Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

148560, November 19, 2001

Facts:

Joseph Ejercito Estrada (Petitioner) wishes the Court to set aside his
conviction in violation of Republic Act (RA) no. 7080 commonly known as
the Plunder law as amended by RA 7659 through assailing its
constitutionality for alleged vagueness in defining the criminal or overt acts
being punished by the said law, and the requisite quantum of evidence to
support conviction of an accused violating it. He specifically alleges that the
word “combination” and “series” in Section 1 par (d) and Section 2, and the
word “pattern” found in Section 4 of the statute are insufficient and vague in
defining the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and the
elements of the crime.

In view of this, the Petitioner likewise alleges that the Plunder law
does not require the standard proof of beyond reasonable doubt to convict an
accused of an offense under It. To elaborate, the petitioner is of the position
that Section 4 of the said law circumvents the need to prove the acts
constitutive of the crime of plunder by requiring only a proof of overt or
criminal acts showing unlawful scheme or conspiracy. The petitioner also
argued that in the absence of “pattern” of overt and criminal acts, there can
be no conviction of plunder under the statute. Lastly, the petitioner is
concerned that the proof of mens rea requisite to prove an act of mala in se
was removed by the provisions of the statute basing from the deliberations
made on Senate Bill no. 733. Thus, it also violates the right to due process.
Considering above arguments, the petitioner wishes the Court to declare the
Plunder law unconstitutional for its vagueness.

Issue:

I. Are the words “combination”, “series”, and “pattern”

insufficiently defined in the Plunder law?

II. Do the provisions of the Plunder law require a lighter proof to

convict the accused?

III. Is “pattern” of criminal or overt acts an element of plunder needed

to be proved by the prosecution?

IV. Does the Plunder law require a proof of mens rea?

V. Taking together above issues, Is the Plunder law in any way

unconstitutional?

Ruling.

I. NO. The Supreme Court emphasized that words of a statute must be

interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary meaning unless it is the
intent of the legislature to imbue a technical or special legal meaning
to it. The Supreme Court relied on the definition of “combination” and
 “series” found in the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary and the
deliberation of the Bicameral Committee on Justice dated May 7,
1991.Subsequently, the Court concluded that when the plunder law
speaks of “combination”, it is referring to at least two (2) acts falling
under different categories of enumeration provided in Section 1, Par.
(d). As for the word “ series”, there must be two (2) or more overt or
criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration also
found in Section 1, par. (d).

For the definition of “pattern”, The Court agreed with the ruling of the
Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan ruled that under Sec. 1(d) of the
law, a “pattern” consists of at least a combination or series of overt or
criminal acts enumerated in s subsections (1) to (6) of Section 1, par
(d) of the Plunder law. Secondly, pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the
pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common
purpose or goal which is to enable the public officer to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must either
be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said
common goal. As commonly understood, the term 'overall unlawful
scheme' indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which the
principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him
follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if
there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used
by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of
a conspiracy to attain a common goal.

II. NO. The arguments raised by the petitioner on the quantum of

evidence needed to prove the criminal acts cannot be given merit. The
Supreme Court ruled that the quantum of evidence needed to prove
the act of plunder as enunciated in Section 4 of the Plunder law did
not eliminate the requisite proof of beyond reasonable down to find
the accused guilty. However, the prosecution does not need to prove
all the acts alleged in the criminal information. The Supreme Court,
relying on the deliberations of the House of Representatives on the
Plunder law dated October 9, 1990, ruled that the prosecution only
needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt a number of acts sufficient to
form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and
involving an amount of at least Php 50,000,000.00.

III. NO. The Supreme Court cannot subscribe to the argument of the
petitioner that Section 4 provides for the rules on evidence to prove
the crime of plunder, and an additional element needed to be proven
by the prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled that all the essential
elements of plunder can be seen and understood from Section 1, in
relation to Section 1, par (d). A “pattern” of the acts is not one of
them. Section 4 of the assailed law only provides for the rule of
evidence for the purpose of establishing the crime of plunder
necessary for a conviction.

IV. YES. RA 7080 as amended by RA 7659 requires proof of elements of

the crime as well as the requisite mens rea. A criminal act punished by
a special law does not necessarily mean that it is not an act of mala in
se. The Supreme Court ruled that the application of mitigating and
 extenuating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code to prosecutions
under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an
element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is
determined by his criminal intent. The contention of the petitioner that
the deliberations on Senate Bill no. 733 implies that the Plunder law
removes the requisite proof of mens rea is merely imaginary. The
Supreme Court held that Senator Tañada on the deliberations was only
saying that where the charge is conspiracy to commit plunder, the
prosecution need not prove each and every criminal act done to
further the scheme or conspiracy, it being enough if it proves beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the
overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy

V. NO. The contention of the accused that the entirety of the Plunder law
should be declared unconstitutional for alleged vagueness on some of
its provisions cannot be given merit. The Supreme Court ruled on the
first issue that RA 7080 sufficiently provides for the criminal or overt
acts constitutive of the crime of plunder which still needs to be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The quantum of evidence needed to be
proven by the prosecution still requires a proof of beyond reasonable
doubt. Thus, it can be concluded that the petitioner is still entitled to
his right to due process and to a presumption of innocence.

To conclude, The Supreme Court holds that RA 7080 otherwise

known as the Plunder law, as amended by RA 7659, is Constitutional
and the petition to declare the law unconstitutional is dismissed for
lack of merit.
Questions:
1. How did the ponente present the following:
a. Manner of gathering content
The ponente of the decision mentioned the rulings made by the
Sandiganbayan and the context behind the conviction made by the
lower court. It is also evident in the decision that the ponente is
well aware of the political landscape affecting the welfare of all
Filipinos during his time.

b. Point of view
The ponente maintained a third person point of view in
expressing the view of the majority on every issue. He likewise
referred to the petitioner in the third person.

c. Tone and style

The ponente maintained a professional and formal tone on an
expository and descriptive style from start to finish. It can
observed that the ponente never exuded any hint of bias to any of
the parties. In resolving each issue, the ponente always provides
for a brief context as to the contention of the petitioner before
resolving and presenting the ruling of the Supreme Court. While
there is evident use of highfalutin words and figures of speech, the
decision can still be understood

2. How did the manner of presentation aid in the decision of the court?
 The ponente presented the decision in an organized manner. Every
issue and ruling was accurately described and given prior context. The
manner of presentation by the ponente will help the readers to understand
each issue and its respective ruling by the Supreme Court separately as it
was given prior context and how it was resolved through the use of the
law and jurisprudence. Furthermore, it also immerses the readers as the
pentene presented a vague historical background during the time of the
decision was promulgated.

3. Did the manner of presentation enable the readers to understand

how the Court resolved the issues?
Yes. The ponente used mostly simple words through the course of the
decision. The use of historical context and the mention of the specific
charges helped in understanding what the petitioner was being convicted
for. Furthermore, each issue was resolved only through the use of
jurisprudence and the law. There was no hint of any bias towards the
respondent or let alone any comments that may prejudice any of the two
sides. Considering above points, the manner of presentation by the
ponente will enable the reader to understand how the Court resolved the
issues of the case.

Hacienda Lusisita, Inc. vs. PARC, G.R. No. 171101, November 22, 2011

Government of USA vs. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, September 24,

2002

Facts

The Government of the United States sent a request to the Philippine

Government accompanied with authenticated documents for a request to
extradite a certain Mark B. Jimenez also known as Mario Batacan Crespo.
The request was submitted to the Secretary of Justice through the Secretary
of Foreign Affairs pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069 also
known as the Extradition Law. Upon learning the request, Mark B Jimenez
responded through sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order
by the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The order prohibits the Philippine
Government from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. The
validity of the TRO was questioned before the Supreme Court by the
Secretary of Justice. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the
Secretary of Justice. Acting upon the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
the Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court reconsidered its former decision.
It held that Mark B. Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of his extradition process.

The Government of the United States of America represented by the

Philippines’ Department of Justice acted accordingly by filing the petition
for extradition of the respondent. Subsequently, a warrant of arrest has been
issued for Mark B. Jimenez for conspiracy to defraud the United States and
more offenses. Mark B. Jimenez responded through filing an Ex-Parte
Motion which prays that the warrant of arrest be subject to a prior hearing.
Respondent argues that he should not be deprived of his right to due process.
The Court of First instance granted the motion of the respondent.

The decision of the Regional Trial Court was the again questioned by the
Petitioners before the Supreme Court. The respondent to be extradited
argues that he is entitled to a notice or a hearing before the issuance of the
warrant of arrest, and a right to bail. Furthermore, He attests that he is not a
flight risk for not escaping the country upon knowledge of his extradition
and his confinement during the pendency of the extradition case is unfair.
The Petitioner maintains their position that the RTC erred by granting he
motion of the respondent. They likewise argue the opposite of what the
respondent has been claiming and stand by the immediate arrest of the
respondent.

Issues:

I. Is the respondent entitled to a notice or hearing before the issuance

of his warrant of arrest.
II. Did the Respondent RTC judge committed an error in granting
Mark B. Jimenez’s motion
III. Was the constitutional right to due process of the respondent
violated in the procedures of his extradition?
IV. Is Mark B. Jimenez entitled to a bail?
V. Should the petitioner be extradited?

Ruling

I. No. Basing from the Section 6 of PD 1069 and the Constitution,

there is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before
issuance of the warrant of arrest. The Constitution merely the
existence of probable cause, and its examination. The Supreme
Court relies on their rulings on Ho v. People and Webb v. De
Leon which emphasize that in issuing warrant of arrests and
determining probable cause, all the judge must have are supporting
documents upon which he/she can make an independent judgment
that there is probability on the findings of the petition.
Furthermore, in issuing warrants of arrests, the judge only
determines the probability of the facts constituting a violation of
the law, not the certainty of guilt of the accused.

Applying above point to the case, the Supreme Court held that the
supporting documents constitutes to a prima facie finding that
there is probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of the
respondent. The procedure laid out by the Extradition law requires
the immediate arrest of the respondent without any requisite notice
or hearing.
 II. Yes. The respondent judge’s act of granting the motion of Mark B.
Jimenez
III.

Carpio vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 96409, February 14, 1992.

Facts

Justice Antonio M. Carpio (Petitioner) prays that the Court declare Republic
Act no. 6975 unconstitutional with a prayer for temporary restraining order
for the following reasons: (1) RA 6975 strips the National Police
Commission (NAPOLCOM) of its powers by limiting its function to merely
“administrative control” over the Philippine National Police (PNP); (2) The
assailed law manifest a derogation of power of control of the NAPOLCOM
over the PNP as it vested the power to choose the PNP Provincial directors
and the Chief of Police to Governors and Mayors; and (3) The creation of a
“special oversight committee” which included some legislators as members
constitute to an encroachment in the separation of powers between the
legislation and the executive departments of the government.

For the first and second reason, the petitioner contends that in placing the
PNP under the Department of Interior and Local Government and by
limiting the powers of the NAPOLCOM to “administrative control”, there is
an usurpation of powers by the local government units from the power of
control of the President though giving the local executives the power to
choose their respective PNP provincial directors. The petitioner is of the
position that this act to be implemented by RA 6975 transgresses the powers
of control over the executive branch as it allegedly transfers the power of
control through the assailed act. As for the third reason, the petitioner is of
the position that the membership of legislators in the “special oversight
committee” created by RA 6975 as it places the concerned offices of the
executive under the control of some members of the Congress.

In addition to these assertions, Petitioner is also of the view that the creation
of “People’s Law Enforcement Boards” (PLEB) which punishes and hears
the complaints of the citizens against misconduct of PNP officers derogates
the NAPOLCOM’s power of control over the police force. Lastly, the
petitioner is also of the view that Section 12 of RA 6975 constitutes
abdication of the commander-in-chief powers through providing a transitory
transfer of the functions to the AFP upon enactment of the act. Considering
above discussion, the petitioner wishes to declare RA 6975 unconstitutional
Issues
I. Was the power of control by the Chief executive properly
implemented by RA 6975?
II. Was vesting the power to choose their respective PNP provincial
directors to Mayors and Governors constitutional?
III. Was the civilian character of the police force undermined through
the creation of the PLEBs?
 IV. Is there an abdication of power of the commander-in-chief on
Section 12 of RA 6975?
V. Does the creation of a “special oversight committee” by RA 6975
constitute to an encroachment to the powers of the chief
executive?

Ruling

I. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the assailed law merely reorganizes
the offices of the executive department which is within the powers of
the President. The enactment of RA 6975 is merely an exercise of the
power of the president’s power of control. The power of control as
defined by the decision of the Supreme Court on the case of Mondano
v. Selvosa is the power to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter.
Furthermore, the Doctrine of qualified agency supports this
reorganization as the President cannot exercise its control powers all of
the time. Thus, the power of control is delegated to the cabinet
members of the president acting as heads of the different departments
of the executive branch. Applying it to the case, The Supreme Court
held that the reorganization of the police force under the DILG by RA
6975 is merely a realignment of the offices of the executive branch.

II. Yes. The Supreme Court upon scrutiny of the law held that the local
executives that were given the power to choose their PNP regional
directors merely act as local representatives of the NAPOLCOM. As
such, they are presumed to act under NAPOLCOM. It also worth
taking into consideration that the local executives can only choose
from a list of eligible recommended by PNP officials. Therefore, no
derogation of any power of the President was done making the vesting
of powers to choose constitutional.

III. No. The Supreme Court held that the creation of the PLEBs does not
derogate the power of control by the NAPOLCOM. The commission is
tasked to issue implementing guidelines and procedure to be adopted
by PLEBs in hearing the cases against police officers. It may also
assign NAPOLCOM hearing officers to act as legal consultants of the
PLEBs. In view of this, the Supreme Court is of the position that the
creation of these PLEBs will all the more positively professionalize the
police force.

IV. No. The contention of the petitioner cannot be given merit as the
assailed provision merely provides for a transition period on which the
police force would slowly assume the function of protecting the
internal security of the state. Under this instance, the President
abdicates nothing of his war powers. He remains a civilian whose
duties under the Commander-in-Chief provision "represent only a part
of the organic duties imposed upon him. All his other functions are
clearly civil in nature.”

V. No. The establishment of the special oversight committee is merely for

the purpose of planning and overseeing the transition period created by
 RA 6975. Furthermore, no department, bureau or office of the
executive branch was placed under the control of the committee.

To conclude, the Supreme Court dismisses the petition for lack of

merit.
Questions:

1. How did the ponente present the following:

a. Manner of gathering content
The ponente provided for a historical background of the
concerned the police force before resolving each issue. The
historical background provided by the ponente helped in
understanding the issues of the case. The ponente also
presented the different issues raised by the petitioner and
presented the ruling of the Court in an alternating manner.

b. Point of view
The ponente maintained a third person point of view all
throughout the decision.

c. Tone and style

It can be observed that the ponente used a professional and
formal tone on an expository style in the decision. Each issue
was resolved outright and given explanation after presentation
of the contentions of the petitioner. In the presentation of each
ruling, it is evident that the ponente did not have any bias to any
of the parties through absence of any personal comment to the
contentions of each side.

2. How did the manner of presentation aid in the decision of the

court?
The manner of presentation helped in helping the readers focus on
each issue. The resolution of each issue was presented right after
the presenting the contentions of the petitioner. With this, the
reader can focus on the rulings and the explanation of the laws
supporting it.

3. Did the manner of presentation enable the readers to understand

how the Court resolved the issues?.
No. The manner of presentation was unusual. Each issue was
resolved right after it was presented. It was not organized in such a
manner that the readers can easily pinpoint what part of the
decision he/she is reading.
Hernandez vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 71871, November 6, 1989

Facts

Teodoro M. Hernandez (Petitioner) was an officer-in-charge and special

disbursing officer of the Ternate Beach Project of the Philippine Tourism
Authority in Cavite. He went to the main office of the Authority in Manila
one day to encash two checks for the wages of the employees and the
operating expense of the project. Consequently, the processing of the checks
was not within the schedule he projected. Regardless of this, he still decided
to encash the checks because the employees to be paid would be waiting for
the following day. Since he cannot return to the office anymore, he decided
to take home the money, spend the night there and leave early in the
morning to distribute the wages of the workers. He then rode a jeep on his
way home.

During his travel, two men boarded with knives in hand and robbery in
mind. One threatened the petitioner through his weapon while the other slit
his pocket forcibly taking away the money supposedly for the workers. The
two offenders subsequently jumped and ran out of the jeep. With little time
to decide, the petitioner immediately chased after the petitioners. He was
able to caught one and apprehended him after a scuffle. The other one was
able to escape with the stolen money. After several days, the petitioner filed
a request for relief from money accountability under Section 638 of the
Revised Administrative Code. The Commission on Audit however denied
the request alleging that it was his own negligence that led to the loss of the
cash.
Issues

I. Was the petitioner negligent on his decision to still encash the

checks despite impossibility to distribute the money to the workers
on the same day?
II. Should the petitioner personally reimburse the stolen cash?
Ruling
I. No. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner only decided with the
best of motives which is for his co-employees have their salaries the
next day. Although it was a non-working day, he only intended to
make a trip to his office the following day for the unselfish purpose of
accommodating his fellow workers. For such reason, the Supreme
Court held that the petitioner should be commended rather than
faulted.

The decision by the petitioner seemed logical at that time and the
attack by the two robbers cannot be attributed as a result of his
imprudence and negligence. The Supreme Court held that it was
undoubtedly a fortuitous event.

II. No. He is entitled to a relief under Section 638 of the Revised

Administrative Code and is in no obligation to reimburse the stolen
cash as the lost of money was not because of the petitioner’s
negligence and imprudence. To reiterate, the petitioner only meant the
best for his co-workers for them to receive their much needed wages
the following day.

To conclude, the Supreme Court granted the petition without any

pronouncement as to costs.
Questions:
1. How did the ponente present the following:
 a. Manner of gathering content
The ponente presented the facts in accordance to the testimony
of the petitioner and the side of the respondent. The ponente
also provided a rationale before resolving the main issue of the
case. Each factual antecedent was explicitly presented and
understandable by a common reader.
b. Point of view
The ponente maintained a third person point of view all
throughout the decision.
c. Tone and style
The ponente used a professional and formal tone on an
expository style through the course of the decision. The tone of
the decision can be observed through the ponente’s use of
words that not at all discriminatory to any side of the case. As
to his style, the ponente discussed each issue raised by the
respondent and resolved them by the use of the laws and
principles of common good.
2. How did the manner of presentation aid in the decision of the
court?
The decision was presented in an organized and brief manner. The
ponente mainly focused on resolving each issue without any
unnecessary dictum. The manner of presentation used by the
ponente made the decision easily understandable even by a
common reader.

3. Did the manner of presentation enable the readers to

understand how the Court resolved the issues?.
Yes. The manner of presentation was organized. The ponente was
able to present the rulings of the Supreme Court to each issue with
the use of simple words. The use of simple words will enable the
readers to understand outright how the Court resolved the issues of
the case.
Tolentino vs. Mendoza, ADM. Case No. 5151, October 19, 2004

Facts
Atty. Noberto M. Mendoza (respondent) was a former Municipal Trial Court
Judge who abandoned his legal wife in favor of a paramour who is also
married. The respondent and his paramour have been cohabitating openly in
the eyes of the public in Barangay Estrella, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro.
During their cohabitation, respondent sired two children by his paramour on
which their birth certificates provide that the two are married. Therefore,
their two daughters should be legitimate. After some time, the respondent
decided to run for public office during the 1995 elections. On his certificate
of candidacy (COC), he declared that he declared that his lawful wife was
the one he abandoned. Consequently, he also decided to run during the 1995
elections on which he declared on his COC that his civil status was
separated. Thus, prompting an administrative action by the petitioner.
The petitioners attest that the respondent should be removed from the as a
member of the bar for acts of immorality supported by documents submitted
as evidence attached to a letter submitted to their witness through an
anonymous source. The document attached was a certification issued by the
 Civil Registrar attesting that the marriage between the respondent and his
lawful wife was still subsisting. In addition to the evidences submitted, the
petitioner likewise submits the letter received by the witness, and the birth
certificates of the two daughters of the respondent and his paramour.
On the other hand, the respondent did not present any evidence at all except
for a memorandum which says that the evidences presented by the
petitioners should not be admitted as the testimonies of the witnesses are
mere hearsay. Petitioner likewise argued that the pieces of evidence
submitted before the tribunal should not be admitted as it is in violation of
Rule 24 of Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 1993. However, upon
hearing the case, the respondent chose not to deny under oath the grave and
serious allegations made against him. In view of this, The Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines moved to suspend the
respondent from the practice of law until he submits satisfactory proof that
he is no longer cohabitating with a woman who is not his wife and has
abandoned such immoral course of conduct.
Issues

I. Should the pieces of evidence submitted by the complainant be

admitted?
II. Should the respondent be disbarred?
III. In view of the issues and the factual antecedents of the case, did
the respondent commit an immoral conduct violative of the code of
professional conduct for lawyers?0

Ruling

I. Yes. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines sitting as the deciding

body on this administrative case ruled merely provides for the
sanctions against the persons violating the rule on confidentiality of
birth records. It does not state that procurement of said records
would render it inadmissible to court. Furthermore, the Revised
rules of evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is
obtained through illegal searches and seizures. Nowhere in the
factual antecedents of the case that the controversial birth
certificates was obtained from such illegal acts. Therefore, the
evidence submitted by the complainants should be admitted.

II. Yes. The Court concluded upon the absence of denial by the
respondent on his cohabitation with his paramour on which he sired
his two daughters. In view of this, the Supreme Court is of the
position that the respondent disregarded and made a mockery of the
fundamental institution of marriage. His acts of cohabitating with
his paramour despite his subsisting marriage to his lawful wife
contributed to the blot in his good moral character required to
remain as a member of the Bar.

III. Yes. Upon admission of the pieces of evidence by the commission

and the absence of denial by the respondent. The commission
concluded that the respondent committed an act of immorality
through cohabitating with his paramour. To reiterate, the acts of the
 respondent established that he is deprived of the continuing good
moral character required to remain as a member of the Bar.

To conclude, The Court finds the respondent guilty of immorality,

in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law until he
submits satisfactory proof that he has abandoned his immoral
course of conduct.

Chavez vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008

Facts

On the year 2005, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters that the
opposition was planning to destabilize the administration by releasing an
audiotape of a mobile phone between the President of the Philippines and
high ranking official on the Commission on Elections. The press secretary
claims that the conversation was recorded through wiretapping. He further
informed the people there are two versions of the said conversation one
being doctored which suggests that the President had instructed the
COMELEC official to manipulate the election’s results to PGMA’s favor.
Days after, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued a
press release regarding the broadcast of the audiotape released by the
opposition to media organizations. The NTC on the press release gave a fair
warning to radio and television companies that broadcasting the contents of
the audiotape shall violate the anti-wiretapping law giving them the
authority to suspend, revoke, or cancel their licenses. In view of this, the
petitioner filed a petitioner under the Court to declare the acts by the NTC
unconstitutional for it violates the freedom on expression and of the press,
and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. The
respondents answered through denying the allegations of the petitioner as
the warning was issued pursuant to the NTC’s mandate to regulate the
telecommunications industry.

Issues

I. Does the petitioner have legal standing on the issue?

II. Does the warning issued by NTC transgress the constitutional right
of freedom of speech and of the press?

Ruling

I. Yes. While the petitioner is not a member of the broast media, the Court
have held for a lot of times that where serious constitutional questions
are involved, “the transcendental importance to the public of these cases
demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside if
we must, technicalities and procedure.”. Applying this to the case, as this
is a challenge to the most exalted of all civil rights, the freedom of
 expression, the Court ruled that it shall not delve further as to the legal
standing of the petitioner.

II. Yes. In evaluating a governmental action that restricts freedom of speech

or the press, the Court subjects the action to the strictest scrutiny with
the Government having the burden of proving that the governmental
restriction passes the clear and present danger rule. The said rule is used
to determine whether or not the restriction is justified for the
Government intended only to prevent substantial danger present on the
restricted content which if left unattended, will likely lead to an evil it.

The clear and present rule subjects the Government to the burden of
overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality of the restriction done to
freedom of the speech or the press. The Court emphasized that this rule
shall apply equally to all kinds of media including broast media.
Applying it to the case, It is the position of the Court that the
respondents failed to justify that there is indeed an evil sought to be
prevented by the Government for the following reasons. Firstly, Firstly,
the various statements of the Press Secretary obfuscate the identity of the
voices in the tape recording. Secondly, the integrity of the taped
conversation is also suspect. The Press Secretary showed to the public
two versions, one supposed to be a "complete" version and the other, an
"altered" version. Thirdly, the evidence of the respondents on the who's
and the how's of the wiretapping act is ambivalent, especially
considering the tape's different versions. The identity of the wire-
tappers, the manner of its commission and other related and relevant
proofs are some of the invisibles of this case. Fourthly, given all these
unsettled facets of the tape, it is even arguable whether its airing would
violate the anti-wiretapping law. Considering above rulings, the Court
concluded that there is no showing that the feared violation of the anti-
wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security of the State.
Considering above points, the respondents was not able to overcome the
presumption of unconstitutionality of the restriction. Thus, the warning
issued by NTC is unconstitutional. .

Corpuz vs. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014

Facts

Danilo Tangcoy was engaged in lending money to casino players. The

petitioner met him on Admiral Royale Casino. Upon hearing that Tangcoy
had some pieces of jewelry for sale, the latter approached him and had
offered to sell the said pieces of jewelry in a commission basis. Tangcoy
agreed and subsequently turned over an 18k diamond ring for men, a
woman’s bracelet, one men’s necklace and another bracelet. The total value
of allt he items was Php 98,000.00 as provided by the receipt. Both Tangcoy
and the petitioner agreed that the process of the sale shall be remitted within
a period of 60 days. Should the items be remained unsold after the period
 provided, the petitioner is burdened to return all the items. Fast forward sixty
days after, the petitioner failed to remit the proceeds or even return the
pieces of jewelry. Tangcoy was then able to meet the petitioner after some
time. The latter promised that he will pay the value of the said items.
Unfortunately, there was no payment made.

Danilo Tangcoy decided to file criminal information of estafa against the

petitioner for failing to remit the sales or return the items even after repeated
demands. The petitioner replied through a plea of not guilty. After trial, the
Regional Trial Court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Estafa. He is sentenced to an imprisonment under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law of four (4) years and (2) months of Prision Correccional in its
medium period as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of and eight (8) months
of Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period as maximum and civil
indemnification of the Php 98,000.00 in favor of the complainant. The case
was elevated to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals denied the appeal by the petitioner. However, it

modified the penalty imposed upon him to 4 years and 2 month of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum, plus 1
year for each additional P10,000.00, or a total of 7 years. In view of this, the
petitioner decided to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues
I. Is a written demand by the complainant an element of the crime of
estafa?
II. Is the petitioner guilty of the crime of estafa?
III. Was the sentence given by the lower courts proper?
Ruling
I. No. The Court ruled that when the law does not qualify, we should not
qualify. The specific word “demand” need not even be used to show
that it has indeed been made upon the person charged. Mere query as to
the whereabouts of the money is already tantamount to a demand.

Moreover, the provisions of the law as carefully scrutinized by the

Court shows that there is no requisite of a written demand. Thus, it is
the position of the Court that the law does not require a formal written
demand to the complainant as an element of the crime of estafa.

II. Yes. The Court ruled that the factual findings as held by the Regional
Trial Court that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals without any
dispute shall likewise be held by the highest of courts.

III. No. The Court discussed the perceived injustice found in the
appropriation of penalties to crimes against properties committed today.
The Court noted that the penalties provided during 1932 should not
apply as the value of money have already raised in comparison to what
was the value back then. However, the Court is of the position that it
cannot pre-empt the legislation as it is their duty to promulgate penal
laws. Applying it to the case, the Court does not have any power to
change the penalty of Estafa. As a temporary measure, the Court relied
 on its decision on Cosme Jr. v. People and the application of the
Indeterminate sentence law.

Applying both factors, the Court arrived at an indeterminate penalty of

imprisonment ranging from three (3) years, two (2) months and eleven
days of prision correccional as minimum to fifteen (15) years of
reclusion temporal.

To conclude, the petition is denied. However the penalty provided by

the Court of Appeals is to set aside. To address the injustice pegged in
the case, the Court, pursuant of Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code
wishes to submit a copy of the decision to the Chief executive through
the Secretary of Justice.
Questions:
I. Describe and define the nuances of the writing styles of the
ponentes.
All the three justices wrote used the same expository and
descriptive on the cases assigned. The writing styles of the ponente
as I observed are as follows:

A. As to Justice Austria Martinez’s writing style:

Justice Austria-Martinez proceeded first to present all the factual
antecedents of the case before discussing each issue. The
arguments made by all sides were also elaborated without any hint
of bias or resolution. Afterward, he proceeded to appreciate each
fact and provide the rulings by the Supreme Court and its
supporting laws and jurisprudence. The ponente used a lot of
jurisprudence to define the subject matters of the case – good
moral character and immoral conduct. To conclude, the ponente
provided for the ruling of the Supreme Court and its importance as
it emphasizes the continuing requirement of good moral character
for the members of the Bar.

B. As to Chief Justice Puno’s writing style:

On the other hand, Chief Justice Puno separately dealt and
appreciated the facts of the case before presenting the issues at
hand. Afterwards, he dealt with all the issues including those
related with the freedom of speech and of the press before applying
it in its entirety to the factual antecedents of the case. Upon proper
presentation and resolution of these issues, he proceeded to present
the rulings of the Supreme Court. To end, Chief Justice Puno
emphasized the gravity of the decision not only to future cases
dealing with the same subject matter, but also to cases that
involves constitutional rights and more importantly, the separation
of powers between the three co-equal branches of the Government

C. As to Chief Justice Peralta’s writing style:

Chief Justice Peralta was neutral through the course of the
decision. He mainly focused on appreciating the facts of the case
and providing the ruling of the Supreme Court. Jurisprudence was
used to define terms that needed to be explained and to set a
 precedent as to why the Supreme Court ruled in a following
manner. Chief Justice Peralta only focused on appreciating the
facts of the case. The deliberations on the case regarding the
inappropriate penalty were provided to show that it is not only the
Supreme Court that views the penalty to crimes against property an
injustice to the accused.

The writing styles of the three ponentes vary only on their manner
of presentations. It is evident on their writing styles that they
intended to use simple words except for times that there is a need
to use the technical language of the legal profession.

II. Identify the strengths and shortcomings of these three writing

styles
Here are the strengths and weaknesses of each writing style:
A. As to Justice Austria-Martinez’s writing style:
The decision by Justice Austria-Martinez can easily be
understood. The facts were presented in an organized and
chronological manner following the arguments raised by each
side. Each fact was appreciated carefully before presenting the
issues and rulings by the Supreme Court. The use of
jurisprudence in supporting several contentions of the Court
was frequent even for the least relevant issue pointed out by the
ponente. I find no weakness to the writing style of the Justice.
The decision was presented in a concise and organized manner
which only contained relevant information, its analysis and the
ruling. Furthermore, the importance of resolving each issue
presented by the petitioner and pointed out by the ponente, was
provided. I personally find the need to provide any sense as to
why it should be decided except for the case being brought to
Supreme Court.

B. As to Chief Justice Puno’s writing style:

The writing style of the Chief Justice was consistent even in
presenting the rulings of the Court. The Chief Justice as a
ponente surgically presented each fact, issue, and ruling. The
facts were appreciated right after its description. This pattern
can be seen in the presentation of issues and rulings as well.
Given that this is a matter of transcendental importance, the
Chief Jusice meticulously resolved the main issue at hand and
all other issues pointed out by the Court. This can help the
readers focus on each part as all were given title by the ponente.
If there’s any weakness to the writing style of the Chief Justice,
I personally find this as very unconventional. While there is no
use of any highfalutin words to complicate matters, separating
each subject is not a common manner of presentation used by a
judge. The readers may need to adapt to the writing style of the
Chief Justice by reading more decisions written by him before
they can be comfortable in his writing style.

III. Which of these styles led to your better understanding of the legal
issues and holdings of the court?
The writing style of Justice Austria-Martinez. The writing style of the
Justice as shown in the decision was concise and meaningful. I
personally went for the writing style of Justice Austria-Martinez for I
find it a lot more comfortable to read in comparison with the other
two. The ponente was able to show in the decision aside from the
requisite facts, issues and rulings of the case, the importance of
resolving and elaborating the subject matters at hand and how it shall
set as precedence to future cases. To add, each ruling was discussed
only through the use of jurisprudence and the law. There were also no
personal comments made by the Justice. Overall, I find the writing
style of the Justice to help me in better understanding legal issues and
rulings by the Supreme Court.