gu#r#ntee $ith the right of the eo le e#ce#bly to #ssemble #nd to etition the government for redress of griev#nces. All these rights, $hile not identic#l, #re inse #r#ble. "n every c#se, therefore, $here there is # limit#tion l#ced on the e/ercise of this right, the =udici#ry is c#lled u on to e/#mine the effects of the ch#llenged government#l #ctu#tion. )he sole =ustific#tion for # limit#tion on the e/ercise of this right, so fund#ment#l to the m#inten#nce of democr#tic institutions, is the d#nger, of # ch#r#cter both gr#ve #nd imminent, of # serious evil to ublic s#fety, ublic mor#ls, ublic he#lth, or #ny other legitim#te ublic interest. *.9o$here is the r#tion#le th#t underlies the freedom of e/ ression #nd e#ce#ble #ssembly better e/ ressed th#n in this e/cer t from #n o inion of Justice Fr#n8furter2 ("t must never be forgotten, ho$ever, th#t the @ill of 0ights $#s the child of the &nlightenment. @#c8 of the gu#r#nty of free s eech l#y f#ith in the o$er of #n # e#l to re#son by #ll the e#ceful me#ns for g#ining #ccess to the mind. "t $#s in order to #vert force
#nd e/ losions due to restrictions u on r#tion#l modes of communic#tion th#t the gu#r#nty of free s eech $#s given # generous sco e. @ut utter#nce in # conte/t of violence c#n lose its signific#nce #s #n # e#l to re#son #nd become #rt of #n instrument of force. Such utter#nce $#s not me#nt to be sheltered by the %onstitution.( >h#t $#s rightfully stressed is the #b#ndonment of re#son, the utter#nce, $hether verb#l or rinted, being in # conte/t of violence. "t must #l$#ys be remembered th#t this right li8e$ise rovides for # s#fety v#lve, #llo$ing #rties the o ortunity to give vent to their vie$s, even if contr#ry to the rev#iling clim#te of o inion. For if the e#ceful me#ns of communic#tion c#nnot be #v#iled of, resort to nonE e#ceful me#ns m#y be the only #ltern#tive. 9or is this the sole re#son for the e/ ression of dissent. "t me#ns more th#n =ust the right to be he#rd of the erson $ho feels #ggrieved or $ho is diss#tisfied $ith things #s they #re. "ts v#lue m#y lie in the f#ct th#t there m#y be something $orth he#ring from the dissenter. )h#t is to ensure # true ferment of ide#s. )here #re, of course, $ellEdefined limits. >h#t is gu#r#nteed is e#ce#ble #ssembly. One m#y not #dvoc#te disorder in the n#me of rotest, much less re#ch rebellion under the clo#8 of dissent. )he %onstitution fro$ns on disorder or tumult #ttending # r#lly or #ssembly. 0esort to force is ruled out #nd outbre#8s of violence to be #voided. )he utmost c#lm though is not re;uired. As ointed out in #n e#rly Phili ine c#se, enned in 19B6 to be recise, United States ! Apurado2 ("t is r#ther to be e/ ected th#t more or less disorder $ill m#r8 the ublic #ssembly of the eo le to rotest #g#inst griev#nces $hether re#l or im#gin#ry, bec#use on such occ#sions feeling is #l$#ys $rought to # high itch of e/citement, #nd the gre#ter the griev#nce #nd the more intense the
181
feeling, the less erfect, #s # rule, $ill be the disci lin#ry control of the le#ders over their irres onsible follo$ers.( "t be#rs re e#ting th#t for the constitution#l right to be invo8ed, riotous conduct, in=ury to ro erty, #nd #cts of v#nd#lism must be #voided. )o give free rein to one!s destructive urges is to c#ll for condemn#tion. "t is to m#8e # moc8ery of the high est#te occu ied by intellectu#l liberty in our scheme of v#lues. "%?A#) )here c#n be no leg#l ob=ection, #bsent the e/istence of # cle#r #nd resent d#nger of # subst#ntive evil, on the choice of 'unet# #s the l#ce $here the e#ce r#lly $ould st#rt. )he Phili ines is committed to the vie$ e/ ressed in the lur#lity o inion, of 1979 vint#ge of, Justice 0oberts in Ha)ue ! CI*2 (>henever the title of streets #nd #r8s m#y rest, they h#ve immemori#lly been held in trust for the use of the ublic #nd, time out of mind, h#ve been used for ur oses of #ssembly, communic#ting thoughts bet$een citiCens, #nd discussing ublic ;uestions. Such use of the streets #nd ublic l#ces h#s, from #ncient times, been # #rt of the rivileges, immunities, rights #nd liberties of citiCens. )he rivilege of # citiCen of the <nited St#tes to use the streets #nd #r8s for communic#tion of vie$s on n#tion#l ;uestions m#y be regul#ted in the interest of #ll5 it is not #bsolute, but rel#tive, #nd must be e/ercised in subordin#tion to the gener#l comfort #nd convenience, #nd in conson#nce $ith e#ce #nd good order5 but must not, in the guise of res ondents, be #bridged or denied.( )he #bove e/cer t $#s ;uoted $ith # rov#l in 'rimicias ! Fu)oso. Primici#s m#de e/ licit $h#t $#s im licit in 2unicipalit# of Ca!ite ! ;o=as, # 1911 decision, $here this %ourt c#tegoric#lly #ffirmed th#t l#C#s or #r8s #nd streets #re
outside the commerce of m#n #nd thus nullified # contr#ct th#t le#sed Pl#C# Soled#d of l#intiffE munici #lity. 0eference $#s m#de to such l#C# (being # romen#de for ublic use,( $hich cert#inly is not the only ur ose th#t it could serve. )o re e#t, there c#n be no v#lid re#son $hy # ermit should not be gr#nted for the ro osed m#rch #nd r#lly st#rting from # ublic #r8 th#t is the 'unet#.
D.9either c#n there be #ny v#lid ob=ection to the use of the streets to the g#tes of the <S emb#ssy, h#rdly t$o bloc8s #$#y #t the 0o/#s @oulev#rd. 'rimicias ! Fu)oso h#s resolved #ny lur8ing doubt on the m#tter. "n holding th#t the then M#yor Fugoso of the %ity of M#nil# should gr#nt # ermit for # ublic meeting #t Pl#C# Mir#nd# in Iui# o, this %ourt c#tegoric#lly decl#red2 (Our conclusion finds su ort in the decision in the c#se of Billis Co" ! State of 8e4 Hamps%ire, 71* <.S., 169. "n th#t c#se, the st#tute of 9e$ ?#m shire P.'. ch# . 1D1, section *, roviding th#t no #r#de or rocession u on #ny ground #butting thereon, sh#ll be ermitted unless # s eci#l license therefor sh#ll first be obt#ined from the selectmen of the to$n or from licensing committee,! $#s construed by the Su reme %ourt of 9e$ ?#m shire #s not conferring u on the licensing bo#rd unfettered discretion to refuse to gr#nt the license, #nd held v#lid. And the Su reme %ourt of the <nited St#tes, in its decision A19D13 enned by %hief Justice ?ughes #ffirming the =udgment of the St#te Su reme %ourt, held th#t !# st#tute re;uiring ersons using the ublic streets for # #r#de or rocession to rocure # s eci#l license therefor from the loc#l #uthorities is not #n unconstitution#l #bridgment of the rights of
182
#ssembly or of freedom of s eech #nd ress, $here, #s the st#tute is construed by the st#te courts, the licensing #uthorities #re strictly limited, in the issu#nce of licenses, to # consider#tion of the time, l#ce, #nd m#nner of the #r#de or rocession, $ith # vie$ to conserving the ublic convenience #nd of #ffording #n o ortunity to rovide ro er olicing, #nd #re not invested $ith #rbitr#ry discretion to issue or refuse license, . . . . (9or should the oint m#de by %hief Justice ?ughes in # subse;uent ortion of the o inion be ignored2 (%ivil liberties, #s gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution, im ly the e/istence of #n org#niCed society m#int#ining ublic order $ithout $hich liberty itself $ould be lost in the e/cesses of unrestricted #buses. )he #uthority of # munici #lity to im ose regul#tions in order to #ssure the s#fety #nd convenience of the eo le in the use of ublic high$#ys h#s never been reg#rded #s inconsistent $ith civil liberties but r#ther #s one of the me#ns of s#fegu#rding the good order u on $hich they ultim#tely de end. )he control of tr#vel on the streets of cities is the most f#mili#r illustr#tion of this recognition of soci#l need. >here # restriction of the use of high$#ys in th#t rel#tion is designed to romote the ublic convenience in the interest of #ll, it c#nnot be disreg#rded by the #ttem ted e/ercise of some civil right $hich in other circumst#nces $ould be entitled to rotection.( /// /// /// 6.. . . )he rinci le under Americ#n doctrines $#s given utter#nce by %hief Justice ?ughes in these $ords2 ()he ;uestion, if the rights of free s eech #nd e#ce#ble #ssembly #re to be reserved, is not #s to the #us ices under $hich the meeting is held but #s to its ur ose5 not #s to the rel#tions of
the s e#8ers, but $hether their utter#nces tr#nscend the bounds of the freedom of s eech $hich the %onstitution rotects.( )here could be d#nger to ublic e#ce #nd s#fety if such # g#thering $ere m#r8ed by turbulence. )h#t $ould de rive it of its e#ceful ch#r#cter. "t is true th#t the licensing offici#l, here res ondent M#yor, is not devoid of discretion in determining $hether or not # ermit $ould be gr#nted. "t is not, ho$ever, unfettered discretion. >hile rudence re;uires th#t there be # re#listic # r#is#l not of $h#t m#y ossibly occur but of $h#t m#y rob#bly occur, given #ll the relev#nt circumst#nces, still the #ssum tion Q es eci#lly so $here the #ssembly is scheduled for # s ecific ublic l#ce Q is th#t the ermit must be for the #ssembly being held there. )he e/ercise of such # right, in the l#ngu#ge of Justice 0oberts, s e#8ing for the Americ#n Su reme %ourt, is not to be (#bridged on the le# th#t it m#y be e/ercised in some other l#ce.( /// /// /// ..@y $#y of # summ#ry. )he # lic#nts for # ermit to hold #n #ssembly should inform the licensing #uthority of the d#te, the ublic l#ce $here #nd the time 4%en it $ill t#8e l#ce. "f it $ere # riv#te l#ce, only the consent of the o$ner or the one entitled to its leg#l ossession is re;uired. Such # lic#tion should be filed $ell #he#d in time to en#ble the ublic offici#l concerned to # r#ise $hether there m#y be v#lid ob=ections to the gr#nt of the ermit or to its gr#nt but #t #nother ublic l#ce. "t is #n indis ens#ble condition to such refus#l or modific#tion th#t the cle#r #nd resent d#nger test be the st#nd#rd for the decision re#ched. "f he is of the vie$ th#t there is such #n imminent #nd gr#ve d#nger of #
183
subst#ntive evil, the # lic#nts must be he#rd on the m#tter. )here#fter, his decision, $hether f#vor#ble or #dverse, must be tr#nsmitted to them #t the e#rliest o ortunity. )hus if so minded, they c#n h#ve recourse to the ro er =udici#l #uthority. Free s eech #nd e#ce#ble #ssembly, #long $ith the other intellectu#l freedoms, #re highly r#n8ed in our scheme of constitution#l v#lues. "t c#nnot be too strongly stressed th#t on the =udici#ry, Q even more so th#n on the other de #rtments Q rests the gr#ve #nd delic#te res onsibility of #ssuring res ect for #nd deference to such referred rights. 9o verb#l formul#, no s#nctifying hr#se c#n, of course, dis ense $ith $h#t h#s been so felicitiously termed by Justice ?olmes (#s the sovereign rerog#tive of =udgment.( 9onetheless, the resum tion must be to incline the $eight of the sc#les of =ustice on the side of such rights, en=oying #s they do recedence #nd rim#cy. . . . . @.P. 9o. ..B $#s en#cted #fter this %ourt rendered its decision in ;e#es. )he rovisions of @.P. 9o. ..B r#ctic#lly codify the ruling in ;e#es2 R!,!s v. 6agatsing6.+. No. >>0 AJ.0. 9o. 'E61766, 9ovember 9, 19.7, 1*1 S%0A 117, 1693 .. @y $#y of # summ#ry. )he # lic#ntsS&%. D. 'ermit 4%en re&uired and for # ermit to hold #n #ssembly should inform the4%en not re&uired. Q A $ritten licensing #uthority of the d#te, the ublic l#ce ermit sh#ll be re;uired for #ny $here #nd the time 4%en it $ill t#8e l#ce. "f it erson or
ersons to org#niCe #nd $ere # riv#te l#ce, only the consent of the o$nerhold # ublic #ssembly in # ublic or the one entitled to its leg#l ossession is re;uired. l#ce. ?o$ever, no ermit sh#ll be Such # lic#tion should be filed $ell #he#d in timere;uired if the ublic #ssembly sh#ll to en#ble the ublic offici#l concerned to # r#isebe done or m#de in # freedom #r8 $hether there m#y be v#lid ob=ections to the gr#ntduly est#blished by l#$ or ordin#nce of the ermit or to its gr#nt but #t #nother ublicduly est#blished by l#$ or ordin#nce l#ce. "t is #n indis ens#ble condition to such refus#lor in riv#te ro erty, in $hich c#se or modific#tion th#t the cle#r #nd resent d#nger testonly the consent of the o$ner or the be the st#nd#rd for the decision re#ched. "f he is ofone entitled to its leg#l ossession is the vie$ th#t there is such #n imminent #nd gr#vere;uired, or in the c#m us of # d#nger of # subst#ntive evil, the # lic#nts must begovernmentEo$ned #nd o er#ted he#rd on the m#tter. )here#fter, his decision, $hethereduc#tion#l institution $hich sh#ll f#vor#ble or #dverse, must be tr#nsmitted to them #tbe sub=ect to the rules #nd the e#rliest o ortunity. )hus if so minded, they c#nregul#tions of s#id educ#tion#l h#ve recourse to the ro er =udici#l #uthority.institution. Politic#l meetings or r#llies held during #ny election c#m #ign eriod #s rovided for by l#$ #re not covered by this Act. S&%. 1. Application re&uirements. Q All # lic#tions for # ermit sh#ll com ly $ith the follo$ing guidelines2
184
A#3 )he # lic#tions sh#ll be in $riting #nd sh#ll include the n#mes of the le#ders or org#niCers5 the ur ose of such ublic #ssembly5 the d#te, time #nd dur#tion thereof, #nd l#ce or streets to be used for the intended #ctivity5 #nd the rob#ble number of ersons #rtici #ting, the tr#ns ort #nd the ublic #ddress systems to be used. Ab3 )he # lic#tion sh#ll incor or#te the duty #nd res onsibility of # lic#nt under Section . hereof. Ac3 )he # lic#tion sh#ll be filed $ith the office of the m#yor of the city or munici #lity in $hose =urisdiction the intended #ctivity is to be held, #t le#st five A13 $or8ing d#ys before the scheduled ublic #ssembly. Ad3 < on recei t of the # lic#tion, $hich must be duly #c8no$ledged in $riting, the office of the city or munici #l m#yor sh#ll c#use the s#me to immedi#tely be osted #t # cons icuous l#ce in the city or munici #l building. S&%. 6. Action to be ta5en on t%e application. Q A#3 "t sh#ll be the duty of the m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf to issue or gr#nt # ermit unless there is cle#r #nd convincing evidence th#t
the ublic #ssembly $ill cre#te # cle#r #nd resent d#nger to ublic order, ublic s#fety, ublic convenience, ublic mor#ls or ublic he#lth. Ab3 )he m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf sh#ll #ct on the # lic#tion $ithin t$o A*3 $or8ing d#ys from the d#te the # lic#tion $#s filed, f#iling $hich, the ermit sh#ll be deemed gr#nted. Should for #ny re#son the m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf refuse to #cce t the # lic#tion for # ermit, s#id # lic#tion sh#ll be osted by the # lic#nt on the remises of the office of the m#yor #nd sh#ll be deemed to h#ve been filed. Ac3 "f the m#yor is of the vie$ th#t there is imminent #nd gr#ve d#nger of # subst#ntive evil $#rr#nting the deni#l or modific#tion of the ermit, he sh#ll immedi#tely inform the # lic#nt $ho must be he#rd on the m#tter. Ad3 )he #ction on the ermit sh#ll be in $riting #nd served on the # lic#WntX $ithin t$entyEfour hours. Ae3 "f the m#yor or #ny offici#l #cting in his beh#lf denies the # lic#tion or modifies the terms thereof in his ermit, the # lic#nt m#y contest the decision in #n # ro ri#te court of l#$.
185
Af3 "n c#se suit is brought before the Metro olit#n )ri#l %ourt, the Munici #l )ri#l %ourt, the Munici #l %ircuit )ri#l %ourt, the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, or the "ntermedi#te A ell#te %ourt, its decisions m#y be # e#led to the # ro ri#te court $ithin fortyEeight AD.3 hours #fter recei t of the s#me. 9o # e#l bond #nd record on # e#l sh#ll be re;uired. A decision gr#nting such ermit or modifying it in terms s#tisf#ctory to the # lic#nt sh#ll be immedi#tely e/ecutory. Ag3 All c#ses filed in court under this section sh#ll be decided $ithin t$entyEfour A*D3 hours from d#te of filing. %#ses filed hereunder sh#ll be immedi#tely endorsed to the e/ecutive =udge for dis osition or, in his #bsence, to the ne/t in r#n8. Ah3 "n #ll c#ses, #ny decision m#y be # e#led to the Su reme %ourt. Ai3 )elegr# hic # e#ls to be follo$ed by form#l # e#ls #re hereby #llo$ed. "t is very cle#r, therefore, th#t @.P. 9o. ..B is not #n #bsolute b#n of ublic #ssemblies but # restriction th#t sim ly regul#tes the time, l#ce #nd m#nner of the #ssemblies. )his $#s #dverted to in *smea ! Comelec, 20 $here the %ourt referred to it #s # (contentEneutr#l( regul#tion of the time, l#ce, #nd m#nner of holding ublic #ssemblies. 21
A f#ir #nd im #rti#l re#ding of @.P. 9o. ..B thus re#dily sho$s th#t it refers to a 8inds of ublic #ssemblies 22 th#t $ould use ublic l#ces. )he reference to (l#$ful c#use( does not m#8e it contentE b#sed bec#use #ssemblies re#lly h#ve to be for l#$ful c#uses, other$ise they $ould not be ( e#ce#ble( #nd entitled to rotection. 9either #re the $ords (o inion,( ( rotesting( #nd (influencing( in the definition of ublic #ssembly content b#sed, since they c#n refer to #ny sub=ect. )he $ords ( etitioning the government for redress of griev#nces( come from the $ording of the %onstitution, so its use c#nnot be #voided. Fin#lly, m#/imum toler#nce is for the rotection #nd benefit of #ll r#llyists #nd is inde endent of the content of the e/ ressions in the r#lly. Furthermore, the ermit c#n only be denied on the ground of cle#r #nd resent d#nger to ublic order, ublic s#fety, ublic convenience, ublic mor#ls or ublic he#lth. )his is # recogniCed e/ce tion to the e/ercise of the right even under the <nivers#l Decl#r#tion of ?um#n 0ights #nd the "ntern#tion#l %oven#nt on %ivil #nd Politic#l 0ights, thus2 Univ!*sa D!" a*ation o- H$man Rig)ts Article *B 1.&veryone h#s the right to freedom of e#ceful #ssembly #nd #ssoci#tion. /// /// /// Article *9 1.&veryone h#s duties to the community in $hich #lone the free #nd full develo ment of his erson#lity is ossible. *."n the e/ercise of his rights #nd freedoms, everyone sh#ll be sub=ect only to such limit#tions #s #re determined by l#$ solely for the ur ose of
186
securing due recognition #nd res ect for the rights #nd freedoms of others #nd of meeting the =ust re;uirements of mor#lity, ublic order #nd the gener#l $elf#re in # democr#tic society. 7.)hese rights #nd freedoms m#y in no c#se be e/ercised contr#ry to the ur oses #nd rinci les of the <nited 9#tions. T)! Int!*nationa Cov!nant on Civi an% +o iti"a Rig)ts Article 19. 1.&veryone sh#ll h#ve the right to hold o inions $ithout interference. DS&"c) *.&veryone sh#ll h#ve the right to freedom of e/ ression5 this right sh#ll include freedom to see8, receive #nd im #rt inform#tion #nd ide#s of #ll 8inds, reg#rdless of frontiers, either or#lly, in $riting or in rint, in the form of #rt, or through #ny other medi# of his choice. 7.)he e/ercise of the rights rovided for in #r#gr# h * of this #rticle c#rries $ith it s eci#l duties #nd res onsibilities. "t m#y therefore be sub=ect to cert#in restrictions, but these sh#ll only be such #s #re rovided by l#$ #nd #re necess#ry2 A#3For res ect of the rights or re ut#tions of others5 Ab3For the rotection of n#tion#l security or of ublic order Aordre ublic3, or of ublic he#lth or mor#ls.
%ontr#ry to etitioner!s cl#im, the l#$ is very cle#r #nd is no$here v#gue in its rovisions. (Public( does not h#ve to be defined. "ts ordin#ry me#ning is $ellE8no$n. >ebster!s Diction#ry defines it, thus2 2F ublic, n, . . . *#2 #n org#niCed body of eo le . . . 72 # grou of eo le distinguished by common interests or ch#r#cteristics . . . . 9ot every e/ ression of o inion is # ublic #ssembly. )he l#$ refers to (r#lly, demonstr#tion, m#rch, #r#de, rocession or #ny other form of m#ss or concerted #ction held in # ublic l#ce.( So it does not cover #ny #nd #ll 8inds of g#therings. 9either is the l#$ overbro#d. "t regul#tes the e/ercise of the right to e#ceful #ssembly #nd etition only to the e/tent needed to #void # cle#r #nd resent d#nger of the subst#ntive evils %ongress h#s the right to revent. )here is, li8e$ise, no rior restr#int, since the content of the s eech is not relev#nt to the regul#tion. As to the deleg#tion of o$ers to the m#yor, the l#$ rovides # recise #nd sufficient st#nd#rd Q the cle#r #nd resent d#nger test st#ted in Sec. 6A#3. )he reference to (imminent #nd gr#ve d#nger of # subst#ntive evil( in Sec. 6Ac3 subst#nti#lly me#ns the s#me thing #nd is not #n inconsistent st#nd#rd. As to $hether res ondent M#yor h#s the s#me o$er inde endently under 0e ublic Act 9o. 616B 2H is thus not necess#ry to resolve in these roceedings, #nd $#s not ursued by the #rties in their #rguments. Fin#lly, for those $ho c#nnot $#it, Section 11 of the l#$ rovides for #n #ltern#tive forum through the cre#tion of freedom #r8s $here no rior ermit is needed for e#ceful #ssembly #nd etition #t #ny time2 Sec. 11.Freedom par5s. Q &very city #nd munici #lity in the country sh#ll $ithin si/ months #fter the effectivity of this Act est#blish or
187
design#te #t le#st one suit#ble (freedom #r8( or m#ll in their res ective =urisdictions $hich, #s f#r #s r#ctic#ble, sh#ll be centr#lly loc#ted $ithin the obl#cion $here demonstr#tions #nd meetings m#y be held #t #ny time $ithout the need of #ny rior ermit. "n the cities #nd munici #lities of Metro olit#n M#nil#, the res ective m#yors sh#ll est#blish the freedom #r8s $ithin the eriod of si/ months from the effectivity this Act. )his brings u the oint, ho$ever, of com li#nce $ith this rovision. )he Solicitor Jener#l st#ted during the or#l #rguments th#t, to his 8no$ledge, only %ebu %ity h#s decl#red # freedom #r8 Q Fuente OsmeT#. )h#t of M#nil#, the Sun8en J#rdens, h#s since been converted into # golf course, he #dded. "f this is so, the degree of observ#nce of @.P. 9o. ..B!s m#nd#te th#t every city #nd munici #lity set #side # freedom #r8 $ithin si/ months from its effectivity in 19.1, or *B ye#rs #go, $ould be #thetic #nd regrett#ble. )he m#tter # e#rs to h#ve been t#8en for gr#nted #midst the s$ell of freedom th#t rose from the e#ceful revolution of 19.6. A#%)c" %onsidering th#t the e/istence of such freedom #r8s is #n essenti#l #rt of the l#$!s system of regul#tion of the eo le!s e/ercise of their right to e#cefully #ssemble #nd etition, the %ourt is constr#ined to rule th#t #fter thirty A7B3 d#ys from the fin#lity of this Decision, no rior ermit m#y be re;uired for the e/ercise of such right in #ny ublic #r8 or l#C# of # city or munici #lity until th#t city or munici #lity sh#ll h#ve com lied $ith Section 11 of the l#$. For $ithout such #ltern#tive forum, to deny the ermit $ould in effect be to deny the right. Adv#nce notices should, ho$ever, be given to the #uthorities to ensure ro er coordin#tion #nd orderly roceedings.
)he %ourt no$ comes to the m#tter of the %P0. As st#ted e#rlier, the Solicitor Jener#l h#s conceded th#t the use of the term should no$ be discontinued, since it does not me#n #nything other th#n the m#/imum toler#nce olicy set forth in @.P. 9o. ..B. )his is st#ted in the Affid#vit of res ondent &/ecutive Secret#ry &du#rdo &rmit#, submitted by the Solicitor Jener#l, thus2 1D.)he truth of the m#tter is the olicy of (c#libr#ted reem tive res onse( is in conson#nce $ith the leg#l definition of (m#/imum toler#nce( under Section 7 Ac3 of @.P. @lg. ..B, $hich is the (highest degree of restr#int th#t the milit#ry, olice #nd other e#ce8ee ing #uthorities sh#ll observe during # ublic #ssembly or in the dis ers#l of the s#me.( <nfortun#tely, ho$ever, the hr#se (m#/imum toler#nce( h#s #c;uired # different me#ning over the ye#rs. M#ny h#ve t#8en it to me#n in#ction on the #rt of l#$ enforcers even in the f#ce of m#yhem #nd serious thre#ts to ublic order. More so, other felt th#t they need not bother secure # ermit $hen holding r#llies thin8ing this $ould be (toler#ted.( %le#rly, the o ul#r connot#tion of (m#/imum toler#nce( h#s de #rted from its re#l essence under @.P. @lg. ..B. 11."t should be em h#siCed th#t the olicy of m#/imum toler#nce is rovided under the s#me l#$ $hich re;uires #ll ubic #ssemblies to h#ve # ermit, $hich #llo$s the dis ers#l of r#llies $ithout # ermit, #nd $hich recogniCes cert#in inst#nces $hen $#ter c#nnons m#y be used. )his could only me#n th#t (m#/imum toler#nce( is not in conflict $ith # (no ermit, no r#lly olicy( or $ith the dis ers#l #nd use of $#ter c#nnons under cert#in circumst#nces for indeed, the m#/imum #mount of toler#nce re;uired is de endent on ho$ e#ceful or unruly # m#ss #ction is. Our l#$ enforcers should c#libr#te their res onse b#sed on the
188
circumst#nces on the ground $ith the vie$ to reem ting the outbre#8 of violence. 16.)hus, 2)!n I stat!% t)at "a i'*at!% 4*!!m4tiv! *!s4ons! is '!ing !n-o*"!% in i!$ o- ma:im$m to !*an"! I " !a* , 2as not *!-!**ing to its !ga %!-inition '$t to t)! %isto*t!% an% m$") a'$s!% %!-inition t)at it )as no2 a"8$i*!%. I on , 2ant!% to %isa'$s! t)! min%s o- t)! 4$' i" -*om t)! notion t)at a2 !n-o*"!*s 2o$ % s)i*; t)!i* *!s4onsi'i it, o- ;!!4ing t)! 4!a"! !v!n 2)!n "on-*ont!% 2it) %ang!*o$s , t)*!at!ning '!)avio*. I 2ant!% to s!n% a m!ssag! t)at 2! 2o$ % no ong!* '! a: in !n-o*"ing t)! a2 '$t 2o$ % )!n"!-o*t) -o o2 it to t)! !tt!*. T)$s I sai%( Mwe have instructed the P#P as well as the local 'overn2ent units to strictl1 enforce a no )er2it- no rall1 )olic1 . . . arrest all )ersons violatin' the laws of the land . . . unlawful 2ass actions will 5e dis)ersed.M Non! o- t)!s! is at ogg!*)!a%s 2it) t)! !tt!* an% s4i*it o6atas +am'ansa 6 g. >>0. "t is thus #bsurd for com l#in#nts to even cl#im th#t " ordered my coE res ondents to viol#te #ny l#$. 2G
/// /// /// Ac3(M#/imum toler#nce( me#ns the highest degree of restr#int th#t the milit#ry, olice #nd other e#ce 8ee ing #uthorities sh#ll observe during # ublic #ssembly or in the dis ers#l of the s#me. A&"?#S /// /// /// S&%. 9.8on7interference b# la4 enforcement aut%orities. Q '#$ enforcement #gencies sh#ll not interfere $ith the holding of # ublic #ssembly. ?o$ever, to #de;u#tely ensure ublic s#fety, # l#$ enforcement contingent under the comm#nd of # res onsible olice officer m#y be det#iled #nd st#tioned in # l#ce #t le#st one hundred A1BB3 meters #$#y from the #re# of #ctivity re#dy to m#int#in e#ce #nd order #t #ll times. S&%. 1B.'olice assistance 4%en re&uested. Q "t sh#ll be im er#tive for l#$ enforcement #gencies, $hen their #ssist#nce is re;uested by the le#ders or org#niCers, to erform their duties #l$#ys mindful th#t their res onsibility to rovide ro er rotection to those e/ercising their right e#ce#bly to #ssemble #nd the freedom of e/ ression is rimordi#l. )o$#rds this end, l#$ enforcement #gencies sh#ll observe the follo$ing guidelines2 A#3Members of the l#$ enforcement contingent $ho de#l $ith the demonstr#tors sh#ll be in com lete uniform $ith their n#me l#tes #nd units to $hich they belong dis l#yed rominently on the front #nd dors#l #rts of their uniform #nd must observe the olicy of (m#/imum toler#nce( #s herein defined5
At #ny r#te, the %ourt rules th#t in vie$ of the m#/imum toler#nce m#nd#ted by @.P. 9o. ..B, %P0 serves no v#lid ur ose if it me#ns the s#me thing #s m#/imum toler#nce #nd is illeg#l if it me#ns something else. Accordingly, $h#t is to be follo$ed is #nd should be th#t m#nd#ted by the l#$ itself, n#mely, m#/imum toler#nce, $hich s ecific#lly me#ns the follo$ing2 S&%. 7.Definition of terms. Q For ur oses of this Act2
189
Ab3)he members of the l#$ enforcement contingent sh#ll not c#rry #ny 8ind of fire#rms but m#y be e;ui ed $ith b#ton or riot stic8s, shields, cr#sh helmets $ith visor, g#s m#s8s, boots or #n8le high shoes $ith shin gu#rds5 Ac3)e#r g#s, smo8e gren#des, $#ter c#nnons, or #ny simil#r #ntiEriot device sh#ll not be used unless the ublic #ssembly is #ttended by #ctu#l violence or serious thre#ts of violence, or deliber#te destruction of ro erty. S&%. 11.Dispersal of public assembl# 4it% permit. Q 9o ublic #ssembly $ith # ermit sh#ll be dis ersed. ?o$ever, $hen #n #ssembly becomes violent, the olice m#y dis erse such ublic #ssembly #s follo$s2 A#3At the first sign of im ending violence, the r#n8ing officer of the l#$ enforcement contingent sh#ll c#ll the #ttention of the le#ders of the ublic #ssembly #nd #s8 the l#tter to revent #ny ossible disturb#nce5 Ab3"f #ctu#l violence st#rts to # oint $here roc8s or other h#rmful ob=ects from the #rtici #nts #re thro$n #t the olice or #t the nonE #rtici #nts, or #t #ny ro erty c#using d#m#ge to such ro erty, the r#n8ing officer of the l#$ enforcement contingent sh#ll #udibly $#rn the #rtici #nts th#t if the disturb#nce ersists, the ublic #ssembly $ill be dis ersed5 Ac3"f the violence or disturb#nce rev#iling #s st#ted in the receding sub #r#gr# h should not sto or #b#te, the r#n8ing officer of the l#$ enforcement contingent sh#ll #udibly issue # $#rning to the #rtici #nts of the ublic #ssembly,
#nd #fter #llo$ing # re#son#ble eriod of time to l# se, sh#ll immedi#tely order it to forth$ith dis erse5 Ad39o #rrest of #ny le#der, org#niCer or #rtici #nt sh#ll #lso be m#de during the ublic #ssembly unless he viol#tes during the #ssembly # l#$, st#tute, ordin#nce or #ny rovision of this Act. Such #rrest sh#ll be governed by Article 1*1 of the 0evised Pen#l %ode, #s #mended5 Ad3"sol#ted #cts or incidents of disorder or bre#ch of the e#ce during the ublic #ssembly m#y be e#cefully dis ersed. /// /// /// S&%. 1*.Dispersal of public assembl# 4it%out permit. Q >hen the ublic #ssembly is held $ithout # ermit $here # ermit is re;uired, the s#id ublic #ssembly m#y be e#cefully dis ersed. %?c)"A S&%. 17.'ro%ibited acts. Q )he follo$ing sh#ll constitute viol#tions of the Act2 Ae3Obstructing, im eding, disru ting or other$ise denying the e/ercise of the right to e#ceful #ssembly5 Af3)he unnecess#ry firing of fire#rms by # member of #ny l#$ enforcement #gency or #ny erson to dis erse the ublic #ssembly5 Ag3Acts described hereunder if committed $ithin one hundred A1BB3 meters from the #re# of #ctivity of the ublic #ssembly or on the occ#sion thereof2
190
/// /// /// D.the c#rrying of fire#rms by members of the l#$ enforcement unit5 1.the interfering $ith or intention#lly disturbing the holding of # ublic #ssembly by the use of # motor vehicle, its horns #nd loud sound systems. Furthermore, there is need to #ddress the situ#tion #dverted to by etitioners $here m#yors do not #ct on # lic#tions for # ermit #nd $hen the olice dem#nd # ermit #nd the r#llyists could not roduce one, the r#lly is immedi#tely dis ersed. "n such # situ#tion, #s # necess#ry conse;uence #nd #rt of m#/imum toler#nce, r#llyists $ho c#n sho$ the olice #n # lic#tion duly filed on # given d#te c#n, #fter t$o d#ys from s#id d#te, r#lly in #ccord#nce $ith their # lic#tion $ithout the need to sho$ # ermit, the gr#nt of the ermit being then resumed under the l#$, #nd it $ill be the burden of the #uthorities to sho$ th#t there h#s been # deni#l of the # lic#tion, in $hich c#se the r#lly m#y be e#cefully dis ersed follo$ing the rocedure of m#/imum toler#nce rescribed by the l#$. "n sum, this %ourt reiter#tes its b#sic olicy of u holding the fund#ment#l rights of our eo le, es eci#lly freedom of e/ ression #nd freedom of #ssembly. "n sever#l olicy #ddresses, %hief Justice Artemio ,. P#ng#nib#n h#s re e#tedly vo$ed to u hold the liberty of our eo le #nd to nurture their ros erity. ?e s#id th#t (in c#ses involving liberty, the sc#les of =ustice should $eigh he#vily #g#inst the government #nd in f#vor of the oor, the o ressed, the m#rgin#liCed, the dis ossessed #nd the $e#8. "ndeed, l#$s #nd #ctions th#t restrict fund#ment#l rights come to the courts $ith # he#vy resum tion #g#inst their v#lidity. )hese l#$s #nd #ctions #re sub=ected to )!ig)t!n!% scrutiny.( 2? For this re#son, the soEc#lled c#libr#ted reem tive res onse olicy h#s no l#ce in our leg#l firm#ment #nd must be struc8 do$n #s #
d#r8ness th#t shrouds freedom. "t merely confuses our eo le #nd is used by some olice #gents to =ustify #buses. On the other h#nd, @.P. 9o. ..B c#nnot be condemned #s unconstitution#l5 it does not curt#il or unduly restrict freedoms5 it merely regul#tes the use of ublic l#ces #s to the time, l#ce #nd m#nner of #ssemblies. F#r from being insidious, (m#/imum toler#nce( is for the benefit of r#llyists, not the government. )he deleg#tion to the m#yors of the o$er to issue r#lly ( ermits( is v#lid bec#use it is sub=ect to the constitution#llyEsound (cle#r #nd resent d#nger( st#nd#rd. "n this Decision, the %ourt goes even one ste further in s#fegu#rding liberty by giving loc#l governments # de#dline of 7B d#ys $ithin $hich to design#te s ecific freedom #r8s #s rovided under @.P. 9o. ..B. "f, #fter th#t eriod, no such #r8s #re so identified in #ccord#nce $ith Section 11 of the l#$, all ublic #r8s #nd l#C#s of the munici #lity or city concerned sh#ll in effect be deemed freedom #r8s5 no rior ermit of $h#tever 8ind sh#ll be re;uired to hold #n #ssembly therein. )he only re;uirement $ill be $ritten notices to the olice #nd the m#yor!s office to #llo$ ro er coordin#tion #nd orderly #ctivities. >?&0&FO0&, the etitions #re J0A9)&D in #rt, #nd res ondents, more #rticul#rly the Secret#ry of the "nterior #nd 'oc#l Jovernments, #re D"0&%)&D to t#8e #ll necess#ry ste s for the immedi#te com li#nce $ith Section 11 of @#t#s P#mb#ns# 9o. ..B through the est#blishment or design#tion of #t le#st one suit#ble freedom #r8 or l#C# in every city #nd munici #lity of the country. After thirty A7B3 d#ys from the fin#lity of this Decision, sub=ect to the giving of #dv#nce notices, no rior ermit sh#ll be re;uired to e/ercise the right to e#ce#bly #ssemble #nd etition in the ublic #r8s or l#C#s of # city or munici #lity th#t h#s not yet com lied $ith Section 11 of the l#$. Furthermore, Ca i'*at!% +*!!m4tiv! R!s4ons! =C+RD, insof#r #s it $ould ur ort to differ from or be in lieu of m#/imum toler#nce, is 9<'' #nd ,O"D #nd res ondents #re &9JO"9&D to 0&F0A"9 from using it #nd to S)0"%)'L O@S&0,& the re;uirements of m#/imum toler#nce. )he etitions #re D"SM"SS&D in #ll other res ects, #nd the %O9S)")<)"O9A'")L of @#t#s P#mb#ns# 9o. ..B is S<S)A"9&D. )?c#DA
191
9o costs. SO O0D&0&D. A44!n%i: G 9a mont! vs. 6! mont!( 1*.
Sir2 As # l#$yer, member of the medi# #nd l#in citiCen of our 0e ublic, " #m re;uesting th#t " be furnished $ith the list of n#mes of the o osition members of Athe3 @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns# $ho $ere #ble to secure # cle#n lo#n of P* million e#ch on gu#r#nty Asic3 of Mrs. "meld# M#rcos. >e underst#nd th#t O"% Mel 'o eC of M#nil# $#s one of those #fores#id MPs. 'i8e$ise, m#y $e be furnished $ith the certified true co ies of the documents evidencing their lo#n. &/ enses in connection here$ith sh#ll be borne by us. "f $e could not secure the #bove documents could $e h#ve #ccess to them: >e #re remising the #bove re;uest on the follo$ing rovision of the Freedom %onstitution of the resent regime. )he right of the eo le to inform#tion on m#tters of ublic concern sh#ll be recogniCed. Access to offici#l records, #nd to documents #nd # ers ert#ining to offici#l #cts, tr#ns#ctions or decisions, sh#ll be #fforded the citiCen sub=ect to such limit#tion #s m#y be rovided by l#$. AArt. ",, Sec. 63. >e trust th#t $ithin five A13 d#ys from recei t hereof $e $ill receive your f#vor#ble res onse on the m#tter. ,ery truly yours,
Petitioners in this s eci#l civil #ction for m#nd#mus $ith relimin#ry in=unction invo8e their right to inform#tion #nd r#y th#t res ondent be directed2 A#3to furnish etitioners the list of the n#mes of the @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns# members belonging to the <9"DO #nd PDPE'#b#n $ho $ere #ble to secure cle#n lo#ns immedi#tely before the Febru#ry 6 election thru the intercession-m#rgin#l note of the then First '#dy "meld# M#rcos5 #nd-or Ab3to furnish etitioners $ith certified true co ies of the documents evidencing their res ective lo#ns5 #nd-or Ac3to #llo$ etitioners #ccess to the ublic records for the sub=ect inform#tion. WPetition, . DE15 #r#gr# hing su lied.X )he controversy #rose $hen etitioner ,#lmonte $rote res ondent @elmonte the follo$ing letter2 June D, 19.6 ?on. Felici#no @elmonte JS"S Jener#l M#n#ger Arroceros, M#nil#.
192
ASgd.3 0"%A0DO %. ,A'MO 9)& W0ollo, . 6.X )o the #fores#id letter, the De uty Jener#l %ounsel of the JS"S re lied2 June 16, 19.6 Atty. 0ic#rdo %. ,#lmonte 1B. &. @enin Street %#looc#n %ity De#r %om #nero2 Possibly bec#use he must h#ve thought th#t it cont#ined serious leg#l im lic#tions, President V Jener#l M#n#ger Felici#no @elmonte, Jr. referred to me for study #nd re ly your letter to him of June D, 19.6 re;uesting # list of (the o osition members of @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns# $ho $ere #ble to secure # cle#n lo#n of P* million e#ch on gu#r#nty of Mrs. "meld# M#rcos.( My o inion in this reg#rd is th#t # confidenti#l rel#tionshi e/ists bet$een the JS"S #nd #ll those $ho borro$ from it, $hoever they m#y be5 th#t the JS"S h#s # duty to its customers to reserve this confidenti#lity5 #nd th#t it $ould not be ro er for the JS"S to bre#ch this confidenti#lity unless so ordered by the courts.
As # viol#tion of this confidenti#lity m#y m#r the im#ge of the JS"S #s # re ut#ble fin#nci#l institution, " regret very much th#t #t this time $e c#nnot res ond ositively to your re;uest. ,ery truly yours, ASgd.3 M&L9A0D O A. )"0O De uty Jener#l %ounsel W0ollo, . DB.X On June *B, 19.6, # #rently not h#ving yet received the re ly of the Jovernment Service #nd "nsur#nce System AJS"S3 De uty Jener#l %ounsel, etitioner ,#lmonte $rote res ondent #nother letter, s#ying th#t for f#ilure to receive # re ly (A>3e #re no$ considering ourselves free to do $h#tever #ction necess#ry $ithin the remises to ursue our desired ob=ective in ursu#nce of ublic interest.( W0ollo, . ..X On June *6, 19.6, ,#lmonte, =oined by the other etitioners, filed the inst#nt suit. On July 19, 19.6, the Dail# E"press c#rried # ne$s item re orting th#t 176 former members of the defunct interim #nd regul#r @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns#, including ten A1B3 o osition members, $ere gr#nted housing lo#ns by the JS"S W0ollo, . D1.X. Se #r#te comments $ere filed by res ondent @elmonte #nd the Solicitor Jener#l. After etitioners filed # consolid#ted re ly, the etition $#s given due course #nd
193
the #rties $ere re;uired to file their memor#nd#. )he #rties h#ving com lied, the c#se $#s deemed submitted for decision. "n his comment res ondent r#ises rocedur#l ob=ections to the issu#nce of # $rit of m#nd#mus, #mong $hich is th#t etitioners h#ve f#iled to e/h#ust #dministr#tive remedies. 0es ondent cl#ims th#t #ctions of the JS"S Jener#l M#n#ger #re revie$#ble by the @o#rd of )rustees of the JS"S. Petitioners, ho$ever did not see8 relief from the JS"S @o#rd of )rustees. "t is therefore #sserted th#t since #dministr#tive remedies $ere not e/h#usted, then etitioners h#ve no c#use of #ction. )o this ob=ection, etitioners cl#im th#t they h#ve r#ised # urely leg#l issue, !i9 , $hether or not they #re entitled to the documents sought, by virtue of their constitution#l right to inform#tion. ?ence, it is #rgued th#t this c#se f#lls under one of the e/ce tions to the rinci le of e/h#ustion of #dministr#tive remedies.
constitution#l right to inform#tion, is one $hich c#n be #ssed u on by the regul#r courts more com etently th#n the JS"S or its @o#rd of )rustees, involving #s it does # urely leg#l ;uestion. )hus, the e/ce tion of this c#se from the # lic#tion of the gener#l rule on e/h#ustion of #dministr#tive remedies is $#rr#nted. ?#ving dis osed of this rocedur#l issue, >e no$ #ddress ourselves to the issue of $hether or not m#nd#mus lies to com el res ondent to erform the #cts sought by etitioners to be done, in ursu#nce of their right to inform#tion. >e sh#ll de#l first $ith the second #nd third #ltern#tive #cts sought to be done, both of $hich involve the issue of $hether or not etitioners #re entitled to #ccess to the documents evidencing lo#ns gr#nted by the JS"S. )his is not the first time th#t the %ourt is confronted $ith # controversy directly involving the constitution#l right to inform#tion. "n Tanada ! Tu!era, J.0. 9o. 67911, A ril *D, 19.1, 176 S%0A *6 #nd in the recent c#se of Le)aspi ! Ci!il Ser!ice Commission, J.0. 9o. 6*119, M#y *9, 19.6, 11B S%0A 17B, the %ourt u held the eo le!s constitution#l right to be informed of m#tters of ublic interest #nd ordered the government #gencies concerned to #ct #s r#yed for by the etitioners. )he ertinent rovision under the 19.6 %onstitution is Art. 111, Sec. 6 $hich st#tes2 )he right of the eo le to inform#tion on m#tters of ublic concern sh#ll be recogniCed. Access to offici#l records, #nd to documents, #nd # ers ert#ining to offici#l #cts, tr#ns#ctions, or decisions, #s $ell #s to government rese#rch d#t# used #s b#sis for olicy develo ment, sh#ll be #fforded the citiCen, sub=ect to such limit#tions #s m#y be rovided by l#$.
Among the settled rinci les in #dministr#tive l#$ is th#t before # #rty c#n be #llo$ed to resort to the courts, he is e/ ected to h#ve e/h#usted #ll me#ns of #dministr#tive redress #v#il#ble under the l#$. )he courts for re#sons of l#$, comity #nd convenience $ill not entert#in # c#se unless the #v#il#ble #dministr#tive remedies h#ve been resorted to #nd the # ro ri#te #uthorities h#ve been given o ortunity to #ct #nd correct the errors committed in the #dministr#tive forum. ?o$ever, the rinci le of e/h#ustion of #dministr#tive remedies is sub=ect to settled e/ce tions, #mong $hich is $hen only # ;uestion of l#$ is involved WP#scu#l v. Provinci#l @o#rd, 1B6 Phil. D66 A191935 Aguil#r v. ,#lenci#, et #l., J.0. 9o. 'E7B796, July 7B, 1961, DB S%0A *1B5 M#l#b#n#n v. 0#mento, J.0. 9o. 'E**6B, M#y *1, 19.D, 1*9 S%0A 719.X )he issue r#ised by etitioners, $hich re;uires the inter ret#tion of the sco e of the
194
)he right of #ccess to inform#tion $#s #lso recogniCed in the 1967 %onstitution, Art. ", Sec. 6 of $hich rovided2 )he right of the eo le to inform#tion on m#tters of ublic concern sh#ll be recogniCed. Access to offici#l records, #nd to documents #nd # ers ert#ining to offici#l #cts, tr#ns#ctions, or decisions, sh#ll be #fforded the citiCen sub=ect to such limit#tions #s m#y be rovided by l#$. An informed citiCenry $ith #ccess to the diverse currents in olitic#l, mor#l #nd #rtistic thought #nd d#t# rel#tive to them, #nd the free e/ch#nge of ide#s #nd discussion of issues thereon, is vit#l to the democr#tic government envisioned under our %onstitution. )he cornerstone of this re ublic#n system of government is deleg#tion of o$er by the eo le to the St#te. "n this system, government#l #gencies #nd institutions o er#te $ithin the limits of the #uthority conferred by the eo le. Denied #ccess to inform#tion on the inner $or8ings of government, the citiCenry c#n become rey to the $hims #nd c# rices of those to $hom the o$er h#d been deleg#ted. )he ostul#te of ublic office #s # ublic trust, institution#liCed in the %onstitution Ain Art. +", Sec. 13 to rotect the eo le from #buse of government#l o$er, $ould cert#inly be mere em ty $ords if #ccess to such inform#tion of ublic concern is denied, e/ce t under limit#tions rescribed by im lementing legisl#tion #do ted ursu#nt to the %onstitution. Petitioners #re r#ctitioners in medi#. As such, they h#ve both the right to g#ther #nd the oblig#tion to chec8 the #ccur#cy of inform#tion they dissemin#te. For them, the freedom of the ress #nd of s eech is not only critic#l, but vit#l to the e/ercise of their rofessions. )he right of #ccess to inform#tion ensures th#t these freedoms #re not rendered nug#tory by the government!s mono oliCing ertinent inform#tion. For #n essenti#l element of these freedoms is to 8ee o en # continuing di#logue or rocess of communic#tion bet$een the government #nd the eo le. "t is in the interest of the St#te th#t the ch#nnels for free olitic#l discussion be m#int#ined to the
end th#t the government m#y erceive #nd be res onsive to the eo le!s $ill. Let, this o en di#logue c#n be effective only to the e/tent th#t the citiCenry is informed #nd thus #ble to formul#te its $ill intelligently. Only $hen the #rtici #nts in the discussion #re #$#re of the issues #nd h#ve #ccess to inform#tion rel#ting thereto c#n such be#r fruit. )he right to inform#tion is #n essenti#l remise of # me#ningful right to s eech #nd e/ ression. @ut this is not to s#y th#t the right to inform#tion is merely #n #d=unct of #nd therefore restricted in # lic#tion by the e/ercise of the freedoms of s eech #nd of the ress. F#r from it. )he right to inform#tion goes h#ndEinEh#nd $ith the constitution#l olicies of full public disclosure UU and %onest# in t%e public ser!ice . NNN "t is me#nt to enh#nce the $idening role of the citiCenry in government#l decisionEm#8ing #s $ell in chec8ing #buse in government. Let, li8e #ll the constitution#l gu#r#ntees, the right to inform#tion is not #bsolute. As st#ted in Le)aspi, )he eo le!s right to inform#tion is limited to (m#tters of ublic concern(, #nd is further (sub=ect to such limit#tions #s m#y be rovided by l#$.( Simil#rly, the St#te!s olicy of full disclosure is limited to (tr#ns#ctions involving ublic interest(, #nd is (sub=ect to re#son#ble conditions rescribed by l#$.( ?ence, before m#nd#mus m#y issue, it must be cle#r th#t the inform#tion sought is of ( ublic interest( or ( ublic concern(, #nd is not e/em ted by l#$ from the o er#tion of the constitution#l gu#r#ntee WLe)aspi ! Ci!il Ser!ice Commission, supra, #t . 1D*.X. )he %ourt h#s #l$#ys gr# led $ith the me#nings of the terms ( ublic interest( #nd ( ublic concern(. As observed in Le)aspi2 rcd "n determining $hether or not # #rticul#r inform#tion is of ublic concern there is no rigid test $hich c#n be # lied. (Public concern( li8e
195
( ublic interest( is # term th#t eludes e/#ct definition. @oth terms embr#ce # bro#d s ectrum of sub=ects $hich the ublic m#y $#nt to 8no$, either bec#use these directly #ffect their lives, or sim ly bec#use such m#tters n#tur#lly #rouse the interest of #n ordin#ry citiCen. "n the fin#l #n#lysis, it is for the courts to determine on # c#se by c#se b#sis $hether the m#tter #t issue is of interest or im ort#nce, #s it rel#tes to or #ffects the ublic. WIbid. #t . 1D1.X "n the Taada c#se the ublic concern deemed covered by the constitution#l right to inform#tion $#s the need for #de;u#te notice to the ublic of the v#rious l#$s $hich #re to regul#te the #ctions #nd conduct of citiCens. "nLe)aspi, it $#s the (legitim#te concern of citiCens to ensure th#t government ositions re;uiring civil service eligibility #re occu ied only by ersons $ho #re eligibles( WSupra #t . 179.X. )he inform#tion sought by etitioners in this c#se is the truth of re orts th#t cert#in Members of the @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns# belonging to the o osition $ere #ble to secure (cle#n( lo#ns from the JS"S immedi#tely before the Febru#ry 6, 19.6 election through the intercession of the former First '#dy, Mrs. "meld# 0. M#rcos. )he JS"S is # trustee of contributions from the government #nd its em loyees #nd the #dministr#tor of v#rious insur#nce rogr#ms for the benefit of the l#tter. <ndeni#bly, its funds #ssume # ublic ch#r#cter. More #rticul#rly, Secs. 1Ab3 #nd D6 of P.D. 11D6, #s #mended Athe 0evised Jovernment Service "nsur#nce Act of 19663, rovide for #nnu#l # ro ri#tions to #y the contributions, remiums, interest #nd other #mounts #y#ble to JS"S by the government, #s em loyer, #s $ell #s the oblig#tions $hich the 0e ublic of the Phili ines #ssumes or gu#r#ntees to #y. %onsidering the n#ture of its funds, the JS"S is e/ ected to m#n#ge its resources $ith utmost rudence #nd in strict com li#nce $ith the ertinent l#$s or rules #nd regul#tions. )hus, one of the re#sons
th#t rom ted the revision of the old JS"S l#$ A%.A 9o. 1.6, #s #mended3 $#s the necessity (to reserve #t #ll times the #ctu#ri#l solvency of the funds #dministered by the Systems WSecond >here#s %l#use, P.D. 9o. 11D6.X %onse;uently, #s res ondent himself #dmits, the JS"S (is not su osed to gr#nt `cle#n lo#ns!.( W%omment, . ..X "t is therefore the legitim#te concern of the ublic to ensure th#t these funds #re m#n#ged ro erly $ith the end in vie$ of m#/imiCing the benefits th#t #ccrue to the insured government em loyees. Moreover, the su osed borro$ers $ere Members of the defunct @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns# $ho themselves # ro ri#ted funds for the JS"S #nd $ere therefore e/ ected to be the first to see to it th#t the JS"S erformed its t#s8s $ith the gre#test degree of fidelity #nd th#t #ll its tr#ns#ctions $ere #bove bo#rd. "n sum, the ublic n#ture of the lo#n#ble funds of the JS"S #nd the ublic office held by the #lleged borro$ers m#8e the inform#tion sought cle#rly # m#tter of ublic interest #nd concern. A second re;uisite must be met before the right to inform#tion m#y be enforced through m#nd#mus roceedings, !i9 , th#t the inform#tion sought must not be #mong those e/cluded by l#$. 0es ondent m#int#ins th#t # confidenti#l rel#tionshi e/ists bet$een the JS"S #nd its borro$ers. "t is #rgued th#t # olicy of confidenti#lity restricts the indiscrimin#te dissemin#tion of inform#tion.
Let, res ondent h#s f#iled to cite #ny l#$ gr#nting the JS"S the rivilege of confidenti#lity #s reg#rds the documents sub=ect of this etition. ?is osition is # #rently b#sed merely on consider#tions of olicy. )he =udici#ry does not settle olicy issues. )he %ourt c#n only decl#re $h#t the l#$ is, #nd not $h#t the l#$ should be. <nder our system of government, olicy
196
issues #re $ithin the dom#in of the olitic#l br#nches of the government, #nd of the eo le themselves #s the re ository of #ll St#te o$er. 0es ondent ho$ever contends th#t in vie$ of the right to riv#cy $hich is e;u#lly rotected by the %onstitution #nd by e/isting l#$s, the documents evidencing lo#n tr#ns#ctions of the JS"S must be deemed outside the #mbit of the right to inform#tion. llcd )here c#n be no doubt th#t right to riv#cy is constitution#lly rotected. "n the l#ndm#r8 c#se of 2orfe ! 2utuc W17B Phil. D11 A196.3, ** S%0A D*DX, this %ourt, s e#8ing through then Mr. Justice Fern#ndo, st#ted2 . . . )he right to riv#cy #s such is #ccorded recognition inde endently of its identific#tion $ith liberty5 in itself, it is fully deserving of constitution#l rotection. )he l#ngu#ge of Prof. &merson is #rticul#rly # t2 ()he conce t of limited government h#s #l$#ys included the ide# th#t government#l o$ers sto short of cert#in intrusions into the erson#l life of the citiCen. )his is indeed one of the b#sic distinctions bet$een #bsolute #nd limited government. <ltim#te #nd erv#sive control of the individu#l, in #ll #s ects of his life, is the h#llm#r8 of the #bsolute st#te. "n contr#st, # system of limited government s#fegu#rds # riv#te sector, $hich belongs to the individu#l, firmly distinguishing it from the ublic sector, $hich the st#te c#n control. Protection of this riv#te sector Q rotection, in other $ords, of the dignity #nd integrity of the individu#l Qh#s become incre#singly im ort#nt #s modern society h#s develo ed. All the forces of technologic#l #ge Qindustri#liC#tion, urb#niC#tion, #nd org#niC#tion Qo er#te to n#rro$ the #re# of riv#cy #nd f#cilit#te intrusion into it. "n modern terms, the c# #city to m#int#in #nd su ort this encl#ve of
riv#te life m#r8s the difference bet$een # democr#tic #nd # tot#lit#ri#n society.( W#t . DDDE DD1.X >hen the inform#tion re;uested from the government intrudes into the riv#cy of # citiCen, # otenti#l conflict bet$een the rights to inform#tion #nd to riv#cy m#y #rise. ?o$ever, the com eting interests of these rights need not be resolved in this c#se. A #rent from the #boveE;uoted st#tement of the %ourt in 2orfe is th#t the right to riv#cy belongs to the individu#l in his riv#te c# #city, #nd not to ublic #nd government#l #gencies li8e the JS"S. Moreover, the right c#nnot be invo8ed by =uridic#l entities li8e the JS"S. As held in the c#se of $assar Colle)e ! Loose Bills 6iscuit Co W196 F. 9.* A191*3X, # cor or#tion h#s no right of riv#cy in its n#me since the entire b#sis of the right to riv#cy is #n in=ury to the feelings #nd sensibilities of the #rty #nd # cor or#tion $ould h#ve no such ground for relief. 9either c#n the JS"S through its Jener#l M#n#ger, the res ondent, invo8e the right to riv#cy of its borro$ers. )he right is urely erson#l in n#ture WCf At8inson v. John Doherty V %o., 1*1 Mich 76*, .B 9.>. *.1, D6 '.0.A. *19 A1.9935 Schuyler v. %urtis, 1D6 9.L. D7D, D* 9.&. **, 71 '.0.A. *.6 A1.913X, #nd hence m#y be invo8ed only by the erson $hose riv#cy is cl#imed to be viol#ted. "t m#y be observed, ho$ever, th#t in the inst#nt c#se, the concerned borro$ers themselves m#y not succeed if they choose to invo8e their right to riv#cy, considering the ublic offices they $ere holding #t the time the lo#ns $ere #lleged to h#ve been gr#nted. "t c#nnot be denied th#t bec#use of the interest they gener#te #nd their ne$s$orthiness, ublic figures, most es eci#lly those holding res onsible ositions in government, en=oy # more limited right to riv#cy #s com #red to ordin#ry individu#ls, their #ctions being sub=ect to closer ublic scrutiny WCf Ayer Productions Pty. 'td. v. %# ulong, J.0. 9os. .*7.B #nd .*79., A ril *9, 19..5 See also %ohen v. M#r/, *11 P. *d 7*1 A19D93.X.
197
0es ondent ne/t #sserts th#t the documents evidencing the lo#n tr#ns#ctions of the JS"S #re pri!ate in n#ture #nd hence, #re not covered by the %onstitution#l right to inform#tion on m#tters of ublic concern $hich gu#r#ntees (A#3ccess to official records, #nd to documents, #nd # ers ert#ining to official #cts, tr#ns#ctions, or decisions( only. "t is #rgued th#t the records of the JS"S, # government cor or#tion erforming ro riet#ry functions, #re outside the cover#ge of the eo le!s right of #ccess to official records. llcd "t is further contended th#t since the lo#n function of the JS"S is merely incident#l to its insur#nce function, then its lo#n tr#ns#ctions #re not covered by the constitution#l olicy of full ublic disclosure #nd the right to inform#tion $hich is # lic#ble only to (offici#l( tr#ns#ctions. First of #ll, the (constituent Qministr#nt( dichotomy ch#r#cteriCing government function h#s long been re udi#ted. "n ACCFA ! Confederation of Unions and :o!ernment Corporations and *ffices WJ.0. 9os. 'E*1D.D #nd 'E*76B1, 9ovember *9, 1969, 7B S%0A 6DDX, the %ourt s#id th#t the government, $hether c#rrying out its sovereign #ttributes or running some business, disch#rges the s#me function of service to the eo le. %onse;uently, th#t the JS"S, in gr#nting the lo#ns, $#s e/ercising # ro riet#ry function $ould not =ustify the e/clusion of the tr#ns#ctions from the cover#ge #nd sco e of the right to inform#tion. Moreover, the intent of the members of the %onstitution#l %ommission of 19.6, to include governmentE o$ned #nd controlled cor or#tions #nd tr#ns#ctions entered into by them $ithin the cover#ge of the St#te olicy of full ublic disclosure is m#nifest from the records of the roceedings2 /// /// ///
)?& P0&S"D"9J OFF"%&0 AMr. %ol#yco3. %ommissioner Su#reC is recogniCed. M0. S<A0&P.)h#n8 you. M#y " #s8 the Jentlem#n # fe$ ;uestion: M0. OP'&.,ery gl#dly. M0. S<A0&P.)h#n8 you. >hen $e decl#re (# olicy of full ublic disclosure of #ll its tr#ns#ctions( Qreferring to the tr#ns#ctions of the St#te Q#nd $hen $e s#y the (St#te( $hich " su ose $ould include #ll of the v#rious #gencies, de #rtments, ministries #nd instrument#lities of the government. . . . M0. OP'&.Les, #nd individu#l ublic officers, Mr. Presiding Officer. M0. S<A0&P.Includin) )o!ernment7o4ned and controlled corporations M0. OP'&.T%at is correct, 2r 'residin) *fficer M0. S<A0&P.And $hen $e s#y (tr#ns#ctions $hich should be distinguished from contr#cts, #greements, or tre#ties or $h#tever, does the Jentlem#n refer to the ste s le#ding to the consumm#tion of the contr#ct, or does he refer to the contr#ct itself: M0. OP'&.T%e (transactions( used %ere, I suppose, is )eneric and, t%erefore, it can
198
co!er bot% steps leadin) to a contract, and alread# a consummated contract, 2r 'residin) *fficer. M0. S<A0&P.)his contem l#tes inclusion of negoti#tions le#ding to the consumm#tion of the tr#ns#ction. M0. OP'&.Les, sub=ect only to re#son#ble s#fegu#rds on the n#tion#l interest. M0. S<A0&P.)h#n8 you. W, 0ecord of the %onstitution#l %ommission *DE*1.X A&m h#sis su lied.3 %onsidering the intent of the fr#mers of the %onstitution $hich, though not binding u on the %ourt, #re nevertheless ersu#sive, #nd considering further th#t governmentEo$ned #nd controlled cor or#tions, $hether erforming ro riet#ry or government#l functions #re #ccount#ble to the eo le, the %ourt is convinced th#t tr#ns#ctions entered into by the JS"S, # governmentEcontrolled cor or#tion cre#ted by s eci#l legisl#tion #re $ithin the #mbit of the eo le!s right to be informed ursu#nt to the constitution#l olicy of tr#ns #rency in government de#lings. "n fine, etitioners #re entitled to #ccess to the documents evidencing lo#ns gr#nted by the JS"S, sub=ect to re#son#ble regul#tions th#t the l#tter m#y romulg#te rel#ting to the m#nner #nd hours of e/#min#tion, to the end th#t d#m#ge to or loss of the records m#y be #voided, th#t undue interference $ith the duties of the custodi#n of the records m#y be revented #nd th#t the right of other ersons entitled to ins ect the records m#y be insured W'eg#s i v. %ivil Service %ommission, supra #t . 17., ;uoting Subido v. OC#et#, .B Phil. 7.7, 7.6.X )he etition, #s to the second #nd third #ltern#tive #cts sought to be done by etitioners, is meritorious.
?o$ever, the s#me c#nnot be s#id $ith reg#rd to the first #ct sought by etitioners, i.e., (to furnish etitioners the list of the n#mes of the @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns# members belonging to the <9"DO #nd PDPE'#b#n $ho $ere #ble to secure cle#n lo#ns immedi#tely before the Febru#ry 6 election thru the intercession-m#rgin#l note of the then First '#dy "meld# M#rcos.( Although citiCens #re #fforded the right to inform#tion #nd, ursu#nt thereto, #re entitled to (#ccess to offici#l records,( the constitution does not #ccord them # right to com el custodi#ns of offici#l records to re #re lists, #bstr#cts, summ#ries #nd the li8e in their desire to #c;uire inform#tion or m#tters of ublic concern. cdre "t must be stressed th#t it is essenti#l for # $rit of m#nd#mus to issue th#t the # lic#nt h#s # $ellEdefined, cle#r #nd cert#in leg#l right to the thing dem#nded #nd th#t it is the im er#tive duty of defend#nt to erform the #ct re;uired. )he corres onding duty of the res ondent to erform the re;uired #ct must be cle#r #nd s ecific W'emi v. ,#lenci#, J.0. 9o. 'E*B66., 9ovember *9, 196., 1*6 S%0A *B75 Oc#m o v. Subido, J.0. 9o. 'E*.7DD, August *6, 1966, 6* S%0A DD7.X )he re;uest of the etitioners f#ils to meet this st#nd#rd, there being no duty on the #rt of res ondent to re #re the list re;uested. >?&0&FO0&, the inst#nt etition is hereby gr#nted #nd res ondent Jener#l M#n#ger of the Jovernment Service "nsur#nce System is O0D&0&D to #llo$ etitioners #ccess to documents #nd records evidencing lo#ns gr#nted to Members of the former @#t#s#ng P#mb#ns#, #s etitioners m#y s ecify, ins ection, not incom #tible $ith this decision, #s the JS"S m#y deem necess#ry.
SO O0D&0&D.
199
Fernan C .1 ., 8ar!asa, 2elencio7Herrera, :utierre9, 1r., 'aras, Feliciano, :anca#co, 'adilla, 6idin, Sarmiento, :rio7A&uino, 2edialdea #nd ;e)alado, 11 ., concur. S!4a*at! O4inions CRU7( 1 ., concurrin)2 "nste#d of merely #ffi/ing my sign#ture to signify my concurrence, " $rite this se #r#te o inion sim ly to s#y " h#ve nothing to #dd to Justice "rene 0. %ortes! e/ce tion#lly elo;uent celebr#tion of the right to inform#tion on m#tters of ublic concern. A44!n%i: H 1$anita A8$ino vs. T!*!sita +aist!
After res ondent $#s sho$n # s#m le of the gold b#r, she #greed to go $ith them to # #$nsho in )ondo to h#ve it tested. She $#s told th#t it $#s genuine. ?o$ever, she told the three th#t she h#d no money. 0eg#rdless, etitioner #nd J#rg#nt# $ent b#c8 to the house of res ondent the follo$ing d#y. )he t$o convinced her to go $ith them to Angeles %ity, P#m #ng# to meet Arnold #nd see the gold b#r. )hey re#ched Angeles %ity #round *27B .m. #nd met Arnold $ho sho$ed them the gold b#r. Arnold informed her th#t it $#s $orth PhP6B,BBB. After res ondent informed them #g#in she h#d no money, etitioner continued to ress her th#t buying the gold b#r $ould be good investment. )he three left #nd $ent home. On M#rch 16, 1991, etitioner, J#rg#nt#, #nd Adeling returned to the house of res ondent. Ag#in, they f#iled to convince her to buy the gold b#r. On the ne/t d#y, the three returned, this time they told res ondent th#t the rice $#s reduced to PhP1B,BBB. She #greed to go $ith them to Angeles %ity to meet Arnold once more. Arnold retended to refuse the PhP1B,BBB offer #nd insisted on PhP1B,BBB. On etitioner!s insistence, on M#rch 1., 1991, the t$o $ent to Angeles %ity #nd bought the gold b#r for PhP1B,BBB. 1 On M#rch 19, 1991, res ondent h#d the gold b#r tested #nd she $#s informed th#t it $#s f#8e. 2 0es ondent then roceeded to etitioner!s house to inform the l#tter th#t the gold b#r $#s f#8e. Petitioner re lied th#t they h#d to see J#rg#nt#, #nd th#t she h#d nothing to do $ith the tr#ns#ction. F On M#rch *6, 1991, res ondent brought etitioner to the 9#tion#l @ure#u of "nvestig#tion A9@"3E9%0 in the resence of # cert#in Atty. )olentino $here etitioner #mic#bly romised res ondent they $ould loc#te J#rg#nt#, #nd the document they both signed $ould be disreg#rded should they loc#te J#rg#nt#. )he #mic#ble settlement re#ds2
%ons ir#cy m#y be deduced from the mode, method, #nd m#nner by $hich the offense $#s er etu#ted, or inferred from the #cts of the #ccused ersons themselves $hen such #cts oint to # =oint ur ose #nd design, concerted #ction, #nd community of interests. "n this c#se before us, # series of overt #cts of # coEcons ir#tor #nd her e#rlier #dmission of #rtici #tion documented in #n #mic#ble settlement she signed in the resence of counsel, #ll le#d to the conclusion th#t the coE#ccused cons ired to commit estafa. )he %ourt of A e#ls A%A3 culled the f#cts this $#y, #s est#blished by the rosecution2 At #bout 92BB o!cloc8 in the morning of M#rch 1D, 1991, etitioner Ju#nit# A;uino, &liC#beth J#rg#nt#, #nd #nother $om#n identified only #s (Adeling(, $ent to the house of res ondent )eresit# P#iste #t 611 PeT#los# St., )ondo, M#nil#. )he children of res ondent #nd etitioner $ere gr#de school cl#ssm#tes. After the usu#l le#s#ntries, etitioner st#rted to convince res ondent to buy # gold b#r o$ned by # cert#in Arnold, #n "gorot.
200
"n vie$ of the #cce t#nce of f#ult by M0S. J<A9")A AS"OEAI<"9O of the c#se-com l#int filed by M0S.)&0&S")A PA"S)& before the 9@"E9#tion#l %# it#l 0egion for S$indling, Mrs. J. A;uino #greed to #y the com l#in#nt h#lf the #mount s$indled from the l#tter. S#id P*1,BBB.BB offered by Mrs. J. A;uino #s settlement for the c#se of &st#f# $ill be #id by her through inst#llment scheme in the #mount of P1,BBB.BB er month beginning from the month of M#rch, 1991 until fully #id. "n $itness $hereof, the #rties hereunto set their h#nds this *6th d#y of M#rch 1991 #t 9@"E9%0, )#ft Avenue, M#nil#. ASgd.3 M0S. J<A9")A AS"OEAI<"9O 0es ondent ASgd.3 M0S. )&0&S")A PA"S)& %om l#in#nt >itnesses2 1.Signed A"llegible3 *. >A",&0 OF 0"J?) )O %O<9S&' )he undersigned #ccused-res ondent hereby $#ives her right to counsel des ite the recit#l of her constitution#l rights m#de by 9@" #gent &ly
)olentino in the resence of # l#$yer Jordon S. <y. ASgd.3 M0S. J<A9")A AS"OEAI<"9O ASgd.3 M0S. )&0&S")A PA"S)& H On A ril 6, 1991, etitioner brought J#rg#nt# to the house of res ondent. "n the resence of 6aran)a# %h#ir erson P#blo At#yde #nd # olice officer, res ondent ointed to J#rg#nt# #s the erson $ho sold the f#8e gold b#r. J#rg#nt# $#s brought to the olice st#tion $here there $#s # dem#nd #g#inst J#rg#nt# #lone. Subse;uently, res ondent filed # crimin#l com l#int from $hich #n "nform#tion #g#inst J#rg#nt#, etitioner, #nd three others for the crime of estafa in %rimin#l %#se 9o. 9*E99911 $#s filed before the M#nil# 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt A0)%3. )he "nform#tion re#ds2 )h#t on or #bout M#rch 1., 1991, in the %ity of M#nil#, Phili ines, the s#id #ccused cons iring #nd confeder#ting together $ith three others, $hose true n#mes, re#l identities #nd resent $here#bouts #re still un8no$n #nd hel ing one #nother, did then #nd there $illfully, unl#$fully #nd feloniously defr#ud )eresit# @.P#iste in the follo$ing m#nner to $it2 the s#id #ccused, by me#ns of f#lse m#nifest#tions #nd fr#udulent re resent#tions $hich they m#de to the s#id )eresit# @. P#iste to the effect th#t # cert#in Arnold, #n "gorot is selling # gold b#r for P1B,BBB.BB, #nd by me#ns of other simil#r deceits, induced #nd succeeded in inducing the s#id )eresit# @. P#iste to buy the s#id gold b#r #nd to give #nd deliver to s#id #ccused the tot#l #mount of P1B,BBB.BB, the herein #ccused $ell 8no$ing th#t their m#nifest#tions #nd re resent#tions $ere #ll f#lse #nd untrue #nd $ere m#de only for the ur ose of obt#ining, #s in f#ct
201
they did obt#in the s#id #mount of P1B,BBB.BB, $hich once in their ossession, they there#fter $illfully, unl#$fully #nd feloniously, $ith intent to defr#ud, mis# ro ri#ted, mis# lied #nd converted to their o$n erson#l use #nd benefit, to the d#m#ge #nd re=udice of the s#id )eresit# @. P#iste in the #fores#id #mount of P1B,BBB.BB, Phili ine %urrency. G Accused J#rg#nt# #nd the others rem#ined #t l#rge5 only etitioner $#s #rr#igned #nd entered # le# of not guilty. )ri#l ensued $ith the rosecution resenting the testimoni#l evidence of riv#te com l#in#nt, herein res ondent, Lol#nd# Pomer, #nd &ly )olentino. For her defense, etitioner testified #long $ith 6aran)a# %h#ir erson At#yde, JoseA;uino, #nd SPO1 0oberto %#il#n. )he rosecution resented #s document#ry evidence three A73 documents, one of $hich is the #mic#ble settlement signed in the 9@", $hile the defense relied solely on its testimoni#l evidence. T)! R$ ing o- t)! R!giona T*ia Co$*t On July 16, 199., the tri#l court rendered # Decision convicting etitioner of the crime ch#rged, the dis ositive ortion of $hich re#ds2 >?&0&FO0&, the %ourt finds the #ccused Ju#nit# A;uino guilty beyond re#son#ble doubt of the crime of est#f# #nd hereby sentences her to suffer the indetermin#te en#lty of F",& A13 L&A0S OF P0"S"O9 %O00&%%"O9A' #s minimum to 9"9& A93 L&A0S OF P0"S"O9 MALO0 #s m#/imum, #nd to indemnify the com l#in#nt,)eresit# @. P#iste the sum of P1B,BBB.BB $ith 1*N interest er #nnum counted from the filing of the "nform#tion until fully #id, #nd to #y the costs of suit.
SO O0D&0&D. ? )he 0)% found th#t etitioner cons ired $ith J#rg#nt#, Adeling, #nd Arnold in committing the crime of estafa. )he tri#l court li8e$ise g#ve credence to the #mic#ble settlement #s #ddition#l roof of etitioner!s guilt #s #n #mic#ble settlement in crimin#l c#ses is #n im lied #dmission of guilt. T)! R$ ing o- t)! Co$*t o- A44!a s Aggrieved, etitioner brought on # e#l the #bove 0)% decision before the %A, $hich $#s doc8eted #s %AEJ.0. %0 9o. **111. After the #rties filed their res ective briefs, on 9ovember 1B, *BBB, the # ell#te court rendered the #ss#iled Decision $hich #ffirmed in toto @ the July 16, 199. 0)% Decision. "n #ffirming the tri#l court!s findings #nd conclusions of l#$, the %A found th#t from the tenor of the #mic#ble settlement, the investig#tion before the 9@" did not ush through #s both #rties c#me to settle the m#tter #mic#bly. 9onetheless, the %A ointed out th#t etitioner $#s #ssisted, #lthough unnecess#rily, by #n inde endent counsel, # cert#in Atty. Jordon S. <y, during the roceedings. )he %A held th#t etitioner!s mere b#re #lleg#tion th#t she signed it under thre#t $#s insufficient for she resented no convincing evidence to bolster her cl#im. %onse;uently, the #mic#ble settlement $#s #dmitted #nd # reci#ted #s evidence #g#inst etitioner. 9evertheless, the %A ruled th#t even if the #mic#ble settlement $#s not #dmissible or $#s tot#lly disreg#rded, the 0)% still did not err in convicting etitioner #s it $#s indubit#bly sho$n by the rosecution through convincing evidence re lete in the records th#t res ondent cons ired $ith the other #ccused through #ctive #rtici #tion in the commission of the crime of estafa. In fine, the %A found th#t the rosecution h#d indeed est#blished the guilt of etitioner beyond re#son#ble doubt.
202
)hrough the #ss#iled A ril 6, *BB1 0esolution, the # denied etitioner!s motion for reconsider#tion. T)! Iss$!s
ell#te court
"MP<)&D )O ?&0 A9D "9 D&%'A0"9J ?&0 J<"')L )?&0&FO0 @&LO9D 0&ASO9A@'& DO<@).
?ence, $e h#ve the inst#nt etition under 0ule D1 of the 1996 0ules of %ivil Procedure, #scribing the follo$ing errors, $hich #re essenti#lly the s#me ones r#ised before the %A2 " )?& %O<0) A I<O &00&D "9 9O) D&%'A0"9J AS <9%O9S)")<)"O9A' A9D 'A%S"9J "9 %&0)A"9 P0&S%0"@&D 0&I<"0&M&9)S )?& "9,&S)"JA)"O9 %O9D<%)&D @L )?& "9,&S)"JA)O0 OF )?& 9A)"O9A' @<0&A< OF "9,&S)"JA)"O9 A9@"3, OF A%%<S&DEAPP&''A9) A9D %O0O''A0L )?&0&)O, )O %O9S"D&0 A9L A9D A'' &,"D&9%& P0O%<0&D )?&0&@L )O @& "9ADM"SS"@'& AS AJA"9S) A%%<S&DE APP&''A9). "" )?& %O<0) A I<O &00&D "9 9O) D&%'A0"9J AS <9%O9S)")<)"O9A' A9D 'A%S"9J "9 %&0)A"9 POS")",& PA0)"%<'A0S A9D S)0"%) %OMP'"A9%& )?& MA99&0 "9 >?"%? )?& >A",&0 OF 0"J?) )O %O<9S&' ?AD @&&9 ASS&D )O @& &+&%<)&D A9D S<@S%0"@&D @L A%%<S&DEAPP&''A9). """
", )?& %O<0) A I<O &00&D "9 F"9D"9J )?A) %O9SP"0A%L &+"S)&D @&)>&&9 ?&0&"9 A%%<S&DEAPP&''A9) A9D ?&0 %OE A%%<S&D, &'"PA@&)? JA0JA9)A D&'A %0<P. > T)! Co$*tOs R$ ing "n gist, the inst#nt etition roffers the t$in issues on A13 $hether the #mic#ble settlement e/ecuted in the 9@" is #dmissible #s evidence, #nd A*3 $hether cons ir#cy h#s indeed been roven to convict etitioner of the crime of estafa. )he inst#nt etition hinges on the issue of the #ssessment of evidence #nd their #dmissibility. As consistently ruled in innumer#ble c#ses, this %ourt is not # trier of f#cts. )he tri#l court is best e;ui ed to m#8e the #ssessment on s#id issues #nd, therefore, its f#ctu#l findings #re gener#lly not disturbed on # e#l unless the courts a &uo #re erceived to h#ve overloo8ed, misunderstood, or misinter reted cert#in f#cts or circumst#nces of $eight, $hich, if ro erly considered, $ould #ffect the result of the c#se #nd $#rr#nt # revers#l of the decision involved. >e do not find in the inst#nt c#se #ny such re#son to de #rt from this gener#l rinci le. ?o$ever, in the interest of subst#nti#l =ustice, $e sh#ll de#l $ith the issues r#ised by etitioner. Fi*st Co*! Iss$!# A%missi'i it, o- ami"a' ! inst*$m!nt
)?& %O<0) A I<O &00&D "9 F"9D"9J )?A) )?& A%%<S&DEAPP&''A9) )OOS A9 A%)",& PA0) "9 )?& %OMM"SS"O9 OF )?& F&'O9L
Petitioner #scribes error to the %A $hen it g#ve due $eight #nd consider#tion to the #mic#ble settlement $ith $#iver of right to
203
counsel th#t she signed in the 9@" during the custodi#l investig#tion. She cl#ims she e/ecuted the #greement under thre#t #nd not freely #nd volunt#rily, in viol#tion of Sec. 1* A13 B of the %onstitution $hich gu#r#ntees her rights under the Mir#nd# 0ule. >e #re not convinced. %ustodi#l investig#tion involves #ny ;uestioning initi#ted by l#$ enforcement officers #fter # erson h#s been t#8en into custody or other$ise de rived of his freedom of #ction in #ny signific#nt $#y. "t is only #fter the investig#tion ce#ses to be # gener#l in;uiry into #n unsolved crime #nd begins to focus on # #rticul#r sus ect, the sus ect is t#8en into custody, #nd the olice c#rries out # rocess of interrog#tions th#t lend itself to eliciting incrimin#ting st#tements, th#t the rule begins to o er#te. 10 0e ublic Act 9o. A0A3 6D7. 11 h#s e/tended this constitution#l gu#r#ntee to situ#tions in $hich #n individu#l h#s not been form#lly #rrested but h#s merely been (invited( for ;uestioning. 12 S ecific#lly, Sec. * of 0A 6D7. rovides th#t (custodial in!esti)ation sh#ll include the r#ctice of issuing #n in!itation to # erson $ho is investig#ted in connection $ith #n offense he is sus ected to h#ve committed . . . .( "t is evident th#t $hen etitioner $#s brought by res ondent before the 9@"E9%0 on M#rch *6, 1991 to be investig#ted, she $#s #lre#dy under custodi#l investig#tion #nd the constitution#l gu#r#ntee for her rights under the Mir#nd# 0ule h#s set in. Since she did not h#ve # l#$yer then, she $#s rovided $ith one in the erson of Atty. <y, $hich f#ct is undis uted. ?o$ever, it c#n be gle#ned from the #mic#ble #greement, #s # tly ointed out by the %A, th#t the custodi#l investig#tion on the in;uiry or investig#tion for the crime $#s either #borted or did not ush through #s the #rties, etitioner, #nd res ondent #greed to #mic#bly settle. )hus, the #mic#ble settlement $ith # $#iver of right to counsel # ended $#s e/ecuted $ith both #rties #ffi/ing their sign#tures on it in the resence of Atty. <y #nd 9@" #gent Atty. &ly )olentino.
Petitioner!s contention th#t her constitution#l rights $ere bre#ched #nd she signed the document under duress f#lls fl#t for the follo$ing re#sons2 First, it is undis uted th#t she $#s rovided $ith counsel, in the erson of Atty. <y. )he resum tion th#t Atty. <y is # com etent #nd inde endent counsel $hose interests #re not #dverse to etitioner h#s not been overturned. Petitioner h#s merely osed before the %A #nd no$ this %ourt th#t Atty. <y m#y not be #n inde endent #nd com etent counsel. >ithout #ny shred of evidence to bolster such cl#im, it c#nnot be entert#ined. Second, etitioner m#de much of the f#ct th#t Atty. <y $#s not resented #s $itness by the rosecution #nd th#t $h#t etitioner #nd Atty. <y su osedly conferred #bout $#s li8e$ise not resented. @#sic is the rinci le th#t consult#tion #nd inform#tion bet$een counsel #nd client is rivileged communic#tion #nd the counsel m#y not divulge these $ithout the consent of the client. @esides, # #rty in # c#se h#s full discretion to choose $hoever it $#nts #s testimoni#l $itnesses to bolster its c#se. >e c#nnot second guess the re#son of the rosecution in not resenting Atty. <y!s testimony, more so on #ccount of the counselEclient rivileged communic#tion. Furthermore, etitioner could h#ve #sserted its right (to h#ve com ulsory rocess to secure the #ttend#nce of $itnesses(, 1F for $hich she could h#ve com elled Atty. <y to testify. She did not. T%ird, etitioner never r#ised #ny ob=ection #g#inst Atty. Jordon <y!s # ointment during the time she $#s in the 9@" #nd there#fter, $hen she signed the #mic#ble settlement. As this %ourt # tly held in 'eople ! 1ere9, $hen (the #ccused never r#ised #ny ob=ection #g#inst the l#$yer!s # ointment during the course of the investig#tion #nd the #ccused there#fter subscribes to the ver#city of his st#tement before the s$e#ring officer( 1H the #ccused is deemed to h#ve eng#ged such l#$yer. ,erily, in the inst#nt c#se, etitioner is deemed to h#ve eng#ged Atty. <y $hen she conferred $ith him #nd there#fter signed the #mic#ble settlement $ith $#iver of right to counsel in his resence. >e do not see ho$ the #ns$er of 9@" #gent Atty. )olentino u on crossEe/#min#tion #bout the etitioner!s counsel
204
in the 9@", could be ev#sive $hen the 9@" #gent merely st#ted the f#ct th#t #n inde endent counsel, Atty. <y, $#s rovided etitioner. Fourt%, $hen etitioner eng#ged Atty. <y #s her l#$yer, she undoubtedly e/ecuted the #mic#ble settlement. ,erily, she $#s rovided $ith #n inde endent counsel #nd such (right to counsel is intended to reclude the slightest coercion #s $ould le#d the #ccused to #dmit something f#lse. )he l#$yer, ho$ever, should never revent #n #ccused from freely #nd volunt#rily telling the truth.( 1G An #mic#ble settlement is not #nd does not #rt#8e of the n#ture of #n e/tr#=udici#l confession or #dmission but is # contr#ct bet$een the #rties $ithin the #r#meters of their mutu#lly recogniCed #nd #dmitted rights #nd oblig#tions. )hus, the resence of Atty. <y s#fegu#rded etitioner!s rights even if the custodi#l investig#tion did not ush through #nd recluded #ny thre#t of violence, coercion, or intimid#tion. Moreover, $hile $e hold in this c#se th#t etitioner!s Mir#nd# rights $ere not viol#ted, still $e $ill not be remiss to reiter#te $h#t $e held in 'eople ! 2alimit th#t the infr#ctions of the soEc#lled Mir#nd# rights render in#dmissible (only the e/tr#=udici#l confession or #dmission m#de during custodi#l investig#tion. )he #dmissibility of other evidence, rovided they #re relev#nt to the issue #nd is not other$ise e/cluded by l#$ or rules, is not #ffected even if obt#ined or t#8en in the course of custodi#l investig#tion.( 1? An #dmission is #n #ct, decl#r#tion or omission of # #rty #s to # relev#nt f#ct, 1@ $hile confession is # decl#r#tion of #n #ccused #c8no$ledging his guilt of the offense ch#rged, or of #ny offense necess#rily included therein. 1> Fift%, even gr#nting ar)uendo th#t the #mic#ble settlement is in the n#ture of #n #dmission, the document etitioner signed $ould still be #dmissible since none of her constitution#l rights $ere viol#ted. Petitioner!s #lleg#tions of thre#t, violence, #nd intimid#tion rem#in but b#re #lleg#tions. Alleg#tions #re not roof. Pertinently, this %ourt ruled in 'eople ! Cal!o2 A confession is not rendered involunt#ry merely bec#use defend#nt $#s told th#t he should tell the
truth or th#t it $ould be better for him to tell the truth. St#ted else$ise, telling the #ccused th#t it $ould be better for him to s e#8 or tell the truth does not furnish #ny inducement, or # sufficient inducement, to render ob=ection#ble # confession thereby obt#ined, unless thre#ts or romises #re # lied. T)!s! t)*!ats o* 4*omis!s 2)i") t)! a""$s!% m$st s$""!ss-$ , 4*ov! in o*%!* to ma;! )is "on-!ssion ina%missi' !( m$st ta;! t)! -o*m o- vio !n"!( intimi%ation( a 4*omis! o*!2a*% o* !ni!n",. 1B "n fine, $e #gree $ith the courts a &uo th#t even #ssuming ar)uendo th#t the #mic#ble settlement is not #dmissible, still the conviction of etitioner $ould be #ffirmed #s cons ir#cy $#s duly roven by other ieces of evidence. S!"on% Co*! Iss$!# Cons4i*a", %$ , 4*ov!n "t is etitioner!s strong contention in her l#st t$o #ssigned errors th#t cons ir#cy h#s not been roven to convict her ofestafa. She #sserts th#t there $#s no strong sho$ing of #ny convincing #nd solidly conclusive roof th#t she too8 #n #ctive #rt in #ny h#se of the tr#ns#ction concerning the overt #cts constituting estafa th#t h#s been im uted to her. She #rgues th#t $h#tever #ct th#t might h#ve been im uted to her h#s #l$#ys been through the re;uest or insistence of either J#rg#nt# or res ondent #s the tr#nscri t of stenogr# hic notes reve#ls. She oints out th#t #fter she introduced J#rg#nt# to res ondent in the morning of M#rch 1D, 1991, she #lmost immedi#tely left them #nd she did not #ccom #ny J#rg#nt# $hen the l#tter $ent b#c8 to res ondent!s house in the #fternoon of M#rch 1D, 1991. And she #vers th#t signific#ntly, she did not rem#in in P#m #ng# #fter the com letion of the tr#ns#ction on M#rch 1., 1991, but c#me to M#nil# $ith res ondent. According to her, her nonE #rtici #tion in these t$o cruci#l meetings sho$s she $#s not #rt of #ny cons ir#cy to defr#ud res ondent. >e #re not ersu#ded.
205
%ons ir#cy is deemed to #rise $hen t$o or more ersons come to #n #greement concerning the commission of # felony #nd decide to commit it. %ons ir#cy need not be roven by direct evidence of rior #greement to commit the crime. 20 "n crimin#l l#$, $here the ;u#ntum of evidence re;uired is roof beyond re#son#ble doubt, direct roof is not essenti#l to sho$ cons ir#cy Q it m#y be deduced from the mode, method, #nd m#nner by $hich the offense $#s er etr#ted, or inferred from the #cts of the #ccused themselves $hen such #cts oint to # =oint ur ose #nd design, concerted #ction, #nd community of interest. 21
First, etitioner $#s $ith her coE#ccused J#rg#nt# #nd Adeling $hen they $ent to res ondent!s house on M#rch 1D, 1991 to tell her of the e/istence of # gold b#r, sho$ed her # s#m le, tried to convince res ondent to buy one, #nd $ent to # #$nsho in )ondo to h#ve the s#m le gold b#r tested. Second, the follo$ing d#y, M#rch 11, etitioner $#s #g#in $ith her coE#ccused $hen they $ent to Angeles %ity to vie$ the gold b#r in the residence of Arnold, #nd #rtici #ted in convincing res ondent to r#ise PhP1B,BBB for the urch#se of the gold b#r, #nd if res ondent did not h#ve money, to find # buyer. T%ird, on M#rch 16, etitioner $#s #g#in $ith her coE#ccused $hen they returned to the house of res ondent to #s8 if she h#d found # buyer. Since she h#d not, they #g#in ressed her to loo8 for one. Fourt%, on M#rch 16, she $ith her coE#ccused #g#in #ccom #nied res ondent to Angeles %ity #nd met $ith Arnold to convince him to #cce t PhP1B,BBB #s de osit, but $ere refused. Fift%, on M#rch 1., res ondent #g#in ressed res ondent to buy the gold b#r until the l#tter fin#lly succumbed #nd #id PhP1B,BBB. Petitioner even reEcounted the c#sh #yment, $r# ed it in ne$s # er, #nd h#nded the money herself to Arnold. "t is un;uestion#ble th#t etitioner $#s not # #ssive observer in the five d#ys from M#rch 1D to 1., 19915 she $#s #n #ctive #rtici #nt in inducing res ondent to buy the gold b#r. >e find no cogent re#son to #lter the conclusions of the %A. "ndeed, the records be#r out th#t cons ir#cy $#s duly roven by the coordin#ted #ctions of etitioner #nd her com #nions. %le#rly, etitioner!s contention th#t #ll she did $#s #t the behest of either J#rg#nt# or res ondent is belied by the f#ct th#t she too8 #rt in #ll the h#ses of the inducement right u to the urch#se by res ondent of the f#8e gold. "f it $#s true th#t she h#d no #rt in the tr#ns#ction, $hy $ould she still #ccom #ny J#rg#nt# to visit res ondent on the 11th, 16th, 16th, #nd 1.th of M#rch 1991:
"t is common design $hich is the essence of cons ir#cy Q cons ir#tors m#y #ct se #r#tely or together, in different m#nners but #l$#ys le#ding to the s#me unl#$ful result. )he ch#r#cter #nd effect of cons ir#cy #re not to be #d=udged by dismembering it #nd vie$ing its se #r#te #rts but only by loo8ing #t it #s # $hole Q #cts done to give effect to cons ir#cy m#y be, in f#ct, $holly innocent #cts. 22 Once roved, the #ct of one becomes the #ct of #ll. All the cons ir#tors #re #ns$er#ble #s coE rinci #ls reg#rdless of the e/tent or degree of their #rtici #tion. )o be held guilty #s # coE rinci #l by re#son of cons ir#cy, the #ccused must be sho$n to h#ve erformed #n overt #ct in ursu#nce or further#nce of the com licity. Mere resence $hen the tr#ns#ction $#s m#de does not necess#rily le#d to #n inference of concurrence $ith the crimin#l design to commit the crime of estafa. &ven 8no$ledge, #c;uiescence, or #greement to coo er#te is not enough to constitute one #s # #rty to # cons ir#cy bec#use the rule is th#t neither =oint nor simult#neous #ction is per se sufficient roof of cons ir#cy. 2F "n the inst#nt c#se, the courts a &uo un#nimously held th#t cons ir#cy $#s duly roven. As # tly observed by the %A, the records #re re lete $ith inst#nces to sho$ th#t etitioner #ctively #rtici #ted to defr#ud res ondent. )he follo$ing inst#nces #ll oint to the conclusion th#t etitioner cons ired $ith others to commit the crime2
206
Moreover, $ith tri s to P#m #ng# m#de on the 11th, 16th, #nd 1.th th#t t#8e sever#l hours, it is unf#thom#ble th#t etitioner $#s only doing # f#vor to either J#rg#nt# or res ondent, or to both. "neluct#bly, #fter h#ving been introduced to res ondent, J#rg#nt# could h#ve m#de the visits to res ondent $ithout t#gging #long etitioner. Let, the f#cts cle#rly sho$ th#t res ondent could not h#ve been thereby induced $ithout etitioner!s #ctive #rtici #tion in encour#ging res ondent to buy the gold b#r. Petitioner is the lynch in u on $hom res ondent!s interest $#s sto8ed, #nd ultim#tely to succumb to the lure of g#ining # f#t rofit by buying the gold b#r. Moreover, the f#ct th#t etitioner $ent b#c8 on the 1.th $ith res ondent to M#nil# inste#d of st#ying in P#m #ng# does not reclude her #ctive #rtici #tion in the cons ir#cy #s sho$n by the foregoing n#rr#tion. "t $ould h#ve been str#nge to res ondent if etitioner st#yed in P#m #ng# #fter the tr#ns#ction. )hus, etitioner indeed too8 #ctive #rt in the er etr#tion of estafa. And, etitioner h#s not sho$n #ny convincing roof th#t she $#s not #rt of the tr#ns#ction given the undis uted f#ctu#l milieu of the inst#nt c#se. Fin#lly, it be#rs stressing th#t etitioner $#s the one $ho 8no$s res ondent. She introduced res ondent to the other #ccused. >?&0&FO0&, the etition is D&9"&D for l#c8 of merit. )he %A!s 9ovember 1B, *BBB Decision #nd A ril 6, *BB1 0esolution in %AE J.0. %0 9o. **111 #re hereby AFF"0M&D "9 )O)O. %osts #g#inst etitioner. SO O0D&0&D. A44!n%i: I F!*%inan% C*$& vs. 1$%g! /i0a*!s
61 of the 0ules of %ourt. "t $#s directly filed $ith this %ourt #ss#iling the 0esolutions d#ted M#y 1B, *BB* 1#nd July 71, *BB* 2 of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt A0)%3, @r#nch 1B., P#s#y %ity, $hich denied the # e#r#nce of the l#intiff Ferdin#nd A. %ruC, herein etitioner, #s #rty litig#nt, #nd the refus#l of the ublic res ondent, Judge Priscill#Mi=#res, to volunt#rily inhibit herself from trying the c#se. 9o $rit of relimin#ry in=unction $#s issued by this %ourt. )he #ntecedents2 On M#rch 1, *BB*, Ferdin#nd A. %ruC A etitioner3 sought ermission to enter his # e#r#nce for #nd on his beh#lf, before the 0)%, @r#nch 1B., P#s#y %ity, #s the l#intiff in %ivil %#se 9o. B1EBD1B, for Ab#tement of 9uis#nce. Petitioner, # fourth ye#r l#$ student, #nchors his cl#im on Section 7D of 0ule 17. of the 0ules of %ourt F th#t # nonEl#$yer m#y # e#r before #ny court #nd conduct his litig#tion erson#lly. During the reEtri#l, Judge Priscill# Mi=#res re;uired the etitioner to secure # $ritten ermission from the %ourt Administr#tor before he could be #llo$ed to # e#r #s counsel for himself, # #rtyElitig#nt. Atty. St#nley %#brer#, counsel for @en=#min Min#, Jr., filed # Motion to Dismiss inste#d of # reEtri#l brief to $hich etitioner %ruC vehemently ob=ected #lleging th#t # Motion to Dismiss is not #llo$ed #fter the Ans$er h#d been filed. Judge Mi=#res then rem#r8ed,(Ha# na5u, masama >#un) marunon) pa sa Hu4es *5G( #nd roceeded to he#r the ending Motion to Dismiss #nd c#lend#red the ne/t he#ring on M#y *, *BB*. D)"cS? On M#rch 6, *BB*, etitioner %ruC filed # M#nifest#tion #nd Motion to "nhibit, H r#ying for the volunt#ry inhibition ofJudge Mi=#res. )he Motion #lleged th#t e/ ected #rti#lity on the #rt of the res ondent =udge in the conduct of the tri#l could be inferred from the contum#cious rem#r8s of Judge Mi=#res during the reEtri#l. "t #sserts th#t the =udge, in uttering #n unc#lled for rem#r8, reflects # neg#tive fr#me of mind, $hich engenders the belief th#t =ustice $ill not be served. G
)his is # Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition #nd 2andamus, $ith r#yer for the issu#nce of # $rit of relimin#ry in=unction under 0ule
207
"n #n Order ? d#ted A ril 19, *BB*, Judge Mi=#res denied the motion for inhibition st#ting th#t thro$ing tenuous #lleg#tions of #rti#lity b#sed on the s#id rem#r8 is not enough to $#rr#nt her volunt#ry inhibition, considering th#t it $#s s#id even rior to the st#rt of reE tri#l. Petitioner filed # motion for reconsider#tion @ of the s#id order. #S%?cA On M#y 1B, *BB*, Judge Mi=#res denied the motion $ith fin#lity. > "n the s#me Order, the tri#l court held th#t for the f#ilure of etitioner %ruC to submit the romised document #nd =uris rudence, #nd for his f#ilure to s#tisfy the re;uirements or conditions under 0ule 17.EA of the 0ules of %ourt, his # e#r#nce $#s denied. "n # motion for reconsider#tion, B etitioner reiter#ted th#t the b#sis of his # e#r#nce $#s not 0ule 17.EA, but Section 7D of 0ule 17.. ?e contended th#t the t$o 0ules $ere distinct #nd #re # lic#ble to different circumst#nces, but the res ondent =udge denied the s#me, still invo8ing 0ule 17.EA, in #n Order 10 d#ted July 71, *BB*. On August 16, *BB*, the etitioner directly filed $ith this %ourt, the inst#nt etition #nd #ssigns the follo$ing errors2 ". )?& 0&SPO9D&9) 0&J"O9A' )0"A' %O<0) J0A,&'L &00&D A9D A@<S&D ")S D"S%0&)"O9 >?&9 ") D&9"&D )?& APP&A0A9%& OF )?& P&)")"O9&0, FO0 A9D "9 )?& 'A))&0!S @&?A'F, "9 %","' %AS& 9O. B1EBDB1 HsicI %O9)0A0L )O 0<'& 17., S&%)"O9 7D OF )?& 0<'&S OF %O<0), P0O,"D"9J FO0 )?& APP&A0A9%& OF 9O9E 'A>L&0S AS A PA0)L '")"JA9)5 "". )?& 0&SPO9D&9) %O<0) J0A,&'L &00&D A9D A@<S&D ")S D"S%0&)"O9 >?&9 ") D"D
9O) ,O'<9)A0"'L "9?"@") D&SP")& )?& AD,&9) OF J<0"SP0<D&9%& HsicI )?A) S<%? A9 "9?"@")"O9 "S P0OP&0 )O P0&S&0,& )?& P&OP'&!S FA")? A9D %O9F"D&9%& )O )?& %O<0)S. ?cA%S) )he core issues r#ised before the %ourt #re2 A13 $hether the e/tr#ordin#ry $rits of certiorari, rohibition #nd mandamusunder 0ule 61 of the 1996 0ules of %ourt m#y issue5 #nd A*3 $hether the res ondent court #cted $ith gr#ve #buse of discretion #mounting to l#c8 or e/cess of =urisdiction $hen it denied the # e#r#nce of the etitioner #s #rty litig#nt #nd $hen the =udge refused to inhibit herself from trying the c#se. )his %ourt!s =urisdiction to issue $rits of certiorari, rohibition, mandamus #nd in=unction is not e/clusive5 it h#s concurrent =urisdiction $ith the 0)%s #nd the %ourt of A e#ls. )his concurrence of =urisdiction is not, ho$ever, to be t#8en #s #n #bsolute, unrestr#ined freedom to choose the court $here the # lic#tion therefor $ill be directed. 11 A becoming reg#rd of the =udici#l hier#rchy most cert#inly indic#tes th#t etitions for the issu#nce of e/tr#ordin#ry $rits #g#inst the 0)%s should be filed $ith the %ourt of A e#ls. 12 )he hier#rchy of courts is determin#tive of the # ro ri#te forum for etitions for the e/tr#ordin#ry $rits5 #nd only in e/ce tion#l c#ses #nd for com elling re#sons, or if $#rr#nted by the n#ture of the issues revie$ed, m#y this %ourt t#8e cogniC#nce of etitions filed directly before it. 1F #A?)DS %onsidering, ho$ever, th#t this c#se involves the inter ret#tion of Section 7D, 0ule 17. #nd 0ule 17.EA of the 0ules of %ourt, the %ourt t#8es cogniC#nce of herein etition. 9onetheless, the etitioner is c#utioned not to continue his r#ctice of filing directly before this %ourt etitions under 0ule 61 $hen the issue r#ised c#n be resolved $ith dis #tch by the %ourt of A e#ls. >e $ill not toler#te litig#nts $ho m#8e # moc8ery of the =udici#l hier#rchy #s it necess#rily del#ys more im ort#nt concerns before us. "n resolving the second issue, # com #r#tive re#ding of 0ule 17., Section 7D #nd 0ule 17.EA is necess#ry.
208
0ule 17.EA, or the '#$ Student Pr#ctice 0ule, rovides2 0<'& 17.EA 'A> S)<D&9) P0A%)"%& 0<'& Section 1.Conditions for Student 'ractice. Q A l#$ student $ho h#s successfully com leted his 7rd ye#r of the regul#r fourEye#r rescribed l#$ curriculum #nd is !n*o !% in a *!"ogni&!% a2 s")oo Os " ini"a !ga !%$"ation 4*og*am # roved by the Su reme %ourt, m#y # e#r $ithout com ens#tion in #ny civil, crimin#l or #dministr#tive c#se before #ny tri#l court, tribun#l, bo#rd or officer, to re resent indigent clients #cce ted by the leg#l clinic of the l#$ school. #Dc&"? Sec. *.Appearance. Q )he # e#r#nce of the l#$ student #uthoriCed by this rule, sh#ll be $n%!* t)! %i*!"t s$4!*vision an% "ont*o o- a m!m'!* ot)! Int!g*at!% 6a* o- t)! +)i i44in!s %$ , a""*!%it!% ', t)! a2 s")oo . Any #nd #ll le#dings, motions, briefs, memor#nd# or other # ers to be filed, must be signed by the su ervising #ttorney for #nd in beh#lf of the leg#l clinic. )he res ondent court held th#t the etitioner could not # e#r for himself #nd on his beh#lf bec#use of his f#ilure to com ly $ith 0ule 17.EA. "n denying etitioner!s # e#r#nce, the court a &uo tersely finds refuge in the f#ct th#t, on December 1., 19.6, this %ourt issued %ircul#r 9o. 19, $hich eventu#lly bec#me 0ule 17.EA, #nd the f#ilure of %ruC to rove on record th#t he is enrolled in # recogniCed school!s clinic#l leg#l educ#tion rogr#m #nd is under su ervision of #n #ttorney duly #ccredited by the l#$ school. S#")?%
?o$ever, the etitioner insisted th#t the b#sis of his # Section 7D of 0ule 17., $hich rovides2
e#r#nce $#s
Sec. 7D.6# 4%om liti)ation is conducted Q "n the court of # =ustice of the e#ce, # #rty m#y conduct his litig#tion in erson, $ith the #id of #n #gent or friend # ointed by him for th#t ur ose, or $ith the #id of #n #ttorney. In an, ot)!* "o$*t( a 4a*t, ma, "on%$"t )is itigation 4!*sona , or by #id of #n #ttorney, #nd his # e#r#nce must be either erson#l or by # duly #uthoriCed member of the b#r. #nd is # rule distinct from 0ule 17.EA. From the cle#r l#ngu#ge of this rovision of the 0ules, it $ill h#ve to be conceded th#t the contention of the etitioner h#s merit. "t recogniCes the right of #n individu#l to re resent himself in #ny c#se to $hich he is # #rty. )he 0ules st#te th#t # #rty m#y conduct his litig#tion erson#lly or $ith the #id of #n #ttorney, #nd th#t his # e#r#nce must either be erson#l or by # duly #uthoriCed member of the @#r. )he individu#l litig#nt m#y erson#lly do everything in the course of roceedings from commencement to the termin#tion of the litig#tion. 1H %onsidering th#t # #rty erson#lly conducting his litig#tion is restricted to the s#me rules of evidence #nd rocedure #s those ;u#lified to r#ctice l#$, 1G etitioner, not being # l#$yer himself, runs the ris8 of f#lling into the sn#res #nd h#C#rds of his o$n ignor#nce. )herefore, %ruC #s l#intiff, #t his o$n inst#nce, c#n erson#lly conduct the litig#tion of %ivil %#se 9o. B1EBD1B. ?e $ould then be #cting not #s # counsel or l#$yer, but #s # #rty e/ercising his right to re resent himself. cS)?A% )he tri#l court must h#ve been misled by the f#ct th#t the etitioner is # l#$ student #nd must, therefore, be sub=ect to the conditions of the '#$ Student Pr#ctice 0ule. "t erred in # lying 0ule 17.EA, $hen the b#sis of the etitioner!s cl#im is Section 7D of 0ule 17.. )he former rule rovides for conditions $hen # l#$ student m#y # e#r in courts, $hile the l#tter rule #llo$s the # e#r#nce of # nonEl#$yer #s # #rty re resenting himself.
209
)he conclusion of the tri#l court th#t 0ule 17.EA su erseded 0ule 17. by virtue of %ircul#r 9o. 19 is mis l#ced. )he %ourt never intended to re e#l 0ule 17. $hen it rele#sed the guidelines for limited l#$ student r#ctice. "n f#ct, it $#s intended #s #n #ddendum to the inst#nces $hen # nonEl#$yer m#y # e#r in courts #nd $#s incor or#ted to the 0ules of %ourt through 0ule 17.EA. #%?c"&
th#t there is no v#lid ground for her volunt#ry inhibition des ite her #lleged neg#tive deme#nor during the reEtri#l $hen she s#id2 (Ha# na5u, masama >#un) marunon) pa sa Hu4es *5G( Petitioner #vers th#t by denying his motion, the res ondent =udge #lre#dy m#nifested conduct indic#tive of #rbitr#riness #nd re=udice, c#using etitioner!s #nd his coE l#intiff!s loss of f#ith #nd confidence in the res ondent!s im #rti#lity. DA%"?c >e do not #gree.
"t m#y be relev#nt to rec#ll th#t, in res ect to the constitution#l right of #n #ccused to be he#rd by himself #nd counsel,1? this %ourt h#s held th#t during the tri#l, the right to counsel c#nnot be $#ived. 1@ )he r#tion#le for this ruling $#s #rticul#ted in 'eople ! Hol)ado, 1> $here $e decl#red th#t (even the most intelligent or educ#ted m#n m#y h#ve no s8ill in the science of l#$, #rticul#rly in the rules of rocedure, #nd $ithout counsel, he m#y be convicted not bec#use he is guilty but bec#use he does not 8no$ ho$ to est#blish his innocence(. )he c#se #t b#r involves # civil c#se, $ith the etitioner #s l#intiff therein. )he solicitous concern th#t the %onstitution #ccords the #ccused in # crimin#l rosecution obviously does not obt#in in # civil c#se. )hus, # #rty litig#nt in # civil c#se, $ho insists th#t he c#n, $ithout # l#$yer!s #ssist#nce, effectively undert#8e the successful ursuit of his cl#im, m#y be given the ch#nce to do so. "n this c#se, etitioner #lleges th#t he is # l#$ student #nd im liedly #sserts th#t he h#s the com etence to litig#te the c#se himself. &vidently, he is #$#re of the erils incident to this decision. &?)AD# "n #ddition, it $#s subse;uently cl#rified in @#r M#tter 67B, th#t by virtue of Section 7D, 0ule 17., # l#$ student m#y # e#r #s #n #gent or # friend of # #rty litig#nt, $ithout need of the su ervision of # l#$yer, before inferior courts. ?ere, $e h#ve # l#$ student $ho, #s #rty litig#nt, $ishes to re resent himself in court. >e should gr#nt his $ish. Addition#lly, ho$ever, etitioner contends th#t the res ondent =udge committed m#nifest bi#s #nd #rti#lity by ruling
"t must be noted th#t bec#use of this incident, the etitioner filed #n #dministr#tive c#se 1B #g#inst the res ondent for viol#tion of the %#nons of Judici#l &thics, $hich $e dismissed for l#c8 of merit on Se tember 11, *BB*. >e no$ #do t the %ourt!s findings of f#ct in the #dministr#tive c#se #nd rule th#t there $#s no gr#ve #buse of discretion on the #rt ofJudge Mi=#res $hen she did not inhibit herself from the tri#l of the c#se. "n # Motion for "nhibition, the mov#nt must rove the ground for bi#s #nd re=udice by cle#r #nd convincing evidence to dis;u#lify # =udge from #rtici #ting in # #rticul#r tri#l, 20 #s volunt#ry inhibition is rim#rily # m#tter of conscience #nd #ddressed to the sound discretion of the =udge. )he decision on $hether she should inhibit herself must be b#sed on her r#tion#l #nd logic#l #ssessment of the circumst#nces rev#iling in the c#se before her. 21 Absent cle#r #nd convincing roof of gr#ve #buse of discretion on the #rt of the =udge, this %ourt $ill rule in f#vor of the resum tion th#t offici#l duty h#s been regul#rly erformed. A&D%?c >?&0&FO0&, the Petition is PA0)"A''L J0A9)&D. )he #ss#iled 0esolution #nd Order of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, @r#nch 1B., P#s#y %ity #re MOD"F"&D. 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, @r#nch 1B., P#s#y %ity is D"0&%)&D to ADM") the &ntry of A e#r#nce of etitioner in %ivil %#se 9o. B1EBD1B #s # #rty litig#nt. 9o ronouncement #s to costs. SO O0D&0&D.
210
A44!n%i: 1 U.S. vs. 1avi!*
t#/ #ssessed in his rovince under the rovisions of Act 9o. 161*. A lying the re#soning of our decision in the c#se of <. S. !s. Melecio &st#villo et #l., 9o. 6177, 1 =ust decided, to the f#cts s#tisf#ctorily est#blished #t the tri#l of this c#se, the =udgment of conviction in the court belo$ must be #ffirmed, but the sentence must be modified by stri8ing out therefrom so much thereof #s im oses subsidi#ry im risonment in the event of f#ilure to #y the costs, #nd by fi/ing the r#te #t $hich the subsidi#ry im risonment in the event of non #yment of the fine is to be estim#ted #t P*.1B, inste#d of P* er diem. )hus modified, the sentence im osed by the tri#l court is #ffirmed, $ith costs #g#inst the # ell#nt. A44!n%i: . Ta ino vs. San%igan'a,an
)he # ell#nt $#s ch#rged in the court belo$ $ith # viol#tion of the &lection '#$ in th#t he f#lsely s$ore th#t he $#s not delin;uent in the #yment of ublic t#/es #ssessed since August 17, 1.9., $hen, in truth #nd in f#ct, he $#s delin;uent in the #yment of the (ro#d #nd bridge fund( cedul# t#/ #ssessed in his rovince under the rovisions of Act 9o. 161*. )he # ell#nt #dmits #nd the roof est#blishes th#t #t the time $hen he too8 s#id o#th, he h#d not #id the (ro#d #nd bridge fund( cedul# t#/ #ssessed in his rovince under the rovisions of Act 9o. 161*. ?e contends, ho$ever, th#t h#ving once #id # cedul# t#/ in M#nil#, $hich included the s eci#l #ddition#l (ro#d #nd bridge fund( t#/, the im osition of $hich is #uthoriCed under Act 9o. 161*, he $#s not re;uired to #y the s eci#l #ddition#l (ro#d #nd bridge fund( t#/ levied in the rovince $herein he resided #t the time of t#8ing the o#th. @ut the l#$ is so cle#r #nd e/ licit u on this oint th#t there c#n be no room for discussion, Act. 9o. 161*, #mending Act 9o. .7 #nd Act 9o. 11.9, e/ ressly roviding th#t2 (. . . All residents of # rovince sub=ect to the #yment of # cedul# t#/ $herein the incre#se herein rovided is in effect sh#ll #y the s#me $ithin th#t rovince, #nd #yment thereof in #ny rovince other th#n th#t of their residence sh#ll not e/em t such residents from #ying #lso in the rovince in $hich, they reside the #ddition#l cedul# t#/ for $hich rovision m#y be m#de by resolution of the rovinci#l bo#rd in #ccord#nce $ith this section . . .( "t is ;uite cle#r, therefore, th#t #t the time $hen the defend#nt m#de o#th th#t he $#s not (delin;uent in the #yment of ublic t#/es #ssessed since August 17, 1.9.,( he $#s in f#ct delin;uent in the #yment of the (ro#d #nd bridge fund( cedul#
"t is settled th#t if # se #r#te tri#l is #llo$ed to one of t$o or more defend#nts, his testimony therein im uting guilt to #ny of the coE #ccused is not #dmissible #g#inst the l#tter $ho $#s not #ble to crossEe/#mine him. 1 )he issue in this c#se is $hether or not such testimony $#s considered by the res ondent court #g#inst the etitioner, $ho cl#ims th#t it $#s in f#ct the sole b#sis of his conviction. r'' )he etitioner, #long $ith sever#l others, $ere ch#rged in four se #r#te inform#tions $ith est#f# through f#lsific#tion of ublic documents for h#ving #llegedly cons ired to defr#ud the government in the tot#l #mount of P*6,1*7.BB, re resenting the cost of re #irs cl#imed to h#ve been undert#8en, but #ctu#lly not needed #nd never m#de, on four government vehicles, through f#lsific#tion of the su orting # ers to #uthoriCe the illeg#l #yments 2 Doc8eted #s %% 9os. 66.1, 66.*, 66.7 #nd 66.D, these c#ses $ere tried =ointly for #ll the #ccused until #fter the rosecution h#d rested, $hen Jen#ro @#silio, Ale=#ndro M#c#d#ngd#ng #nd
211
etitioner )#lino #s8ed for se #r#te tri#ls, $hich $ere #llo$ed. F)hey then resented their evidence #t such tri#ls, $hile the other #ccused continued defending themselves in the origin#l roceedings, #t $hich one of them, Pio <l#t, g#ve d#m#ging testimony #g#inst the etitioner, rel#ting in det#il his #rtici #tion in the ;uestioned tr#ns#ctions. H "n due time, the S#ndig#nb#y#n rendered its decision in #ll the four c#ses finding )#lino, @#silio, M#c#d#ngd#ng, <l#t #nd 0en#to ,#ldeC guilty beyond re#son#ble doubt of the crimes ch#rged $hile #bsolving the other defend#nts for insufficient evidence. )his decision is no$ ch#llenged by the etitioner on the ground th#t it viol#tes his right of confront#tion #s gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution. "n its decision, the res ondent court NN m#8es the follo$ing rem#r8s #bout the se #r#te tri#l2 ()he eculi#rity of the tri#l of these c#ses is the f#ct th#t >e #llo$ed, u on their etition, se #r#te tri#ls for the #ccused @#silio #nd )#lino #nd M#c#d#ngd#ng. )his being the c#se, >e c#n only consider, in deciding these c#ses #s #g#inst them, the evidence for the rosecution #s $ell #s their o$n evidence. &vidence offered by the other #ccused c#n not be t#8en u . ("t $ould re#lly h#ve been sim ler h#d there been no se #r#te tri#l bec#use the #ccused Pio @. <l#t s#id so m#ny incrimin#tory things #g#inst the other #ccused $hen he too8 the st#nd in his o$n defense. @ut bec#use @#silio, )#lino #nd M#c#d#ngd#ng $ere gr#nted se #r#te tri#ls #nd they did not cross e/#mine <l#t bec#use, #s # m#tter of f#ct, they $ere not even re;uired to be resent $hen the other #ccused $ere resenting their defenses, the l#tter!s testimonies c#n not no$ be considered #g#inst s#id three #ccused. (>e c#nnot underst#nd $hy, #fter it h#d he#rd the long #nd sordid story rel#ted by <l#t on the st#nd,
the rosecution did not ende#vor to c#ll <l#t #nd ut him on the st#nd #s #rt of its rebutt#l evidence. ?#d this been done, there $ould h#ve been no im ediment to the consider#tion of <l#t!s testimony #g#inst #ll the #ccused.( G )he gr#nt of # se #r#te tri#l rests in the sound discretion of the court #nd is not # m#tter of right to the #ccused, es eci#lly $here, #s in this c#se, it is sought #fter the resent#tion of the evidence of the rosecution. ? >hile it is true th#t 0ule 119, Section ., of the 0ules of %ourt does not s ecify $hen the motion for such # tri#l should be filed, $e h#ve held in sever#l c#ses th#t this should be done before the rosecution commences resenting its evidence, #lthough, #s #n e/ce tion, the motion m#y be gr#nted l#ter, even #fter the rosecution sh#ll h#ve rested, $here there # e#rs to be #n #nt#gonism in the res ective defenses of the #ccused. @ "n such #n event, the evidence in chief of the rosecution sh#ll rem#in on record #g#inst #ll the #ccused, $ith right of rebutt#l on the #rt of the fisc#l in the se #r#te tri#l of the other #ccused. > )he rule in every c#se is th#t the tri#l court should e/ercise the utmost circums ection in gr#nting # motion for se #r#te tri#l, #llo$ing the s#me only #fter # thorough study of the cl#imed =ustific#tion therefor, if only to #void the serious difficulties th#t m#y #rise, such #s the one encountered #nd regretted by the res ondent court, in #ccording the #ccused the right of confront#tion. )he right of confront#tion is one of the fund#ment#l rights gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution B to the erson f#cing crimin#l rosecution $ho should 8no$, in f#irness, $ho his #ccusers #re #nd must be given # ch#nce to crossEe/#mine them on their ch#rges. 9o #ccus#tion is ermitted to be m#de #g#inst his b#c8 or in his #bsence nor is #ny derog#tory inform#tion #cce ted if it is m#de #nonymously, #s in oison en letters sent by ersons $ho c#nnot st#nd by their libels #nd must shroud their s ite in secrecy. )h#t is #lso the re#son $hy e" parte #ffid#vits #re not ermitted unless the #ffi#nt is resented in court 10 #nd he#rs#y is b#rred s#ve only in the c#ses #llo$ed by the 0ules of %ourt, li8e the dying decl#r#tion. 11
212
"n <nited St#tes v. J#vier, 12 this %ourt em h#siCed2 (. . . >ith reference to the cl#use of the @ill of 0ights, $hich $e h#ve ;uoted, Justice D#y s#id in # c#se of Phili ine origin ADo$dell v. <.S. W1911X, **1 <.S. 7*13 th#t it `intends to secure the #ccused in the right to be tried, so f#r #s f#cts rov#ble by $itnesses #re concerned, by only such $itnesses #s meet him f#ce to f#ce #t the tri#l $ho give their testimony in his resence, #nd give to the #ccused #n o ortunity of crossE e/#min#tion. "t $#s intended to revent the conviction of the #ccused u on de ositions or e" parte #ffid#vits, #nd #rticul#rly to reserve the right of the #ccused to test the recollection of the $itness in the e/ercise of the right of crossE e/#min#tion.! "n other $ords, confront#tion is essenti#l bec#use crossEe/#min#tion is essenti#l. A second re#son for the rohibition is th#t # tribun#l m#y h#ve before it the de ortment #nd # e#r#nce of the $itness $hile testifying. A<.S. v. An#st#cio W19B6X, 6 Phil. D17.3 )he Su reme %ourt of the Phili ine "sl#nds h#s # lied this constitution#l rovision on beh#lf of #ccused ersons in # number of c#ses. ASee for e/#m le <.S. v. )#n=u#nco W19B*X, 1 Phil., 76D5 <.S. v. @ello W19B.X, 11 Phil., 1*65 <.S. v. De l# %ruC W19B.X, 1* Phil. .6.3 . . . .( >e h#ve c#refully studied the decision under ch#llenge #nd find th#t the res ondent court did not consider the testimony given by <l#t in convicting the etitioner. )he #rt of th#t decision finding )#lino guilty m#de no mention of <l#t #t #ll but confined itself to the etitioner!s o$n #cts in # roving the ;uestioned vouchers #s roof of his com licity in the lot to s$indle the government. )hus2 'e/'ib ("f, #s cl#imed, by M#c#d#ngd#ng, he h#d no 8no$ledge nor #rtici #tion in the cons ir#cy to
defr#ud, he $ould h#ve ;uestioned this obvious irregul#rity. ?e $ould h#ve #s8ed $hoever $#s follo$ing u the vouchers $hy t$o biddings $ere conducted, $hy the #$#rds to `D!Alfenor! $ere c#ncelled, $hen the l#tter $ere c#ncelled, #nd $hen the ne$ bidding $#s m#de. ()he very s#me c#se is true #s reg#rds the #ccused Agustin )#lino. >hile his duty to initi#l or sign the vouchers #s reg#rds the #de;u#cy of funds m#y h#ve been ministeri#l, his f#ilure to observe the obvious irregul#rity is cle#r evidence of his com licity in the cons ir#cy. ()#lino decl#red th#t in the morning of M#y *7, 19.B, four vouchers Aincluding three m#de out in f#vor of `D!Alfenor 0e #ir Sho !3 $ere brought to him for his certific#te #s reg#rds the #v#il#bility of funds. ?e h#d signed #ll the four vouchers. "n the #fternoon of the s#me d#y, three other vouchers $ere #lso resented to him for certific#tion #s to funds these three $ere in substitution of &/hibits `A!, `@! #nd `%! $hich he h#d e#rlier signed but $hich, #ccording to )#lino, $ere dis#llo$ed #nd c#ncelled. )#lino cl#ims th#t he h#d e/#mined the su orting documents of the l#st three vouchers Q the 0",, the bids signed by the re #ir sho s #nd the #bstr#ct of bids. "f $h#t )#lino s#ys is true, #t le#st the #bstr#ct of bids submitted in the morning, $here `D!Alfenor Motor Sho ! # e#rs to be the lo$est bidder, must h#ve been different from the ones submitted together $ith vouchers in the #fternoon. )his $ould h#ve r#ised his sus icions #s to $hy these l#st three #bstr#cts could be d#ted #s they $ere AM#y 1., M#y 11 #nd M#y 11, res ectively3 $hen it $#s only th#t morning th#t the #bstr#cts cont#ining the n#me of `D!Alfenor Motor Sho ! $ere submitted. )he f#ct th#t he re#dily # roved the substitute vouchers
213
$ith the substitute $inning bidders is # cle#r indic#tion th#t he 8ne$ he $#s f#cilit#ting #n irregul#r tr#ns#ction. ("t is our vie$ th#t the evidence on record h#s est#blished beyond doubt the #rtici #tion of both Agustin)#lino #nd Ale=#ndro M#c#d#ngd#ng in #ll the four felonies ch#rged in the inform#tions.( 1F )he etitioner m#8es much of the st#tement in the %omment th#t the etitioner!s guilt could be deduced (from the evidence for the rosecution #nd from the testimony of Pio <l#t,( 1H but th#t $#s not the res ondent court s e#8ing. )h#t $#s the Solicitor Jener#l!s #n#lysis. As f#r #s the S#ndig#nb#y#n $#s concerned, the s#id testimony $#s in#dmissible #g#inst the etitioner bec#use he (did not cross e/#mine <l#t,( #nd $#s not even re;uired to be resent $hen the l#tter $#s testifying. "n f#ct, the res ondent court even e/ ressed the $ish th#t <l#t h#d been resented #s rebutt#l $itness in the se #r#te tri#l of the etitioner #s there $ould then h#ve been (no im ediment to the use of his testimony #g#inst the other #ccused.( As this $#s not done, the tri#l court could not #nd did not consider <l#t!s testimony in determining the etitioner! s #rt in the offenses.
Prosecuted in the %ourt of First "nst#nce of '#n#o for homicide through rec8less im rudence #nd illeg#l ossession of fire#rm under one inform#tion, the # ell#nt $#s #c;uitted of the first offense #nd found guilty of the second, for $hich he $#s sentenced to one ye#r im risonment. )his # e#l is from th#t sentence r#ising f#ctu#l, leg#l #nd constitution#l ;uestions. )he constitution#l ;uestion, set u #fter the submission of the briefs, h#s to do $ith the ob=ection th#t the en#lty Q from 1 to 1B ye#rs of im risonment #nd fines Q rovided by 0e ublic Act 9o. D is cruel #nd unusu#l. As to the f#cts. )he fire#rm $ith $hich the # ell#nt $#s ch#rged $ith h#ving in his ossession $#s # rifle #nd belonged to his f#ther, @runo &stoist#, $ho held # leg#l ermit for it. F#ther #nd son lived in the s#me house, # little dist#nce from # *6Ehect#re est#te belonging to the f#mily $hich $#s #rtly covered $ith cogon gr#ss, t#ll $eeds #nd second gro$th trees. From # s ot in the l#nt#tion 1BB to 1*B meters from the house, the defend#nt too8 # shot #t # $ild rooster #nd hit Dir#gon Dim#, # l#borer of the f#mily $ho $#s setting # tr# for $ild chic8ens #nd $hose resence $#s not erceived by the #ccused. )he evidence is some$h#t conflicting on $hether the o$ner of the rifle $#s $ith the #ccused #t the time of the #ccident#l 8illing. @runo &stoist# testified th#t on the morning of the #ccident, Febru#ry 1B, 19D9, his son told him th#t there $ere $ild chic8ens on the l#nt#tion (scr#tching #l#y #nd corn( l#nts #nd #s8ed if he might shoot them5 th#t @runo told his son to $#it, got the rifle from the house or loc8er, h#nded it over to Alberto $ho is # (sh#r E shooter( #nd (shoots better,( #nd $#l8ed #bout *B meters behind the young m#n5 th#t @runo $#s th#t f#r from Alberto $hen the l#tter fired #nd #ccident#lly $ounded their serv#nt.
)he f#ctu#l findings of the res ondent court being su orted by subst#nti#l evidence other th#n <l#t!s testimony, $e see no re#son to disturb them. "t is futile for the etitioner to invo8e his constitution#l resum tion of innocence bec#use his guilt h#s in the vie$ of the tri#l court been est#blished beyond re#son#ble doubt, #nd $e #gree. >?&0&FO0&, the =udgment # e#led from is AFF"0M&D, $ith costs #g#inst the etitioner. '' hil A44!n%i: L +!o4 ! vs. Estoista
214
)he defend#nt!s 8ey testimony is2 (>hen " he#rd $ild rooster cro$ing " told my f#ther #bout the s#id $ild rooster cro$ing ne#r our house #nd he told me to shoot the s#id $ild rooster, so " $ent to shoot it.( @runo!s testimony #t the tri#l is in direct contr#diction to his #nd his son!s st#tements #t the %onst#bul#ry he#d;u#rters on the s#me morning of the shooting, #nd s$orn to by them before the =ustice of the e#ce soon #fter. @runo rel#ted on th#t occ#sion th#t Alberto ($ent to hunt for $ild roosters5( th#t (l#ter on my son Alberto c#me to inform me th#t he h#d #ccident#lly hit our l#borer5( th#t thereu on he ($ent $ith my son to see $h#t h# ened.( Iueried ($ho $#s $ith Alberto $hen he $ent out hunting,( @runo re lied, (?e $#s #lone.( On his #rt, the defend#nt decl#red on the s#me occ#sion th#t Dir#gon Dim#, #fter being shot, re;uested to be t#8en to his ADim#!s3 house5 th#t #s the #ccused $#s #ble to c#rry the $ounded m#n onXy #bout 1B meters, Dim# #s8ed the defend#nt to c#ll @runo ($ho $#s in the house( Q $hich Alberto did. )o the ;uestion $ho his com #nion $#s $hen he shot #t # rooster, Alberto s#id, (" $#s #lone.( )here is not the slightest ground to believe th#t these #ffid#vits cont#ined #nything but the truth, es eci#lly th#t #rt reg#rding @runo!s $here#bouts $hen the defend#nt used the rifle. @oth #ffi#nts #re very intelligent, the #ffid#vits $ere e/ecuted immedi#tely u on their #rriv#l #t the %onst#bul#ry he#d;u#rters, there is no hint of #ny undue ressure brought to be#r u on either of them, #nd, #bove #ll, they stood to g#in nothing from the st#tement th#t the #ccused $#s un#ccom #nied. "n contr#st, @runo!s testimony in court $#s interested, given $ith his son!s #c;uitt#l in vie$. And es eci#lly is the f#ther!s ver#city in court to be distrusted bec#use by Alberto!s unsolicited
#dmission, he h#d been in the h#bit of going out hunting in other l#ces #nd for t#rget r#ctices, #nd bec#use by @runo!s un$itting #dmission, his son, $ho h#d no gun of his o$n, is # sh#r shooter #nd shoots better. "t being est#blished th#t the defend#nt $#s #lone $hen he $#l8ed to the l#nt#tion $ith his f#ther!s gun, the ne/t ;uestion th#t resents itself is2 Does this evidence su ort conviction #s # m#tter of l#$: "n <nited St#tes !s S#mson A16 Phil., 7*73, cited by defense counsel, it $#s held th#t c#rrying # gun by order of the o$ner does not constitute illeg#l ossession of fire#rm. )he f#cts in th#t c#se $ere th#t # shotgun #nd nine c#rtridges $hich belonged to one P#blo P#dill#, $ho h#d # ro er ermit to ossess them, $ere seiCed by the olice from S#mson $hile $#l8ing in the to$n of S#nt# 0os#, 9uev# &ci=#. P#dill# $#s to use the shotgun in hunting th#t d#y #nd, #s he $#s coming #long on horseb#c8, sent S#mson on #he#d. 0e ublic Act 9o. D, #mending section *69* of the 0evised Administr#tive %ode, in its ertinent rovision is directed #g#inst #ny erson $ho possesses #ny fire#rm, #mmunition therefor, etc. A oint to consider in this connection is the me#ning of the $ord ( ossesses. ("t goes $ithout s#ying th#t this $ord $#s em loyed in its bro#d sense so #s to include (c#rries( #nd (holds.( )his h#s to be so if the m#nifest intent of the Act is to be effective. )he s#me evils, the s#me erils to ublic security, $hich the Act en#liCes e/ist $hether the unlicensed holder of # rohibited $e# on be its o$ner or # borro$er. )o #ccom lish the ob=ect of this l#$ the ro riet#ry conce t of the ossession c#n h#ve no be#ring $h#tever. (O$nershi of the $e# on is necess#ry only insof#r #s the o$nershi m#y tend to est#blish the guilt or intention of the #ccused.( "t is rem#r8#ble th#t in the <nited St#tes, $here the right to be#r #rms for defense is ensured by the feder#l #nd m#ny st#te
215
constitutions, legisl#tion h#s been very gener#lly en#cted severely restricting the c#rrying of de#dly $e# ons, #nd the o$er of st#te legisl#tures to do so h#s been u held.
"n the light of these consider#tions, it is # mist#8e to oint to <nited St#tes !s S#mson, supra, #s #uthority for the # ell#nt!s le# for #c;uitt#l. )he im lied holding in th#t c#se th#t the intention to ossess is #n essenti#l element of # viol#tion of the Fire#rms '#$ $#s not intended to im ly title or right to the $e# on to the e/clusion of everyone else. )he court did not me#n only intention to o$n but #lso intention to use. From the very n#ture of the sub=ect m#tter of the rohibition control or dominion of the use of the $e# on by the holder reg#rdless of o$nershi is, of necessity, the essenti#l f#ctor. )he terms (control( #nd (dominion( themselves #re rel#tive terms not susce tible of e/#ct definition, #nd o inions on the degree #nd ch#r#cter of control or dominion sufficient to constitute # viol#tion v#ry. )he rule l#id do$n by <nited St#tes courts Q rule $hich $e here #do t Q is th#t tem or#ry, incident#l, c#su#l or h#rmless ossession or control of # fire#rm is not # viol#tion of # st#tute rohibiting the ossessing or c#rrying of this 8ind of $e# on. A ty ic#l e/#m le of such ossession is $here (# erson ic8s u # $e# on or h#nds it to #nother to e/#mine or hold for # moment, or to shoot #t some ob=ect.( AS#nderson !s St#te, 1 S.>., 17.5 6. %.J., **3 A ell#nt!s c#se does not meet the #bove test. ?is holding or c#rrying of his f#ther!s gun $#s not incident#l, c#su#l, tem or#ry or h#rmless. A$#y from his f#ther!s sight #nd control, he c#rried the gun for the only ur ose of using it, #s in f#ct he did, $ith f#t#l conse;uences.
"ncident#lly, herein lies # fund#ment#l difference bet$een the c#se #t b#r #nd the S#mson c#se. Although S#mson h#d hysic#l control of his em loyer!s shotgun #nd c#rtridges, his ossession thereof $#s undoubtedly h#rmless #nd innocent, #s evidenced by the f#ct th#t, # #rently, he bore them in full vie$ of the eo le he met #nd of the #uthorities. <nli8e the # ell#nt herein, S#mson c#rried the gun solely in obedience to its o$ners order or re;uest $ithout #ny infer#ble intention to use it #s # $e# on. "t is of interest to note th#t even in the <nited St#tes $here, #s st#ted, the right to be#r #rms #s # me#ns of defense is gu#r#nteed, ossession such #s th#t by S#mson is by the $eight of #uthority considered # viol#tion of simil#r st#tutes. >ithout deciding $hether the rohibition of the %onstitution #g#inst infliction of cruel #nd unusu#l unishment # lies both to the form of the en#lty #nd the dur#tion of im risonment, it is our o inion th#t confinement from 6 to 1B ye#rs for ossessing or c#rrying fire#rm is not cruel or unusu#l, h#ving due reg#rd to the rev#lent conditions $hich the l#$ ro oses to su ress or curb. )he r#m #nt l#$lessness #g#inst ro erty, erson, #nd even the very security of the Jovernment, directly tr#ce#ble in l#rge me#sure to romiscuous c#rrying #nd use of o$erful $e# ons, =ustify im risonment $hich in norm#l circumst#nces might # e#r e/cessive. "f im risonment from 1 to 1B ye#rs is out of ro ortion to the resent c#se in vie$ of cert#in circumst#nces, the l#$ is not to be decl#red unconstitution#l for this re#son. )he constitution#lity of #n #ct of the legisl#ture is not to be =udged in the light of e/ce tion#l c#ses. Sm#ll tr#nsgressors for $hich the he#vy net $#s not s re#d #re, li8e sm#ll fishes, bound to be c#ught, #nd it is to meet such # situ#tion #s this th#t courts #re #dvised to m#8e # recommend#tion to the %hief &/ecutive for clemency or reduction of the en#lty. AArt. 1, 0evised Pen#l %ode5 Peo le !s De l# %ruC, 9* Phil. 9B6.3
216
)he sentence im osed by the lo$er court is much belo$ the en#lty #uthoriCed by 0e ublic Act 9o. D. )he =udgment is therefore modified so #s to sentence the #ccused to im risonment for five ye#rs. ?o$ever, considering the degree of m#lice of the defend#nt, # lic#tion of the l#$ to its full e/tent $ould be too h#rsh #nd, #ccordingly, it is ordered th#t co y of this decision be furnished to the President, thru the Secret#ry of Justice, $ith the recommend#tion th#t the im risonment herein im osed be reduced to si/ months. )he # ell#nt $ill #y the costs of both inst#nces. 'aras, C 1 , 'ablo, 6en)9on, 'adilla, 2ontema#or, ;e#es, 1u)o, 6autista An)elo #nd Labrador, 11 , concur. 0&SO'<)"O9 December J, ,/KJ )<ASO9, 1.2 )he constitution#lity of 0e ublic Act 9o. D, $ith reference to the en#lty therein rovided, $#s c#refully considered. "n br#nding im risonment for five ye#rs too h#rsh #nd out of ro ortion in this c#se, $e h#d in mind th#t si/ months $#s commensur#te #nd =ust for the # ell#nt!s offense, t#8ing into consider#tion his intention #nd the degree of his m#lice, r#ther th#n th#t it infringes the constitution#l rohibition #g#inst the infliction of cruel #nd unusu#l unishment. "t t#8es more th#n merely being h#rsh, e/cessive, out of ro ortion, or severe for # en#lty to be obno/ious to the %onstitution. ()he f#ct th#t the unishment #uthoriCed by the st#tute is severe does not m#8e it cruel #nd unusu#l.( A*D %. J. S., 11.6E 11...3 &/ ressed in other terms, it h#s been held th#t to come under the b#n,
the unishment must be (fl#gr#ntly #nd l#inly o ressive,( ($holly dis ro ortion#te to the n#ture of the offense #s to shoc8 the mor#l sense of the community.(AIdem 3 ?#ving in mind the necessity for # r#dic#l me#sure #nd the ublic interest #t st#8e, $e do not believe th#t five ye#rs! confinement for ossessing fire#rms, even #s # lied to # ell#nt!s #nd simil#r c#ses, c#n be s#id to be cruel #nd unusu#l, b#rb#rous, or e/cessive to the e/tent of being shoc8ing to ublic conscience. "t is of interest to note th#t the v#lidity on constitution#l grounds of the Act in ;uestion $#s contested neither #t the tri#l nor in the el#bor#te rinted brief for the # ell#nt5 it $#s r#ised for the first time in the course of the or#l #rgument in the %ourt of A e#ls. "t is #lso note$orthy, #s ossible g#uge of o ul#r #nd =udici#l re#ction to the dur#tion of the im risonment sti ul#ted in the st#tute, th#t some members of the court #t first e/ ressed o osition to #ny recommend#tion for e/ecutive clemency for the # ell#nt, believing th#t he deserved im risonment $ithin the rescribed r#nge. )he sufficiency of the evidence for # ell#nt!s conviction under 0e ublic Act 9o. D li8e$ise h#d received close #ttention #nd study. )here is no need on our #rt to #dd #nything to $h#t h#s been s#id, e/ce t to oint out for cl#rific#tion th#t the references to defend#nt!s revious uses of his f#ther!s gun #nd the f#t#l conse;uences of his l#st use of it, $ere m#de sim ly to em h#siCe th#t his ossession of the rohibited $e# on $#s not c#su#l, incident#l, or h#rmless. ?is revious conduct $#s relev#nt in determining his motive #nd intention, #nd to dis rove the cl#im th#t his f#ther follo$ed his son so #s not to lose control of the fire#rm. "t $#s f#r from the thought of the court to condemn the # ell#nt for #cts $ith $hich he h#d not been ch#rged or of $hich he h#d been ronounced innocent.
217
)he confisc#tion of the gun is, in our o inion, in #ccord#nce $ith section 1 of 0e ublic Act 9o. D, $hich re#ds2 (S&%)"O9 1.Section t$entyEsi/ hundred #nd ninetyEt$o of the 0evised Administr#tive %ode, #s #mended by %ommon$e#lth Act 9umbered fiftyEsi/, is hereby further #mended to re#d #s follo$s2 (S&%. *69*.Unla4ful manufacture, dealin) in, ac&uisition, disposition, or possession of firearms, or ammunition t%erefor, or instrument used or intended to be used in t%e manufacture of firearms or ammunition. Q Any erson $ho m#nuf#ctures, de#ls in, #c;uires, dis oses, or ossesses, #ny fire#rm, #rts of fire#rms, or #mmunition therefor, or instrument or im lement used or intended to be used in the m#nuf#cture of fire#rms or #mmunition in viol#tion of #ny rovision of sections eight hundred #nd seventyEseven to nine hundred #nd si/, inclusive, of this %ode, #s #mended, sh#ll, u on conviction, be unished by im risonment for # eriod of not less th#n one ye#r #nd one d#y nor more th#n five ye#rs, or both such im risonment #nd # fine of not less th#n one thous#nd esos nor more th#n five thous#nd esos, in the discretion of the court. "f the #rticle illeg#lly ossessed is # rifle, c#rbine, gre#se gun, b#Coo8#, m#chine gun, subm#chine gun, h#nd gren#de, bomb, #rtillery of #ny 8ind or #mmunition e/clusively intended for such $e# ons, such eriod of im risonment sh#ll be not less th#n five ye#rs nor more th#n ten ye#rs. A conviction under this section sh#ll
c#rry $ith it the forfeiture of the rohibited #rticle or #rticles to the Phili ine Jovernment. ()he ossession of #ny instrument or im lement $hich is directly useful in the m#nuf#cture of fire#rms or #mmunition on the #rt of #ny erson $hose business or em loyment does not de#l $ith such instrument or im lement sh#ll be prima facie roof th#t such #rticle is intended to be used in the m#nuf#cture of fire#rms or #mmunition.( )his rovision does not s#y th#t fire#rms unl#$fully ossessed or c#rried #re to be confisc#ted only if they belong to the defend#nt, nor is such intention deducible from the l#ngu#ge of the #ct. >e #re inclined to, #nd do, believe th#t, e/ce t erh# s $here the l#$ful o$ner $#s innocent of, or $ithout f#ult in, the use of his ro erty by #nother, confisc#tion #ccords $ith the legisl#tive intent. >e c#n foresee the ob=ection th#t such legisl#tion de rives one of his ro erty $ithout due rocess of l#$. )he #ns$er to this is th#t o$nershi or ossession of fire#rms is not # n#tur#l right rotected by the %onstitution. Above the right to o$n ro erty is the inherent #ttribute of sovereignty E the olice o$er of the st#te to rotect its citiCens #nd to rovide for the s#fety #nd good order of society. A16 %. J. S., 179, 1DB.3 Pursu#nt to the e/ercise of olice o$er, the right to riv#te ro erty m#y be limited, restricted, #nd im #ired so #s to romote the gener#l $elf#re, ublic order #nd s#fety. AId , 611.3 )he o$er of the legisl#ture to rohibit the ossession of de#dly $e# on c#rries $ith it the o$er to rovide for the confisc#tion or forfeiture of $e# ons unl#$fully used or #llo$ed by the licensed o$ner to be used.
218
A44!n%i: / +!o4 ! vs. Es4a*as an% Li'!%
Accused Josefin# A. &s #r#s $#s ch#rged, $ith viol#tion of 0.A. 9o. 6D*1 #s #mended by 0.A. 9o. 619 for im orting into the country t$enty A*B3 8ilogr#ms of (sh#bu( in %rimin#l %#se 9o. 9DE1.96 before the 0)% of P#s#y %ity, @r. 11D. After #rr#ignment, the #ccused esc# ed from =#il #nd $#s tried in #bsenti#. On M#rch 17, 1991, the tri#l court found her guilty #s ch#rged #nd im osed on her the de#th en#lty. As the #ccused rem#ins #t l#rge u to the resent time, the issue th#t confronts the %ourt is $hether or not it $ill roceed to #utom#tic#lly revie$ her de#th sentence. )he issue need not befuddle us. "n the 191B groundEbre#8ing c#se of U S !s La)una, et al., 1 $e #lre#dy held thru Mr. Justice Morel#nd, th#t the po4er of t%is Court to re!ie4 a decision imposin) t%e deat% penalt# cannot be 4ai!ed eit%er b# t%e accused or b# t%e courts, !i9.2 (/// /// /// ("t is # #rent from these rovisions th#t the =udgment of conviction #nd sentence thereunder by the tri#l court does not, in re#lity, conclude the tri#l of the #ccused. Such tri#l is not termin#ted until the Su reme %ourt h#s revie$ed the f#cts #nd the l#$ #s # lied thereto by the court belo$. T%e =ud)ment of con!iction entered on t%e trial is not final, can not be e"ecuted, and is 4%oll# 4it%out force or effect until t%e case %as been passed upon b# t%e Supreme Court. "n # sense the tri#l court #cts #s # commissioner $ho t#8es the testimony #nd re orts thereon to the Su reme %ourt $ith his recommend#tion. >hile in r#ctice he enters # =udgment of conviction #nd sentences the risoner thereunder, in re#lity, until #ssed
u on by the Su reme %ourt, it h#s none of the #ttributes of # fin#l =udgment #nd sentence. "t is # mere recommend#tion to the Su reme %ourt, b#sed u on the f#cts on the record $hich #re resented $ith it. )his is me#nt in no sense to detr#ct from the dignity #nd o$er of %ourts of First "nst#nce. "t me#ns sim ly th#t the ortion of S #nish rocedure $hich rel#ted to c#ses $here c# it#l unishment $#s im osed still survives. (/// /// /// ()he re;uirement th#t the Su reme %ourt #ss on # c#se in $hich c# it#l unishment h#s been im osed by the sentence of the tri#l court is one h#ving for its ob=ect sim ly #nd solely the rotection of the #ccused. ?#ving received the highest en#lty $hich the l#$ im oses, he is entitled under the l#$ to h#ve the sentence #nd #ll the f#cts #nd circumst#nces u on $hich it is founded l#ced before the highest tribun#l of the l#nd to the end th#t its =ustice #nd leg#lity m#y be cle#rly #nd conclusively determined. Suc% procedure is merciful It )i!es a second c%ance for life 8eit%er t%e courts nor t%e accused can 4ai!e it It is a pro!ision of t%e la4 t%at broo5s no interference and tolerates no e!asions.( A&m h#sis su lied3 )he La)una c#se inter reted section 1B of Jener#l Orders 9o. 1. #s #mended, $hich rovides2 (/// /// /// ("t sh#ll not be necess#ry to for$#rd to the Su reme %ourt the record, or #ny #rt thereof, of #ny c#se in $hich there sh#ll h#ve been #n #c;uitt#l, or in $hich the sentence im osed is not
219
de#th, unless such c#se sh#ll h#ve been duly # e#led5 but such sentence sh#ll be e/ecuted u on the order of the court in $hich the tri#l $#s h#d. T%e records of all cases in 4%ic% t%e deat% penalt# s%all %a!e been imposed b# an# Court of First Instance, 4%et%er t%e defendant s%all %a!e appealed or not, and of all cases in 4%ic% appeals s%all %a!e been ta5en s%all be for4arded to t%e Supreme Court for in!esti)ation and =ud)ment as la4 and =ustice s%all dictate. )he records of such c#ses sh#ll be for$#rded to the cler8 of the Su reme %ourt $ithin t$enty d#ys, but not e#rlier th#n fifteen d#ys #fter the rendition of sentence.( )he 1971 %onstitution did not rohibit the im osition of the de#th en#lty. "ts section *AD3 of Article ,""" rovided for revie$ by this %ourt of de#th en#lty c#ses. @oth our 0ules of %ourt of 19DB 2 #nd 196D F re;uire the tr#nsmission to this %ourt of the records of all c#ses in $hich the de#th en#lty sh#ll h#ve been im osed by the tri#l court, $hether the defend#nt sh#ll h#ve # e#led or not, for revie$ #nd =udgment #s the l#$ #nd =ustice sh#ll dict#te. "t $ill be noted th#t these rules $ere t#8en from the second #rt of Jener#l Orders 9o. 1., #s #mended by Section D, Act 9o. 19D. H 9ecess#rily, our c#se l#$ under the 1971 %onstitution reiter#ted the La)una ruling. )hus, in the 1917 c#se of 'eople !s $illanue!a, G $e held th#t the 4it%dra4al of an appeal by # de#th convict does not de rive this %ourt of its =urisdiction to revie$ his conviction, !i9.2 (An #ccused # e#ling from # decision sentencing him to de#th m#y be #llo$ed to $ithdr#$ his # e#l li8e #ny other # ell#nt, in #n ordin#ry crimin#l c#se before the briefs #re filed, but %is 4it%dra4al of t%e appeal does not remo!e t%e case from t%e =urisdiction of t%is court 4%ic% under t%e la4 is aut%ori9ed and called upon to re!ie4 t%e decision t%ou)% unappealed. %onse;uently, the
$ithdr#$#l of the # e#l in this c#se could not serve to render the decision of the Peo le!s %ourt fin#l. "n f#ct, #s $#s s#id by this court through Justice Morel#nd in the c#se of <.S. vs. '#gun#, 16 Phil. 17*, s e#8ing on the m#tter of revie$ by this court of # decision im osing the de#th en#lty, the =udgment of conviction entered in the tri#l court is not fin#l, #nd c#nnot be e/ecuted #nd is $holly $ithout force or effect until the c#se h#s been #ssed u on by the Su reme %ourt en consulta5 th#t #lthough # =udgment of conviction is entered by the tri#l court, s#id decision h#s none of the #ttributes of # fin#l =udgment #nd sentence5 th#t until it h#s been revie$ed by the Su reme %ourt $hich fin#lly #sses u on it, the s#me is not fin#l #nd conclusive5 #nd th#t this #utom#tic revie$ by the Su reme %ourt of decisions im osing the de#th en#lty is something $hich neither the court nor the #ccused could $#ive or ev#de.( )he 1961 c#se of 'eople !s Cornelio, et al., ? involves the escape of # de#th convict. "n no uncert#in terms, $e held th#t the esc# e of # de#th convict does not relieve this %ourt of its duty of revie$ing his conviction. "n the 196* c#se of'eople !s Daban, et al., @ the ponencia of former %hief Justice Fern#ndo further stressed, to $it2 (/// /// ///( (9o$, #s to the l#$. "t $ould # e#r th#t res ondent Dem#isi is un#$#re of Section 9 of 0ule 1**. )hus2 !)he records of #ll c#ses in $hich the de#th en#lty sh#ll been im osed by #ny %ourt of First "nst#nce, $hether the defend#nt sh#ll h#ve # e#led or not, sh#ll be for$#rded to the Su reme %ourt fore revie$ #nd =udgment #s l#$ #nd =ustice sh#ll dict#te. )he records of such c#ses sh#ll be for$#rded to the cler8 of the Su reme %ourt $ithin t$enty A*B3 d#ys but not
220
e#rlier th#n fifteen A113 d#ys, #fter rendition or romulg#tion of the sentence in the form rescribed by section 11 of 0ule D1. )he tr#nscri t sh#ll #lso be for$#rded #s rovided in section 1* of 0ule D1 $ithin five A13 d#ys #fter the filing thereof by the stenogr# her.! )he en#lty im osed on # ell#nt D#b#n y J#nCon in the =udgment of 9ovember *1, 1969 being one of de#th, the c#se $#s ro erly elev#ted to this %ourt. 2oreo!er, until after t%is Court %as spo5en, no finalit# could be attac%ed to t%e lo4er court decision. As e/ l#ined in former %hief Justice Mor#n!s %omments on the 0ules of %ourt2 !"n this connection, it must be em h#siCed th#t the =udgment of conviction im osing the de#th en#lty entered in the tri#l court, is not fin#l, #nd c#nnot be e/ecuted #nd is $holly $ithout force or effect until the c#se h#s been #ssed u on by the Su reme %ourt en consult#5 th#t #lthough # =udgment of conviction is entered by the tri#l court, s#id decision h#s none of the #ttributes of # fin#l =udgment #nd sentence5 #nd th#t until is h#s been revie$ed by the Su reme %ourt $hich fin#lly #sses u on it, the s#me is not fin#l #nd conclusive5 #nd this #utom#tic revie$ by the Su reme %ourt is something $hich neither the court nor the #ccused could $#ive or ev#de.! )he mere f#ct of escape of appellant, therefore, could not be relied u on by res ondent Dem#isi #s sufficient c#use for his f#ilure to file # ell#nt4s brief.( )hen c#me the 1967 %onstitution $hich li8e$ise did not rohibit the de#th en#lty. > Section 9, 0ule 1** continued to rovide the rocedure for revie$ of de#th en#lty c#ses by this %ourt. Section 1B, 0ule 1** of the 19.1 0ules on %rimin#l Procedure even reen#cted this rocedure of revie$. Signific#ntly, it e/ ressly used the term (#utom#tic revie$ #nd =udgment( by this %ourt. Our c#se l#$ continued its fe#lty to the La)una rule. )hus, in the 1966 c#se
of 'eople !s Salilin), et al., B $e held, thru former %hief Justice A;uino, th#t this %ourt is not recluded from revie$ing the de#th sentence of #n #ccused 4%o is at lar)e. "n the 19.D c#se of 'eople !s 6u#na#, et al., 10 $e reiter#ted the rule th#t theescape of # de#th convict $ill not #utom#tic#lly result in the dismiss#l of his # e#l. Fin#lly, $e h#ve the 19.6 %onstitution $hich rohibits the im osition of the de#th en#lty unless for com elling re#sons involving heinous crimes %ongress so rovides. 11 On December 17, 1997, %ongress reim osed the de#th en#lty in c#ses involving the commission of heinous crimes. )his revived the rocedure by $hich this %ourt revie$s de#th en#lty c#ses ursu#nt to the 0ules of %ourt. "t rem#ins #utom#tic #nd does not de end on the $hims of the de#th convict. "t continues to be m#nd#tory, #nd le#ves this %ourt $ithout #ny o tion. 12 >ith due res ect to the dissenting o inions of our esteemed colle#gues, section . of 0ule 1*D of the 0ules of %ourt $hich, inter #li#, #uthoriCes the dismiss#l of #n # e#l $hen the # ell#nt =um s b#il, h#s no # lic#tion to c#ses $here the de#th en#lty h#s been im osed. "n de#th en#lty c#ses, #utom#tic revie$ is m#nd#tory. )his is the te/t #nd tone ofsection 1B, 0ule 1**, $hich is the more # lic#ble rule, !i9.2
(Section 1B.Transmission of ;ecords in Case of Deat% 'enalt#. Q In all cases 4%ere t%e deat% penalt# is imposed b# %e trial court, t%e records s%all be for4arded to t%e Supreme Court for automatic re!ie4 and =ud)ment, $ithin t$enty A*B3 d#ys but not e#rlier th#n A113 d#ys #fter romulg#tion of the =udgment or notice of deni#l of #ny motion for ne$ tri#l or reconsider#tion. )he tr#nscri t sh#ll #lso be for$#rded $ithin ten A1B3 d#ys #fter the filing thereof by the stenogr# hic re orter.(
221
Simil#rly, the reli#nce in 'eople !s Codilla, 1F by our dissenting colle#gues is mis l#ced. Codilla is not # de#th en#lty c#se. Only the en#lty of reclusion perpetua $#s im osed on # ell#nt. %onse;uently, $e ruled th#t the esc# e of the # ell#nt or his refus#l to surrender to the ro er #uthorities =ustifies dismiss#l of his # e#l. Our dissenting brethren #lso m#8e # distinct cut bet$een (. . . # de#th convict, i. e. one convicted to de#th by # tri#l court $ho rem#ins in the custody of the l#$, #nd $ho volunt#rily $ithdr#$s his # e#l #nd # de#th convict, i.e., one convicted to de#th by the tri#l court but $ho esc# es from the custody of the l#$ during the endency of the # e#l.( )hey r#tion#liCe the distinction by holding2 ("t should be cle#r in the first c#se, th#t even if the de#th convict $ithdr#$s his # e#l from the tri#l court!s =udgment convicting him to de#th, the # ell#te court m#y still #nd nonetheless revie$ the =udgment of conviction for the convictE # ell#nt h#s #t le#st rem#ined in the custody of the l#$ to #$#it fin#l verdict in his c#se. "n the second c#se, ho$ever, the #ccused no longer recogniCes #nd res ects the #uthority of l#$ #nd the dulyEconstituted #uthorities in gener#l #nd this %ourt in #rticul#r. Such su ercilious conduct of #n esc# ee c#nnot #nd should not be t#8en lightly by the %ourt. 0es ect for #nd recognition of the #uthority of the %ourt is #n essenti#l #nd im licit element in #n effective #nd credible =udici#l system. (9o, one, it should be stressed, should be #llo$ed to m#8e # moc8ery of the =ustice system by, in one bre#th, see8ing its rotection #nd even vindic#tion vi# #n #utom#tic revie$ of # de#th sentence #nd, in #nother bre#th, continuing to be # fugitive from =ustice #nd re udi#ting the very #uthority of the system $hose rotection he see8s #nd invo8es.(
>e hold, ho$ever, th#t there is more $isdom in our e/isting =uris rudence m#nd#ting our revie$ of all de#th en#lty c#ses, reg#rdless of the $ish of the convict #nd reg#rdless of the $ill of the court. 8ot%in) less t%an life is at sta5e and an# court decision aut%ori9in) t%e State to ta5e life must be as error7free as possible . >e must strive to re#liCe this ob=ective, ho$ever, elusive it m#y be, #nd our efforts must not de end on $hether # ell#nt h#s $ithdr#$n his # e#l or h#s esc# ed. "ndeed, #n # ell#nt m#y $ithdr#$ his # e#l not bec#use he is guilty but bec#use of his $rong erce tion of the l#$. Or bec#use he m#y $#nt to #v#il of the more s eedy remedy of #rdon. Or bec#use of his frustr#tion #nd mis# rehension th#t he $ill not get =ustice from the #uthorities. 9or should the %ourt be influenced by the seeming re udi#tion of its =urisdiction $hen # convict esc# es. Ours is not only the o$er but the duty to revie$ #ll de#th en#lty c#ses. 8o liti)ant can repudiate t%is po4er 4%ic% is besto4ed b# t%e Constitution T%e po4er is more of a sacred dut# 4%ic% 4e %a!e to disc%ar)e to assure t%e 'eople t%at t%e innocence of a citi9en is our concern not onl# in crimes t%at sli)%t but e!en more, in crimes t%at s%oc5 t%e conscience. T%is concern cannot be diluted. )he %ourt is not es ousing # (soft, bended, # ro#ch( to heinous crimes for #s discussed #bove, $e h#ve al4a#srevie$ed the im osition of the de#th en#lty reg#rdless of the $ill of the convict. Our unyielding st#nce is dict#ted by the olicy th#t the St#te should not be given the license to 8ill $ithout the fin#l determin#tion of this ?ighest )ribun#l $hose collecti!e $isdom is the l#st5 effective hedge #g#inst #n erroneous =udgment of # oneE=udge tri#l court. T%is enli)%tened polic# ou)%t to continue as our beacon li)%t for t%e ta5in) of life ends all ri)%ts, a matter of societal concern t%at transcends t%e personal interest of a con!ict. )he im ort#nce of this societ#l v#lue should not be blurred by the esc# e of # convict $hich is # roblem of l#$ enforcement. 9either should this %ourt be moved #lone by the outr#ge of the ublic in the multi lic#tion of heinous crimes for our decisions should not be directed by the ch#nging $inds of the soci#l $e#ther. Let us not for a moment for)et t%at an accused does not cease to %a!e ri)%ts =ust because of %is con!iction T%is principle is implicit in our Constitution 4%ic% reco)ni9es t%at an accused, e!en if %e belon)s to a minorit# of one
222
%as t%e ri)%t to be ri)%t, 4%ile t%e ma=orit#, e!en if o!er4%elmin), %as no ri)%t to be 4ron). "9 ,"&> >?&0&OF, the counsel for the #ccused is given # ne$ eriod of thirty A7B3 d#ys from notice hereof $ithin $hich to file the @rief of the #ccused Josefin# A. &s #r#s. SO O0D&0&D. Da!ide, 1r., ;omero, 6ellosillo, Lapunan #nd Hermosisima, 11 ., concur. $itu), 1 ., concurs in the result. S!4a*at! O4inions FRANCISCO, 1 ., dissentin)2 " fully #gree $ith Mr. Justice P#dill#!s o inion th#t if the #ccused f#ils to surrender to the ro er #uthorities #nd rem#in in the custody of the l#$ then her right to # e#l is deemed $#ived #nd forfeited. " $ish to e/ ress, nonetheless, my observ#tions on this issue. An # e#l is # st#tutory remedy for the correction of errors $hich might h#ve been committed. >ith the #ccused lies the o$er #nd o tion to #v#il of the remedy, #nd $ith the # ell#te court belongs the o$er to #ffirm or reverse the #ccused!s conviction. A e#l, ho$ever, resu oses =urisdiction over the erson of the #ccused. And since # e#l is # mere st#tutory rivilege #nd is not # n#tur#l right nor #rt of the due rocess, it m#y only be e/ercised in the m#nner #nd in #ccord#nce $ith the rovisions of the l#$ A 6ello ! Fernando, D S%0A 171, citing A)uila ! 8a!arro, 11 Phil. .9., #nd Santia)o ! $alen9uela, 6. Phil. 7965 $illanue!a ! Court of Appeals, *B1 S%0A 1765 6orre ! Court of Appeals, 11. S%0A 16B5 ;a!elo ! Court of Appeals, *B6 S%0A *1D5 U S ! @u Ten, 77 Phil. 1**3. )hus, #n #ccused $ho esc# es from rison or confinement loses his st#nding in court #nd unless he surrenders or
submits to the =urisdiction of the court he is deemed to h#ve $#ived #ny right to see8 relief from the court A'eople ! A)bulos, *** S%0A 1965 'eople ! 2apalao, 196 S%0A 693. A contr#ry vie$ $ould encour#ge the #ccused to trifle $ith the #dministr#tion of =ustice, #nd rovide me#ns for guilty #rties to esc# e unishment A'eople ! An) :ioc, 67 Phil. 7663. "n this c#se, the #ccused esc# ed from confinement #nd heretofore refuses to surrender to the ro er #uthorities, thus she must be deemed to h#ve #b#ndoned the # e#l ASee 'eople ! <uiritan, 196 S%0A 7*5 'eople ! Acol, *7* S%0A DB65 'eople ! Codilla, **D S%0A 1BD3. "n crimin#l c#ses, # e#l m#y be t#8en to the Su reme %ourt vi# the follo$ing ste s2 by filing # notice of # e#l in those c#ses $here the en#lty of reclusion er etu# $#s im osed, by filing # etition for revie$ on certior#ri under 0ule D1 $here the en#lty im osed is not reclusion er etu# #nd the # e#l $ould involve only ;uestions of l#$ A'eople ! 'a)san=an, **1 S%0A 6713, #nd by #utom#tic revie$ $here the en#lty im osed is de#th A0.A. 9o. 6619, Sec. **5 0ule 1**, Sec. 1B, 0evised 0ules of %ourt3. An # e#l h#s (for its ob=ect sim ly #nd solely the rotection of the #ccused.( 1A e#l by $#y of #utom#tic revie$ is l#inly #nother mode of # e#l #nd h#s #n ob=ective simil#r to #ny other modes of # e#l, i.e., the rotection of the #ccused. "f the #ccused h#s esc# ed, then he refuses to #v#il of the rotection of the %ourt. >hy then should the %ourt insist in rotecting him. "n the s#me vein, (the l#$ roviding for #utom#tic revie$ of # de#th sentence see8s to f#vor the W#ccusedX.( 2 "f the #ccused h#s #bsconded or esc# ed from confinement then $ho is to be f#vored by the #utom#tic revie$ Q # fugitive from =ustice: ?ence, if the esc# e of the #ccused m#y be deemed $#iver of the right to # e#l in #ny other mode of # e#l, then the s#me must # ly to #n # e#l by $#y of #utom#tic revie$. " f#il to see, in this connection, #ny cogent re#son $hy #n #utom#tic revie$ should be given # st#tus different from the other modes of # e#l. " thus find, #nd $ith due res ect to my esteemed colle#gue Mr. Justice Puno, un#cce t#ble the ro osition th#t #n # e#l by $#y of #utom#tic revie$ is not sub=ect to $#iver. "f the constitution#l rights of the #ccused enshrined under Article """ of the 19.6 %onstitution, such #s right #g#inst unre#son#ble se#rches #nd seiCures, right #g#inst selfEincrimin#tion,
223
right to rem#in silent, #mong others, c#n be $#ived, then $ith more re#son $ith the right to # e#l $hich is merely st#tutory origin. " #m not un#$#re of the c#ses cited by my esteemed colle#gue Mr. Justice Puno est#blishing the rule th#t the %ourt is not recluded from revie$ing the de#th sentence of #n #ccused $ho is #t l#rge. @ut in the $ords of # 8no$n #uthor, (WeXven those Justices most o osed to overruling constitution#l decisions h#ve #c8no$ledged th#t the !l#$ m#y gro$ to meet ch#nging conditions! #nd th#t the doctrine of st#re decisis should not re;uired # !sl#vish #dherence to #uthority $here ne$ conditions re;uire ne$ rules of (conduct.( F %onsidering the m#nifest intent of the legisl#ture in en#cting the de#th en#lty l#$ to r#tion#liCe #nd h#rmoniCe the en#l s#nctions for heinous crimes #nd to serve #s effective deterrence, it is high time for the %ourt to de #rt from the old doctrine $hich, to my mind, romotes nothing e/ce t disobedience to #nd re udi#tion of our =udici#l system. +ANGANI6AN, 1 ., separate opinion2 )his norm#lly runEoffEtheEmill m#tter of gr#nting #n e/tension of time to file brief for the #ccused h#s merited vigorous #nd inEde th discussion in the %ourt bec#use t$o monument#l #nd h#llo$ed doctrines # e#r to collide in its dis osition.
e/ercise of the s#id tribun#l!s o$er of revie$. F An esc# ee moc8s the l#$ #nd uts himself outside the rotection of the =udici#ry. >ithout re e#ting the leg#l #rguments pro #nd con, #s these $ere #lre#dy elo;uently resented by Mr. Justice Puno, Mr. Justice P#dill# #nd Mr. Justice Fr#ncisco, " hold th#t the =udici#l t#8ing of life c#nnot be left to mere leg#l logic. 'ife is too recious to be settled by leg#lisms, ho$ever e/#lted. " believe th#t this %ourt c#nnot #b#ndon its s#cred duty to Jod #nd country to see to it th#t # lo$er court =udgment th#t t#8es #$#y life is E;;*; F;EE #nd c#n st#nd THE 2*ST SEA;CHI8: SC;UTI8@ . H And #t the s#me time, this %ourt must not en#ble #n esc# ed convict to m#8e # moc8ery of the found#tions of hum#n =ustice. %onse;uently, " believe $e must combine the s#cred $ith the hum#n. After r#yer, study, reflection #nd discernment, " #m thoroughly convinced th#t this %ourt h#s the inesc# #ble duty to revie$ this #nd simil#r lifeEt#8ing decisions, but only #fter the #ccused is reE#rrested #nd t#8en b#c8 into the custody of the l#$. "9 ,"&> OF )?& FO0&JO"9J, " vote to gr#nt the #ccused!s motion for e/tension to file brief #nd in vie$ of the del#y in the dis osition of such motion due to the lengthy court deliber#tion thereon, to give her # ne$ eriod of thirty A7B3 d#ys from notice $ithin $hich to file her @rief. +ADILLA, 1 ., dissentin)2
On the one h#nd, there is historic#lly entrenched rinci le th#t im els this %ourt to revie$ # decision im osing the de#th en#lty. 1 Such historicity is reinforced by the roElife rovisions of our 19.6 %onstitution, one of $hich 2 h#d in f#ct rohibited the im osition of the de#th en#lty, (unless, for com elling re#sons involving heinous crimes, the %ongress here#fter rovides for it.( < on the other, there is the leg#l, e;uit#ble #nd logic#l tenet th#t # erson convicted by the lo$er courts must first submit himself to the =urisdiction of the # ell#te court before he-she c#n le#d for the
After # c#reful study of the issue submitted for resolution, " #m constr#ined, b#sed on consider#tions of =ustice #nd f#irness not only for the #ccused but for society in gener#l #s $ell, to register my dissent from the m#=ority o inion. )he f#ctu#l #ntecedents u on $hich this %ourt is c#lled to decide $hether or not to dismiss the # e#l of the #ccused in this c#se, #re #s follo$s2
224
Accused Josefin# A. &s #r#s $#s convicted on 17 M#rch 1991 by the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt of P#s#y %ity, @r#nch 11D in %rimin#l %#se 9o. 9DE1.96, for viol#tion of 0e . Act 9o. 6D*1 #s #mended by 0e . Act 9o. 6619, more s ecific#lly, for im orting into the country t$enty A*B3 8ilogr#ms of meth#m het#mine hydrochloride commonly 8no$n #s (sh#bu.( She $#s sentenced to deat%. Prior to conviction by the tri#l court, but #fter #rr#ignment, #ccused esc# ed from confinement. )he records of the c#se A%rimin#l %#se 9o. 9DE1.963 $ere nonetheless elev#ted to this %ourt for #utom#tic revie$, involving #s it does the im osition of the de#th en#lty. On 1D 9ovember 1911, the %ourt re;uired counsel for #ccused to sho$ c#use $hy the # e#l should not be dismissed given the f#ct th#t she h#d esc# ed from confinement even rior to =udgment by the tri#l court #nd rem#ins #tEl#rge since her esc# e from detention. %ounsel for #ccused h#s f#iled to sho$ c#use, #s re;uired. "nste#d, he h#s filed motions for e/tension of time to file # ell#nt!s brief, $hich the %ourt h#s not #cted u on, #s there h#s been f#ilure to sho$ c#use $hy the # e#l should not be dismissed. )he Solicitor Jener#l $#s re;uired by this %ourt to comment on the effect of #ccused!s esc# e from confinement on the resent # e#l. )he Solicitor Jener#l, in his comment d#ted 9 J#nu#ry 1996, recommends th#t the %ourt roceed $ith the # e#l #nd revie$ the =udgment of conviction des ite the #ccused!s esc# e, #s the en#lty involved is the de#th en#lty. "t is b#sic in rocedur#l l#$ th#t one $ho see8s ositive relief from # court of l#$ should submit to its =urisdiction. "n crimin#l l#$ #nd rocedure, it is li8e$ise settled th#t the tri#l court h#s to #c;uire =urisdiction over the person of the #ccused before it c#n roceed to try the c#se #nd render =udgment #g#inst him. )hus, in the resent c#se, tri#l roceeded only #s to #ccused Josefin# A. &s #r#s, $ho e#rlier entered # le# of not guilty, $hile her coE#ccused 0odrigo O. 'ibed h#s rem#ined #t l#rge #nd h#s not been #rr#igned or tried.
Jurisdiction over the person of the #ccused is #lso re;uired by the 0ules of %ourt during the endency of #n # e#l from # =udgment of conviction in the tri#l court so th#t, in the event of #n #ccused!s esc# e from detention during his # e#l, the # e#l m#y be dismissed outright by the # ell#te court. Section ., 0ule 1*D of the 0ules of %ourt gives the # ell#te court the #uthority to dismiss #n # e#l $hen the # ell#nt esc# es from rison or confinement or =um s b#il or flees to # foreign country during the endency of the # e#l. "t rovides2 (Sec. ..Dismissal of appeal for abandonment for failure to prosecute. Q )he # ell#te court m#y, u on motion of the # ellee or on its o$n motion #nd notice to the # ell#nt, dismiss the # e#l if the # ell#nt f#ils to file his brief $ithin the time rescribed by this 0ule, e/ce t in c#se the # ell#nt is re resented by # counsel de oficio. )he court m#y #lso, u on motion of the # ellee or on its o$n motion, dismiss the # e#l if the # ell#nt esc# es from rison or confinement or =um s b#il or flees to # foreign country during the endency of the # e#l.( "n 'eople ! CodillaAJ.0. 9os. 1BB6*BE*7, 7B June 1997, **D S%0A 1BD3, the %ourt reiter#ted the sound doctrine th#t the esc# e of the #ccusedE# ell#nt or his refus#l to surrender to the ro er #uthorities =ustifies dismiss#l of his # e#l. >e #re not un#$#re of the ruling of the %ourt in 'eople ! Cornelio AJ.0. 9o. 'E1*.9, 1B June 1961 S%0A D713 st#ting th#t2 ()he esc# e of the #ccused does not relieve the %ourt of the burden of #utom#tic#lly revie$ing the c#se, in the s#me m#nner th#t # $ithdr#$#l of # e#l by # de#th convict $ould not remove the c#se from =urisdiction of the %ourt. ?ence, the
225
court $ill no longer ermit the c#se to rem#in further in its doc8et #nd $ill roceed to disch#rge its t#s8 of #ssing u on the c#se en consulta #nd revie$ing the f#cts #nd the l#$ #s # lied thereto by the tri#l court, #nd determining the ro riety of its im osition of the de#th en#lty.( Areference to footnotes omitted3 "t is my considered vie$ ho$ever th#t # distinction should be m#de bet$een # de#th convict, i.e. one sentenced to de#th by # tri#l court, $ho rem#ins in t%e custod# of t%e la4, but $ho volunt#rily $ithdr#$s his # e#l #nd a deat% con!ict, i e one sentenced to deat% b# t%e trial court but 4%o escapes from t%e custod# of t%e la4 durin) t%e pendenc# of t%e appeal. "t should be cle#r in the first c#se, th#t even if the de#th convict $ithdr#$s his # e#l from the tri#l court!s =udgment sentencing him to de#th, the # ell#te court m#y still #nd nonetheless revie$ the =udgment of conviction for the convictE # ell#nt h#s #t le#st rem#ined in the custody of the l#$ to #$#it fin#l verdict in his c#se. "n the second c#se, ho$ever, the #ccused no longer recogniCes #nd res ects the #uthority of l#$ #nd the dulyE constituted #uthorities in gener#l #nd this %ourt in #rticul#r. Such su ercilious conduct of #n esc# ee c#nnot #nd should not be t#8en lightly by the %ourt. 0es ect for #nd recognition of the #uthority of the %ourt #re essenti#l #nd im licit elements in #n effective #nd credible =udici#l system. 9o one, it should be stressed, should be #llo$ed to m#8e # moc8ery of the =ustice system by, in one bre#th, see8ing its rotection #nd even vindic#tion vi# #n #utom#tic revie$ of # de#th sentence #nd, in #nother bre#th, continuing to be # fugitive from =ustice #nd re udi#ting the very #uthority of the system $hose rotection he see8s #nd invo8es. A soft, bended # ro#ch $hereby #n sentenced to de#th by # tri#l court for # heinous crime m#y esc# e from confinement #nd, still re;uire the Su reme %ourt =ust the s#me to revie$ his conviction, $ill sh#tter to ieces the resent drive #g#inst heinous crimes unish#ble $ith de#th. All th#t the #ccused in such c#ses h#s to do Q #fter being sentenced to de#th by the tri#l court Q is to #rr#nge
for #n esc# e since, in #ny c#se, such esc# e $ill not be t#8en #s #dmission of guilt #nd the Su reme %ourt $ill h#ve, in #ny event, to revie$ his conviction. "f the #ccused, u on revie$ by the Su reme %ourt, is #c;uitted or meted out # en#lty lo$er th#n de#th, then he c#n reEsurf#ce. "f his de#th sentence is #ffirmed by the Su reme %ourt, then he $ill most li8ely rem#in # fugitive from =ustice. " do not believe th#t this is the $ish or intention of the gener#l ublic no$ outr#ged by the stillErising incidence of heinous crimes unish#ble $ith de#th. )o infuse sense, n#y, s#nity into the system, " submit th#t (m#nd#tory =urisdiction( of the Su reme %ourt to revie$ de#th en#lty c#ses #nd (#utom#tic revie$( of de#th en#lty c#ses h#ve to #ssume im licitly th#t the #ccused in his erson is sub=ect to the rocesses #nd =urisdiction of the Su reme %ourt if it is to revie$ his conviction to de#th by the tri#l court. "t is therefore my considered o inion th#t #ccused Josefin# A. &s #r#s should be given # nonEe/tendible eriod of thirty A7B3 d#ys from recei t by her counsel of record of the %ourt!s resolution. to surrender to the ro er #uthorities #nd rem#in in the custody of the l#$, f#iling in $hich, this # e#l should be deemed #nd st#nd dismissed #nd, thereu on, the =udgment of the tri#l court convicting #nd sentencing her to de#th should be fin#l ordered rem#nded to the court of origin for # ro ri#te e/ecution, #fter reE#rrest of the #ccused. A44!n%i: N /! o vs. +!o4 !
Petitioners Fr#ncisc# Alim#gno #nd Jovit# Melo $ere convicted, #s rinci #l #nd #ccom lice, res ectively, of the crime of corru tion of minor, #s defined in Article 7DB of the 0evised Pen#l %ode, by the %ity %ourt of S#n P#blo, #nd sentenced #s follo$s2 '' r
226
(. . . )he #ccused Fr#ncisc# Alim#gno, to suffer the en#lty r#nging from si/ A63 months of #rresto m#yor #s minimum to t$o A*3 ye#rs, eleven A113 months #nd ten A1B3 d#ys #s m#/imum, to indemnify the offended #rty in the sum of P1BB.BB $ith subsidi#ry im risonment in c#se of insolvency, $hich sh#ll not be more th#n oneEthird of the rinci #l en#lty herein im osed #nd to #y the ro ortion#te costs5 the #ccused Jovit# Melo, to suffer the en#lty of si/ A63 months of #rresto m#yor, to indemnify the offended #rty in the sum of P*BB.BB $ith subsidi#ry im risonment in c#se of insolvency $hich sh#ll not be more th#n oneE third of the rinci #l en#lty herein im osed #nd to #y the ro ortion#te costs.( )he %ourt of A e#ls modified the decision $ith res ect to the subsidi#ry en#lty, thus2 (?o$ever, the subsidi#ry im risonment in c#se of insolvency of the defend#nts to #y the res ective indemnities im osed u on them should be elimin#ted from the dis ositive ortion of the lo$er court!s decision. A0e . Act 9o. 1D613. Moreover, it should be ord#ined therein th#t in the event of insolvency of one of them, the other should be subsidi#rily li#ble thereto, $ith right of reimbursement, ursu#nt to Article 11B of the 0evised Pen#l %ode. (>?&0&FO0&, $ith the modific#tion indic#ted #bove, the decision # e#led from, being in 8ee ing $ith the evidence #nd the l#$, is hereby #ffirmed, $ith costs #g#inst the # ell#nts.( )he m#in f#cts #re set forth in the decision of the %ourt of A from $hich >e ;uote2 e#ls,
(%om l#in#nt Filomen# de l# %ruC, $ho $#s undis utedly born on August 1B, 19D6 #t %#l#mb#, '#gun# A&/h. @3, $#s em loyed in the house of Pit# Alvero #t S#n P#blo %ity #s # domestic hel er for # eriod of only nine A93 d#ys from 9ovember *B, 196D to 9ovember *9, 196D. On 9ovember *6, 196D, she c#me to 8no$ defend#nt Fr#ncisc# Alim#gno $ho $#s bringing money to her em loyer Pit# Alvero. On s#id d#te, defend#nt Alim#gno tried to convince her to le#ve the house of Pit# Alvero, romising her # better =ob. Defend#nt Alim#gno, h#ving g#ined her confidence, succeeded in thus ersu#ding her to le#ve the house of Pit# Alvero. ?ence, on 9ovember *9, 196D, #fter le#ving # selfE e/ l#n#tory note, &/h. A, $hich $#s #dmittedly $ritten by #ccused Fr#ncisc# Alim#gno herself, $hich re#ds2 !A8o ho #y n#gt#n#n 8#s#m# 8o #y l#l#8e. L our <tus #n! com l#in#nt #b#ndoned the house of her mistress #nd $ent $ith defend#nts Fr#ncisc# Alim#gno #nd Jovit# Melo in # =ee , together $ith # m#n #nd # driver. )hey then roceeded to @#rrio Putol, S#n P#blo %ity, $here she $#s brought to # hut there#t #nd there #llo$ed to be r#vished by # m#n, $hom she s#$ for the first time, #fter the l#tter h#d covered her month $ith # r#g #nd tied her h#nds, so th#t she $#s rendered s eechless #nd hel less from offering #ny resist#nce, so much so th#t he $#s #ble to
227
s#ti#te his lust $ith her until 1*2BB o!cloc8 midnight. )here#fter, she $#s brought by the m#n to the house of defend#nt Jovit# Melo only to be tr#nsferred l#ter to the house of defend#nt Fr#ncisc# Alim#gno, $here she st#yed for more or less three d#ys until she $#s found there #nd t#8en b#c8 by 'eovigildo PereC #nd Pit# Alvero. )he t$o there#fter brought her to the Police De #rtment for the corres onding investig#tion.( Petitioners contend th#t the %ourt of A e#ls erred A13 in convicting them of the crime of corru tion of minor u on $holly unsubst#nti#l #nd inherently conflicting evidence5 A*3 in not holding th#t the f#cts, #s found by it #nd the tri#l court, do not constitute the crime of corru tion of minors #s defined #nd en#liCed by Article 7DB of the 0evised Pen#l %ode5 A73 in not holding th#t the minor referred to in Article 7DB of the 0evised Pen#l %ode should be belo$ 1. ye#rs of #ge5 AD3 in not holding th#t # erson $ho is #lre#dy corru ted c#n no longer be the victim of corru tion of minors committed through #buse of #uthority or confidence5 A13 in not #c;uitting the etitioners of the crime of corru tion of minors5 #nd, A63 in not holding th#t the en#lty im osed u on etitioner Melo is incorrect. cdre Petitioners #rgue th#t they $ere convicted u on unsubst#nti#l #nd inherently conflicting evidence. )his contention is devoid of f#ctu#l b#sis considering the findings of the %ourt of A e#ls $hich #re hereunder re roduced if only to demonstr#te th#t the s#me $ere m#de #fter # thorough #n#lysis of the evidence, #nd hence #re beyond this %ourt!s o$er of revie$2 (A ell#nts Aherein etitioners3 further contend th#t the lo$er court erred in not finding th#t even before 9ovember *9, 196D, the com l#in#nt Filomen# de l# %ruC $#s #lre#dy # corru ted erson #nd therefore she could no longer be the victim of the crime of (%orru tion of Minors( en#liCed by Article 7DB of the 0evised Pen#l
%ode in vie$ of the f#ct th#t from her o$n st#tement, &/h. 1, she #dmitted th#t she h#d se/u#l intercourse $ith other men. ()his #rgument is cle#rly unten#ble. %om l#in#nt, $ho does not 8no$ ho$ to re#d #nd $rite vehemently denied the contents of &/h. 1, s#ying th#t it $#s not the st#tement she g#ve to the olice. "ndeed, she testified th#t revious to the incident, she did not h#ve #ny coition $ith #ny m#n #nd the tri#l court so believed her. "n #ny event, even #ssuming it to be true, Article 7DB does not rescribe th#t the ersons corru ted be of good re ut#tion, #s in the c#se of sim le seduction under Article 77., much less th#t they be virgins, #s in ;u#lified seduction under Article 776, both of the 0evised Pen#l %ode. "t follo$s th#t the #boveEmentioned tr#its #re of no conse;uence. . . /// /// /// (>ith reg#rd to the letter A&/h. A3, # ell#nt Fr#ncisc# Alim#gno #dmitted h#ving $ritten the s#me out of ity to the com l#in#nt Filomen# de l# %ruC Atsn., . 6B, A ril **, 19663. @ut, if she h#d nothing to do $ith com l#in#nt!s se/u#l #dventure, it is str#nge $hy she $rote s#id letter, cont#ining f#lse #verments, #nd then too8 the com l#in#nt #$#y from the house of Pit# Alvero, $ithout the 8no$ledge #nd consent of the l#tter. She, being # friend of Pit# Alvero should h#ve 8no$n th#t her #ctu#tion in $riting the letter $#s illE#dvised #nd mor#lly $rong. ?er #dmission th#t she $rote the s#me cle#rly indic#tes her l#n to f#cilit#te or romote the rostitution or corru tion of the com l#in#nt.
228
(A ell#nt Fr#ncisc# Alim#gno testified th#t the $itness for the rosecution 'eovigildo PereC $#s dem#nding P1,BBB.BB from her #nd l#ter $#s reduced to P*,BBB.BB Atsn. . .7, A ril **, 19663 to ;u#sh the c#se #g#inst her. On crossE e/#min#tion, she AFr#ncisc# Alim#gno3 s#id th#t PereC $#s #s8ing the #fores#id #mount on the ground floor of the Secret Service Division. )he ertinent ortion of her testimony re#d, thus2 (ILou st#ted th#t 'eovigildo PereC #s8ed P1,BBB.BB from you, c#n you tell $here 'eovigildo PereC #s8ed P1,BBB.BB from you: AAt the ground floor, sir. IAre you referring to the Office of the Secret Service Division: AAt the ground floor but not $ithin the office of the Secret Service Division. I>#s th#t $hen you $ere c#lled by the Secret Service men: ALes, sir. IDid you immedi#tely denounce PereC to the olice $h#t he $#s #s8ing from you: A9o, sir. I>hy did you not tell or re ort the m#tter to the olice:
A@ec#use $e c#lled u Atty. Alvero #nd #s8ed him to #ssist us. IAnd you told Atty. Alvero th#t 'eovigildo PereC $#s #s8ing you P1,BBB.BB: A9o, sir, he =ust told me go home. I"n other $ords $hen Atty. Alvero #rrived he =ust told you to go home:
ALes, sir.! Atsn.,
. 1BBE1B1, ibid.3
("f there is truth on the m#tter th#t 'eovigildo PereC $#s e/torting money from her AFr#ncisc# Alim#gno3 for the ur ose of ;u#shing the c#se, # ell#nt Alim#gno should h#ve re orted or denounced immedi#tely to the olice such #ttitude of PereC, in#smuch #s they $ere ne#r the office of the Secret Service Division or told the m#tter to Atty. Alvero, but she #llegedly 8e t the m#tter to herself. )he truth, ho$ever, is th#t it $#s # ell#nt Alim#gno $ho m#de #n offer of P1B.BB to 'eovigildo PereC to dro the c#se #g#inst her. )hus, the ertinent ortion of his APereC3 testimony re#ds2 !A)he truth is th#t the s ouses $ent to our residence #nd #s8ed me to #cce t the #mount of P1B.BB #nd dro the c#se. " told them to #s8 the com l#in#nt, but the com l#in#nt refused #nd s#id th#t let the court decide the c#se. /// /// ///
229
I"n your #ns$er you refer to the s ouses, $ill you le#se s ecify $hom you #re referring to: A)he s ouses, Alim#gno, Sir.! Atsn., 1D1E1D6, June 1, 19663 .
=urisdiction th#t #n offer of com romise is #n evidence of guilt. APeo le vs. M#nC#no, %AEJ.0. 9o. BB*BDE0, 9ov. *9, 196*.3( >e find no re#son in this c#se to de #rt from the rule $hich limits this %ourt!s # ell#te =urisdiction to revie$ only errors of l#$ (#cce ting #s conclusive the f#ctu#l findings of the lo$er court u on its o$n #ssessment of the evidence.( A&v#ngelist# vs. Ab#d S#ntos, 11 S%0A D16.3 On the ;uestion r#ised th#t etitioners could not be guilty of the crime of corru tion bec#use the offended #rty is more th#n eighteen ye#rs of #ge #t the time the #lleged offense is committed, the oint to consider is $hether (under #ge( me#ns belo$ eighteen or t$entyE one ye#rs old. Article 7DB of the 0evised Pen#l %ode rovides2 (Any erson $ho sh#ll h#bitu#lly or $ith #buse of #uthority or confidence, romote or f#cilit#te the rostitution or corru tion of ersons under #ge to s#tisfy the lust of #nother, sh#ll be unished by . . .( Petitioners contend th#t in (crimes #g#inst ch#stity, li8e seduction, #cts of l#sciviousness $ith the consent of the offended #rty #nd consented #bduction, the #ge of the victim is egged #t belo$ 1. ye#rs of #ge5 . . . th#t the hr#se ! erson under #ge! Ain Article 7DB of the 0evised Pen#l %ode3 $#s me#nt by the l#$m#8ers to refer to ersons belo$ 1. ye#rs of #ge.( A . 61, Petitioner!s @rief.3 cdre >e c#nnot subscribe to this vie$. Article DB* of the %ivil %ode rovides th#t (m#=ority commences u on the #tt#inment of the #ge of t$entyEone ye#rs.( >hen the l#$m#8ers s ecific#lly rovide ( ersons under #ge(, inste#d of (belo$ eighteen ye#rs of #ge(, they could me#n no other th#n th#t the offended #rty must be belo$ *1 ye#rs old, #nd not belo$ 1. ye#rs of #ge. )he s#me is true in Acts of '#sciviousness in Article 776. >hite Sl#ve )r#de in Article 7D1, #nd Forcible Abduction in Article 7D* of the 0evised Pen#l %ode, $here the #ge limit is not set #t eighteen. Justice 0#mon %. A;uino, in his
()he #boveE;uoted testimony of 'eovigildo PereC $#s strengthened by the testimony of Detective Serge#nt Fr#ncisco &scondo, # disinterested $itness for the rosecution $ho testified, thus2 !I>ill you le#se tell the convers#tion bet$een you #nd the #ccused for the second time: A)hey see8 our service to hel them in settling the c#se. I>h#t $#s your #ns$er: A" told them, !its u to you.! Atsn., June 6, 1961.3 . 1DE11,
(On crossEe/#min#tion, the s#me $itness further testified, thus2 !AAfter Fr#ncisc# Alim#gno h#d t#l8ed $ith the com l#in#nt she re;uested us to hel them to settle this c#se. Atsn., . **, Ibid 3 ("t is cle#r from the foregoing testimony of both $itnesses for the rosecution th#t the # ell#nts m#de #n offer of com romise for the settlement of the c#se. )hese overtures m#de by the # ell#nts to h#ve the c#se settled out of court #re indic#tive of # guilty conscience #nd it is $ellEsettled in this
230
comment#ry on the 0evised Pen#l %ode, #ge 16*7, @oo8 "", st#tes th#t (Art. 7DB $#s t#8en from #rt. DDD of the old Pen#l %ode. )he re;uisites of the crime of corru tion of minors #re th#t the #ccused #cted h#bitu#lly or $ith the #buse of #uthority or confidence5 th#t he romoted or f#cilit#ted the rostitution or corru tion of persons belo4 D, #ears of a)e #nd th#t he so #cted in order to s#tisfy the lust of #nother.( Aem h#sis su lied3. ?o$ever, >e t#8e note of the recommend#tion of the Solicitor Jener#l th#t $ith res ect to etitioner Jovit# Melo $ho $#s found guilty #s #ccom lice in # consumm#ted crime $here the en#lty is #rresto m#yor, medium #nd m#/imum eriods A* months #nd 1 d#y to 6 months3, #nd $here there is no modifying circumst#nces resent, the en#lty in its medium eriod should be im osed, or not less th#n 7 months #nd 11 d#ys nor more th#n D months #nd *B d#ys. Other$ise st#ted, the etitioner Jovit# Melo should suffer the en#lty of D months #nd *B d#ys, inste#d of 6 months of #rresto m#yor. llcd >?&0&FO0&, $ith the modific#tion #bove indic#ted, the decision of the %ourt of A e#ls is AFF"0M&D. >ith costs. SO O0D&0&D.
231

Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law 2 Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1R 2011-2012 CASE DIGESTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

the riv#te res ondent the $inner in the election. H! %#

+!o4 ! v. /a*i'! Lagman an% 7!ng Wa S)$i

+!o4 ! v. 1$%g! Donato Fa"ts#

/anoto" v. Co$*t o- A44!a s Fa"ts#

Section 1/ -- (ri2inal Due Process (ri2inal Due Process Tata% v. San%igan'a,an

?ence the # Iss$!#

res ondent be given the o is so minded.

ortunity to submit counterE#ffid#vits if he

>e rule th#t the %ourt of A findings.

e#ls erred in reversing the 0)%!s

%?<%?" &h, b#8it #8o #ng n#8uh# ni Dr. )#m#yo. &SJ

Senator 'adilla2 )his might reduce the utility of recorders.

6a,an( .a*a4atan( ./+ vs. E*mita

roved, October **, 19.1.

9o costs. SO O0D&0&D. A44!n%i: G 9a mont! vs. 6! mont!( 1*.

A44!n%i: 1 U.S. vs. 1avi!*

A44!n%i: / +!o4 ! vs. Es4a*as an% Li'!%

ALes, sir.! Atsn.,

You might also like

6a,an( .aa4atan( ./+ vs. Emita