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# A@.P.3 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 $ell served by # me#ns th#t is less intrusive of free s eech interests5 #nd Ac3 @.P. 9o. ..B le#ves o en #ltern#tive ch#nnels for communic#tion of the inform#tion. ? 7.@.P. 9o. ..B is contentEneutr#l #s seen from the te/t of the l#$. 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

Document Information

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( .aa4atan( ./+ vs. Emita

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