PEOPLE vs.

CONDE time to conduct surveillance of the appellants

and apply for a warrant of arrest. Clearly,
FACTS: appellants rights provided in Sec. 2, Art. III of
the Constitution were violated.
The RTC ruled that Conde, Atis and Perez, Jr.
were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Unfortunately, appellants did not assert their
special complex crime of Robbery with constitutional rights prior to their arraignment.
Homicide. Oscar Conde claims that he was An accused is estopped from assailing the
illegally arrested by the authorities. He adds legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the
that the Indian Embassy was pressuring the quashing of the Information against him before
police to solve the murder. He also wants the his arraignment. When the appellants entered
Court to disregard as evidence the stolen items their pleas on arraignment without invoking
and weapons illegally seized by the police. their rights to question any irregularity, which
might have accompanied their arrests, they
ISSUES:
voluntarily submitted themselves to the
1. Whether or not the appellants were illegally jurisdiction of the court and the judicial
arrested. process. It is much too late for appellants to
raise the question of their warrantless arrests.
2. Whether or not the items seized were
admissible as evidence. Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is
not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid
RULING: judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint
after trial free from error. The warrantless
1. YES arrest, even if illegal, cannot render void all
The arrests of the appellants came after the other proceedings including those leading to
lapse of 5 days from the time they were seen the conviction of the appellants and his co-
committing the crime. At the time they were accused, nor can the state be deprived of its
arrested, the police were not armed with any right to convict the guilty when all the facts on
warrants for their arrests. Section 5 of Rule record point to their culpability.
113, of the Revised Rules of Criminal 2. NO
Procedure enumerates the instances when an
arrest can be made without warrant, namely: The warrantless search in the house of a
(a) When, in his presence the person to be certain Jimmy, based on the confession of
arrested has committed, is actually accused Perez, Jr., is definitely questionable.
committing, or is attempting to commit an PO3 Sevillano categorically stated that they
offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just were able to recover the stolen items, i.e., the
been committed, and he has probable cause to beach towel and the umbrella, because of the
believe based on personal knowledge of facts confession of Perez, Jr. who was not assisted
or circumstances that the person to be by counsel when he confessed and eventually
arrested has committed it; and (c) When the led the police to the whereabouts of the said
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has items. The use of evidence against the accused
escaped from a penal establishment or place obtained by virtue of his testimony or
where he is serving final judgment or admission without the assistance of counsel
temporarily confined while his case is pending, while under custodial investigation is
or has escaped while being transferred from proscribed under Sections 12 and 17, Article
one confinement to another. III of the Constitution.

None of the above circumstances is present in Moreover, the Court find in order the search of
this case. Appellants were merely walking the bag of Felicidad Macabare, at the time she
along Tandang Sora Avenue and were not was visiting her husband who was a detainee.
committing any crime. Neither can it be said PO3 Sevillano testified, this search is part of
that the crime had just been committed. It police standard operating procedure and is
cannot also be said that the arresting officers recognized as part of precautionary measures
had probable cause based on personal by the police to safeguard the safety of the
knowledge. PO3 Sevillano admitted that they detainees as well as the over-all security of the
learned about the suspects from Apollo Romero j a i l p r e m i s e s . H o w e v e r, t h e w e a p o n s
and certain unnamed informants. The third confiscated from Felicidad Macabare, were not
circumstance is patently not present. The lapse formally offered as evidence by the
of five days gave the police more than enough prosecution, hence probatively valueless.
With regards to the crime committed, also be regarded as measures to thwart plots
appellants are guilty of two counts of homicide to destabilize the government, in the interest
and not robbery with homicide because only of public security.
the facts and causes of deaths were
established with moral certainty. Between the inherent right of the state
to protect its existence and promote public
welfare and an individual’s right against a
wa r ra n t l e s s s e a r c h w h i c h i s , h o w e ve r,
VALMONTE vs. DE VILLA (1989) reasonably conducted, the former should
prevail.
FACTS:
True, the manning of checkpoints by
On January 20, 1987, the National
the military is susceptible of abuse by the
Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was
military in the same manner that all
activated with the mission of conducting
governmental power is susceptible of
s e c u r i t y o p e ra t i o n s w i t h i n i t s a r e a o f
abuse. But, at the cost of occasional
responsibility and peripheral areas for the
inconvenience, discomfort and irritation to the
purpose of establishing an effective territorial
citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal
defense, maintaining peace and order, and
times, when conducted within reasonable
providing an atmosphere conducive to the
limits, are part of the price we pay for an
social, economic and political development of
orderly society and a peaceful community.
the NCR. As part of its duty to maintain peace
and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in Hence, the petition is dismissed.
various parts of Valenzuela and Metro Manila.

Petitioners aver that because of the

institution of said checkpoints, the Velanzuela VALMONTE vs. DE VILLA (1990)
residents are worried of being harassed and of
their safety being placed at the arbitrary,
capricious and whimsical disposition of the Facts:
military manning the checkpoints considering
In the Court’s decision dated 29
that their cars and vehicles are being subjected
September 1989, petitioners’ petition for
to regular searches and check-ups especially at
prohibition seeking the declaration of the
night or at dawn without a search warrant or a
checkpoints as unconstitutional and their
court order. Their alleged fear for their safety
dismantling and/or banning, was dismissed.
increased when Benjamin Parpon was gunned
Petitioners have filed the instant motion and
down allegedly in cold blood by members of
supplemental motion for reconsideration of
the NCRDC for ignoring and/or continuing to
said decision. Before submission of the incident
speed off inspite of warning shots fired in the
for resolution, the Solicitor General, for the
air.
respondents, filed his comment, to which
ISSUE: petitioners filed a reply. The checkpoints are
nonetheless attacked by the movants as a
Whether or not the installations of the warrantless search and seizure and, therefore,
checkpoints violated their constitutional right violative of the Constitution.
against illegal search and seizures.
Issue:
HELD:
Whether installment and operation of
No. The constitutional right against checkpoints is unconstitutional and constitutes
unreasonable searches and seizures is a warrantless search.
personal right invocable only by those whose
rights have been infringed or threatened to be Held:
infringed. Not all searches and seizures are
No, it is the basic right of the State to
prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not
defend itself from its enemies and, while in
forbidden. The setting up of the questioned
power, to pursue its program of government
checkpoints may be considered as a security
intended for public welfare; and in the pursuit
measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its
of those objectives, the government has the
mission of establishing effective territorial
equal right, under its police power, to select
defense and maintaining peace and order for
the reasonable means and methods for best
the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may not
achieving them. The checkpoint is evidently Pfc. Galang proceeded to inspect the vehicle by
one of such means it has selected. it the basic beaming a flashlight inside. He then noticed a
right to defend itself from its enemies and, black leather bag measuring about 1 foot wide
while in power, to pursue its program of and 2 feet long with its sides bulging. When he
government intended for public welfare; and in asked what it contained, there was deadening
the pursuit of those objectives, the silence from the 3 accused. Nobody answered.
government has the equal right, under its Instead, they suddenly became fidgety.
police power, to select the reasonable means Suspicious, Pfc. Galang ordered the bag
and methods for best achieving them. The opened, which was found out to contain
checkpoint is evidently one of such means it marijuana. The 3 accused were thereafter
has selected. prosecuted and convicted of illegal
transportation of marijuana. Accused Bocalan
Routine checkpoint stops do not appealed and questioned the legality of the
intrude similarly on the motoring public. First, admission of the marijuana as evidence against
the potential interference with legitimate traffic him since it was seized without a valid search
is minimal. Motorists using these highways are warrant.
not taken by surprise as they know, or may
obtain knowledge of, the location of the Issue:
checkpoints and will not be stopped elsewhere.
Second, checkpoint operations both appear to Whether or not the petitioner is correct
and actually involve less discretionary in his contention that the evidence is
enforcement activity. The regularized manner inadmissible since it was obtained through a
in which established checkpoints are operated warrantless arrest.
is visible evidence, reassuring to law-abiding
Held:
motorists, that the stops are duly authorized
and believed to serve the public interest. The The Court held that Bocalan is deemed
location of a fixed checkpoint is not chosen by to have waived his objection to the admission
officers in the field, but by officials responsible of the seized marijuana because he neither
for making overall decisions as to the most raised this issue before the trial court nor
effective allocation of limited enforcement objected to the admissibility of the marijuana
resources. We may assume that such officials when it was offered in evidence.
will be unlikely to locate a checkpoint where it
bears arbitrarily or oppressively on motorists And even assuming that there was no
as a class, and since field officers may stop such waiver, the Court held that still Bocalan’s
only those cars passing the checkpoint, there is contention deserves scant consideration
less room for abusive or harassing stops of because there are instances where search and
individuals than there was in the case of seizure can be made without necessarily being
roving-patrol stops. Moreover, a claim that a preceded by an arrest. An illustration would be
particular exercise of discretion in locating or the “stop-and-search” without a warrant at
operating a checkpoint is unreasonable is military or police checkpoints, the
subject to post-stop judicial review. constitutionality of which has already been
upheld by this Court [in Valmonte vs. De Villa].
A C C O R D I N G LY, t h e M o t i o n a n d Vehicles are generally allowed to pass through
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are these checkpoints after a routine
DENIED. inspection and answering a few questions. If
vehicles are stopped and extensively searched
it is because of some probable cause which
PEOPLE vs. EXALA justifies a reasonable belief of those manning
the checkpoints that either the motorist is a
Facts: law-offender or the contents of the vehicle are
or have been instruments in the commission of
On November 02, 1982, a private jeep an offense.
driven by accused-appellant Bocalan was
stopped at a police checkpoint in Cavite City According to the Court, lest it be
for routine inspection. With Bocalan were his misunderstood, the foregoing doctrine is not
co-accused Fernandez and Exala. Pfc. Galang, intended to do away with the general rule
a member of the inspection team, went near that no person shall be subjected to search of
the jeep and asked the occupants if there were his person, personal effects and belongings, or
firearms inside. They answered in the negative. his residence except of virtue of a search
warrant or on the occasion of a lawful torture to extract confessions and tactical
arrest. This case, however, is an incident to or informations.
an offshoot of a lawful “stop-and-search” at a
military or police checkpoint. The respondents said that such
accusations were all lies. Respondents
The checkpoint in the instant case was contends that the Constitution grants to
established in line with “Operational Bakal,” the government the power to seek and cripple
main object of which was to search for subversive movements for the maintenance of
unlicensed firearms and other prohibited items peace in the state. The aerial target zoning was
in the possession of unauthorized persons intended to flush out subversives and criminal
passing through it. When the jeep carrying the elements coddled by the communities were the
contraband passed through the checkpoint, it said drives were conducted. They said that
was flagged down and the occupants were they have intelligently and carefully planned
asked routine questions. In the course thereof, months ahead for the actual operation and that
Pfc. Galang noticed a black leather bag the local and foreign media joined the operation to
sides of which were bulging. He asked what the witness and record such event.
contents of the bag were. None of the accused
answered. At that moment, the demeanor of Issue:
the accused changed; they became
Whether or Not the saturation drive
suspiciously quiet and nervous as if they were
committed consisted of violation of human
concealing something from Pfc. Galang. The
rights.
accused clearly appeared to be in abject fear of
being discovered. Such peculiar Held:
apprehensiveness if not restrained reaction of
the accused, which did not appear normal, It is not the police action per se which
provided the probable cause justifying a more should be prohibited rather it is the procedure
extensive search that led to the opening of the used or the methods which “offend even
bag and the discovery of the prohibited stuff. hardened sensibilities.” Based on the facts
stated by the parties, it appears to have been
Hence, accused is guilty beyond no impediment to securing search warrants or
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. warrants of arrest before any houses were
searched or individuals roused from sleep were
arrested.
GUAZON V. DE VILLA
There is no showing that the objectives
Facts: sought to be attained by the “aerial zoning”
could not be achieved even as the rights of the
The 41 petitioners alleged that the squatters and low-income families are fully
“saturation drive” or “aerial target zoning” that protected. However, the remedy should not be
were conducted in their place (Tondo Manila) brought by a taxpayer suit where not one
were unconstitutional. They alleged that there victim complaints and not one violator is
is no specific target house to be search and properly charged.
that there is no search warrant or warrant of
arrest served. Most of the policemen are in Under the circumstances of this
their civilian clothes and without nameplates or taxpayers’ suit, there is no erring soldier or
identification cards. The residents were rudely policeman whom the court can order
rouse from their sleep by banging on the walls prosecuted. In the absence of clear facts, no
and windows of their houses. The residents permanent relief can be given.
were at the point of high-powered guns and
In the meantime, where there is
herded like cows. Men were ordered to strip
showing that some abuses were committed,
down to their briefs for the police to examine
the court temporary restraint the alleged
their tattoo marks. The residents complained
violations which are shocking to the senses.
that they’re homes were ransacked, tossing
Petition is remanded to the RTC of Manila.
their belongings and destroying their valuables.
Some of their money and valuables had
disappeared after the operation. The residents
also reported incidents of maulings, spot- ABENES Vs. CA
beatings and maltreatment. Those who were
detained also suffered mental and physical Facts:
 Rodolfo Abenes, a barangay chairman, evidence has a prior justification for an
was charged with illegal possession of high- intrusion or is in a position from which he can
powered firearm and its ammunitions during view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the
the election period. Two informations were filed evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it
for (1) illegal possession of firearms and its is immediately apparent to the officer that the
ammunitions; (2) violation of the Omnibus item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
Election Code. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

The firearm was confiscated from All the foregoing requirements are
Abenes at a checkpoint wherein his vehicle was present in the instant case. The law
stopped, and he was asked to alight the same enforcement officers lawfully made an initial
for routine inspection. The policeman saw the intrusion because of the enforcement of the
firearm tucked in his waist and asked him to Gun Ban and were properly in a position from
produce a license for it. When Abenes could which they particularly viewed the area. In the
not produce one, the policeman confiscated the course of such lawful intrusion, the policemen
firearm. It was found that Abenes was not a came inadvertently across a piece of evidence
registered nor a licensed firearm holder. incriminating the petitioner where they saw the
gun tucked into his waist. The gun was in plain
The trial court then convicted Abenes view and discovered inadvertently when the
on both charges. Abenes appealed to the CA petitioner alighted from the vehicle.
alleging that the checkpoint was not shown to
have been legally set up, and that his However, there is insufficient evidence
constitutional right against unlawful search and that the firearm Abenes carried had no license.
seizure was violated. The CA affirmed the trial Thus, failure of the prosecution to prove
court. beyond reasonable doubt that Abenes was
carrying a firearm without prior authority,
Issues: license or permit, the latter must be
exculpated from criminal liability under the
Whether or not the checkpoint was
illegal possession of firearms law.
legally set up.
Nevertheless, Abenes is still convicted for
Whether or not Abenes’ constitutional violation of COMELEC Gun Ban.
right against unlawful search and seizure had
been violated.
GANAAN vs IAC
Held:
Facts:
Yes. This Court has ruled that not all
checkpoints are illegal. The checkpoint herein Complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his
conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban client Manuel Montebon were in the living room
enforced by the COMELEC. The production of a of complainant’s residence discussing the
mission order is not necessary in view of the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for
fact that the checkpoint was established 3 days direct assault which they filed with the Office of
before the May 11, 1998 elections; and the the City Fiscal of Cebu against Leonardo
circumstances under which the policemen Laconico. After they had decided on the
found the gun warranted its seizure without a proposed conditions, complainant made a
warrant. telephone call to Laconico. That same morning,
Laconico telephoned appellant, who is a lawyer,
No. In the instant case, the firearm
to come to his office and advise him on the
was seized from the petitioner when in plain settlement of the direct assault case because
view, the policemen saw it tucked into his waist his regular lawyer, Atty. Leon Gonzaga, went
uncovered by his shirt. on a business trip.

Under the plain view doctrine, objects When complainant called, Laconico
falling in the "plain view" of an officer who has requested appellant to secretly listen to the
a right to be in the position to have that view telephone conversation through a telephone
are subject to seizure and may be presented as extension so as to hear personally the
evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies proposed conditions for the settlement. Twenty
when the following requisites concur: (a) the minutes later, complainant called again to ask
law enforcement officer in search of the Laconico if he was agreeable to the conditions.
Laconico answered ‘Yes’. Complainant then told spoken word secured either before or after the
Laconico to wait for instructions on where to effective date of this Act in the manner
deliver the money. prohibited by this law; or to replay the same
for any other person or persons; or to
Complainant called again and communicate the contents thereof, either
instructed Laconico to give the money to his verbally or in writing, or to furnish
wife at the office of the then Department of transcriptions thereof, whether complete or
Public Highways. Laconico who earlier alerted partial, to any other person: Provided, That the
his friend Colonel Zulueta of the Criminal use of such record or any copies thereof as
Investigation Service of the Philippine evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or
Constabulary, insisted that complainant himself trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof,
should receive the money. When he received shall not be covered by this
the money at the Igloo Restaurant, prohibition. Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate
complainant was arrested by agents of the Court (IAC)
Philippine Constabulary.
The law refers to a “tap” of a wire or
Appellant executed on the following cable or the use of a “device or arrangement”
day an affidavit stating that he heard for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
complainant demand P8,000.00 for the intercepting, or recording the communication.
withdrawal of the case for direct assault. There must be either a physical interruption
Laconico attached the affidavit of appellant to through a wiretap or the deliberate installation
the complainant for robbery/extortion which he of a device or arrangement in order to
filed against complainant. Since appellant overhear, intercept, or record the spoken
listened to the telephone conversation without words.
complainant’s consent, complainant charged
appellant and Laconico with violation of the An extension telephone cannot be
Anti-Wiretapping Act. placed in the same category as a Dictaphone,
dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in
The lower court found both Gaanan Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof
and Laconico guilty of violating Section 1 of cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or
Republic Act No. 4200, which prompted cable of a telephone line. The telephone
petitioner to appeal. The IAC affirmed with extension in this case was not installed for that
modification hence the present petition for purpose. It just happened to be there for
certiorari. ordinary office use.
Issue: The petition is granted, and the
petitioner is acquitted of the crime of violation
Whether or not an extension telephone
of Republic Act No. 4200.
is covered by the term “device or
arrangement” under Rep. Act No. 4200

Held: STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO

No. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200 Facts:
provides that “It shall be unlawful for any
person, not being authorized by all the parties Forty-two (42) search warrants were
to any private communication or spoken word, issued at different dates against petitioners
to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other and the corporations of which they were
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, officers. Peace officers were directed to search
intercept, or record such communication or the persons of the petitioners and/or their
spoken word by using a device commonly premises of their offices, warehouses and/or
known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or residences. Books of accounts, financial
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts,
however otherwise described.” ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents and/or
It shall also be unlawful for any person, papers showing all business transactions
be he a participant or not in the act or acts including disbursements receipts, balance
penalized in the next preceding sentence, to sheets, and profit and loss statements and
knowingly possess any tape record, wire Bobbins were to be seized.
record, disc record, or any other such record,
or copies thereof, of any communication or
 Petitioner contends that the issued impossible for judges to determine the
search warrants were null and void as having existence of probable cause. Such impossibility
contravened the Constitution and the Rules of of such determination naturally hinders the
Court for, among others, it did not describe the issuance of a valid search warrant.
documents, books and things to be seized
PARTICULARLY. The Constitution also requires the
things to be seized described with particularity.
This is to eliminate general warrants.

Issue: The Court held that the warrants

issued for the search of three residences of
Whether or not the search warrant has petitioners are null and void.
been validly issued.

Whether or not the seized articles may

be admitted in court.

Held: PASTRANO VS. CA

No. The authority of the warrants in FACTS:

question may be split in two major groups: (a)
those found and seized in the offices of the On February 13, 1989, a group of
corporations; and (b) those found and seized in students went to see Capt. Rodolfo Mañoza,
the residences of the petitioners. then intelligence operations officer of the
Philippine Constabulary, at Oroquieta City.
The petitioners have no cause of action They reported having seen Clyde Pastrano
against the contested warrants on the first beaten up by his father, petitioner Pedrito
major group. This is because corporations have Pastrano. The students were willing to testify
their respective personalities, separate and but expressed fear of the petitioner who,
distinct from the personality of their officers, according to them, had firearms. Clyde
directors and stockholders. The legality of a Pastrano had died and it was suspected he had
seizure can be contested only by the party been the victim of foul play.
whose rights have been impaired, the objection
to an unlawful search and seizure purely being On February 20, 1989, two sons of
personal cannot be availed by third parties. Pedrito Pastrano by his estranged wife —
James Clement G. Pastrano and Clinton Steve
As to the second major group, two G. Pastrano — also saw Capt. Mañoza, seeking
important questions need be settled: (1) his assistance in connection with the death of
whether the search warrants in question, and their brother Clyde. The brothers reported that
the searches and seizures made under their father and his common-law wife were
authority thereof, are valid or not; and (2) if keeping unlicensed firearms in their house.
the answer is no, whether said documents, They executed a joint affidavit on February 20,
papers and things may be used in evidence 1989 in which they stated that they had
against petitioners. personal knowledge of the fact that their father
Pedrito Pastrano was keeping three (3)
The Constitution protects the rights of
firearms of different calibers in the bedroom of
the people from unreasonable searches and
his house. On the basis of the affidavit of the
seizure. Two points must be stressed in
Pastrano brothers, Capt. Mañoza applied for a
connection to this constitutional mandate: (1)
search warrant on the same day.
no warrant shall be issued except if based upon
probable cause determined personally by the
judge by the manner set in the provision; and ISSUE:
(2) the warrant shall describe the things to be
seized with particularly. Whether or not the search warrant
issued is valid.
In the present case, no specific offense
has been alleged in the warrant’s application. HELD:
The averments of the offenses committed were
abstract and therefore, would make it YES. Trial court actually examined the
two brothers, James Clement G. Pastrano and
Clinton G. Steve Pastrano. These two were the that the courts can entertain the present
ones who reported the matter to Capt. Maoza. action, defendants are immune from liability
They gave information of the illegal possession for acts done in the performance of their
of firearms by their father, petitioner herein, on official duties.
the basis of personal knowledge. Their
testimonies, not that of Capt. Maoza, formed ISSUE:
the basis of the trial courts finding of probable
cause for the issuance of a search warrant. 1. Whether or the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus bars a civil action
for damages for illegal searches conducted by
military personnel and other violations of rights
ABERCA VS. VER and liberties guaranteed under the
FACTS: Constitution?

This case stems from alleged illegal 2. If such action for damages may be
searches and seizures and other violations of maintained, may a superior officer under the
the rights and liberties of plaintiffs by various notion of respondeat superior be answerable
intelligence units of the Armed Forces of the for damages, jointly and severally with his
Philippines, known as Task Force Makabansa subordinates, to the person whose
(TFM) ordered by General Fabian Ver “to constitutional rights and liberties have been
conduct pre-emptive strikes against known violated?
communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses
in view of increasing reports about CT plans to HELD:
sow disturbances in Metro Manila,”
1. NO. The suspension of the privilege of the
Plaintiffs allege, among others, that writ of habeas corpus does not destroy
complying with said order, elements of the TFM petitioners’ right and cause of action for
raided several places, employing in most cases damages for illegal arrest and detention and
defectively issued judicial search warrants; other violations of their constitutional rights.
that during these raids, certain members of the The suspension does not render valid an
raiding party confiscated a number of purely otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is
personal items belonging to plaintiffs; that suspended is merely the right of the individual
plaintiffs were arrested without proper to seek release from detention through the writ
warrants issued by the courts; that for some of habeas corpus as a speedy means of
period after their arrest, they were denied obtaining his liberty.
visits of relatives and lawyers; that plaintiffs
were interrogated in violation of their rights to 2. YES. Article 32 of the Civil Code renders any
silence and counsel; that military men who public officer or employee or any private
interrogated them employed threats, tortures individual liable in damages for violating the
and other forms of violence on them in order to Constitutional rights and liberties of another, as
obtain incriminatory information or confessions enumerated therein. The doctrine of
and in order to punish them; that all violations respondeat superior has been generally limited
of plaintiffs constitutional rights were part of a in its application to principal and agent or to
concerted and deliberate plan to forcibly master and servant (i.e. employer and
e x t ra c t i n f o r m a t i o n a n d i n c r i m i n a t o r y employee) relationship. No such relationship
statements from plaintiffs and to terrorize, exists between superior officers of the military
harass and punish them, said plans being and their subordinates. Be that as it may,
previously known to and sanctioned by however, the decisive factor in this case, in our
defendants. view, is the language of Article 32. The law
speaks of an officer or employee or person
A motion to dismiss was filed by ‘directly’ or “indirectly” responsible for the
defendants, through their counsel, then violation of the constitutional rights and
Solicitor-General Estelito Mendoza, alleging liberties of another. Thus, it is not the actor
among others that (1) plaintiffs may not cause alone (i.e. the one directly responsible) who
a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of their must answer for damages under Article 32; the
detention in the guise of a damage suit person indirectly responsible has also to
because, as to them, the privilege of the writ answer for the damages or injury caused to the
of habeas corpus is suspended; (2) assuming aggrieved party.
 By this provision, the principle of The said complaint having been filed
accountability of public officials under the with the defendant A. S. Crossfield, he,
Constitution 5 acquires added meaning and a granting the petition, issued against the
larger dimension. No longer may a superior plaintiffs the injunction requested, prohibiting
official relax his vigilance or abdicate his duty them from deporting the defendant Chuoco
to supervise his subordinates, secure in the Tiaco.
thought that he does not have to answer for
the transgressions committed by the latter The plaintiffs filed a demurrer against
against the constitutionally protected rights the same and presented a motion asking that
and liberties of the citizen. Part of the factors the injunction be dissolved, the grounds of the
that propelled people power in February 1986 demurrer being that the facts set out in the
was the widely held perception that the complaint did not constitute a motive of action,
government was callous or indifferent to, if not and that the latter was one in which the court
actually responsible for, the rampant violations lacked jurisdiction to issue such an injunction
of human rights. While it would certainly be so against the plaintiffs for the reasons set out in
naive to expect that violators of human rights the complaint; notwithstanding which, the
would easily be deterred by the prospect of defendant A. S. Crossfield overruled the
facing damage suits, it should nonetheless be demurrer and disallowed the motion, leaving
made clear in no one’s terms that Article 32 of the complaint and the injunction standing.
the Civil Code makes the persons who are
directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for
ISSUE:
the transgression joint tortfeasors.
Whether or not the courts can take
jurisdiction in any case relating to the exercise
FORBES VS CHUOCO TIACO of this inherent power in the deportation of
aliens, for the purpose of controlling this power
FACTS: vested in the political department of the
government.
April 1, 1910, the defendant Chuoco
Tiaco filed a suit in the Court of First Instance
of the city of Manila against the plaintiffs HELD:
alleging that on the 19th of August, 1909,
under the orders of the said W. Cameron NO. Under the system of government
Forbes, Governor-General of the Philippine established in the Philippine Islands the
Islands, he was deported therefrom and sent Governor-General is "the chief executive
to Amoy, China, by the aforesaid J. E. Harding authority," one of the coordinate branches of
and C. R. Trowbridge, chiefs, as above stated, the Government, each of which, within the
of the police and of the secret service, sphere of its governmental powers, is
respectively, of the city of Manila, and that independent of the others. Within these limits
having been able to return to these Islands he the legislative branch cannot control the
feared, as it was threatened, that he should be judicial nor the judicial the legislative branch,
again deported by the said defendants, nor either the executive department. In the
concluding with a petition that a preliminary exercise of his political duties the Governor-
injunction should be issued against the General is, by the laws in force in the Philippine
plaintiffs in this case prohibiting them from Islands, invested with certain important
deporting the defendant, Chuoco, and that governmental and political powers and duties
they be sentenced to pay him P20,000 as an belonging to the executive branch of the
indemnity. Government, the due performance of which is
entrusted to his official honesty, judgment, and
Respondent argued that It is true that discretion. So far as these governmental or
the said defendant Chuoco Tiaco, was, with 11 political or discretionary powers and duties
others or his nationality, expelled from these which adhere and belong to the Chief
Islands and returned to China by the plaintiffs Executive, as such, are concerned, it is
J. E. Harding and C. R. Trowbridge, under the universally agreed that the courts possess no
orders of the plaintiff W. Cameron Forbes, but power to supervise or control him in the
the said expulsion was carried out in the public manner or mode of their discharge or exercise.
interest of the Government and at the request
of the proper representative of the Chinese
Government in these Islands.
LUMANOG V. PEOPLE and/or vacating the judgment. In any case, we
have ruled that whatever flaw that may have
FACTS: initially attended the out-of-court identification
of the accused, the same was cured when all
These cases were consolidated. The
the accused-appellants were positively
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
identified by the prosecution eyewitness during
Court of Appeals convicting Lumanog, Santos,
the trial.
Fortuna and De Jesus of the crime of murder
for the death of Col. Rolando Abadilla.
Lumanog and Santos separately filed their
motions for reconsideration seeking the
reversal of their conviction. They assailed the
weight and credence accorded to the
identification of the accused by the lone
eyewitness presented by the prosecution,
security guard Freddie Alejo.

Fortuna submitted an Affidavit

executed by a certain Orencio Jurado, Jr. who
claimed to be one of the police officers initially
assigned to investigate the case. Fortuna
contended that said belated statement would
certainly cast doubt on the procedures
undertaken by the police authorities in the
apprehension of the likely perpetrators.

ISSUE:

Whether or not introduction of

additional evidence after the trial is valid to
justify new trial

HELD:

No. Introduction of additional evidence

after the trial is not valid to justify new trial.

E v i d e n t l y, F o r t u n a s e e k s t h e
introduction of additional evidence to support
the defense argument that there was no
positive identification of Abadilla’s killers. To
justify a new trial or setting aside of the
judgment of conviction on the basis of such
evidence, it must be shown that the evidence
was “newly discovered” pursuant to Section 2,
Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, as amended. Evidence, to be
considered newly discovered, must be one that
could not, by the exercise of due diligence,
have been discovered before the trial in the
court below.

Movant failed to show that the defense

exerted efforts during the trial to secure
testimonies from police officers like Jurado, or
other persons involved in the investigation,
who questioned or objected to the
apprehension of the accused in this case.
Hence, the belatedly executed affidavit of
Jurado does not qualify as newly discovered
evidence that will justify re-opening of the trial