Due Process

Narratives
Constitutional Law II
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2005 Shared under Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAli e !"0 #hili$$ines license"
Some %i&hts %eserved"
'able o( Contents
)urtado vs" #eo$le o( State o( Cali(ornia *++0 ,"S" 5+-. ! March +//01 2 + Ville&as v" )iu Chion& 'sai #ao )o *G% L-23-0-. +0 Nov +34/1 2 2 %ubi. et" al" vs" #rovincial 5oard o( Mindoro *G% +004/. 4 March +3+31 2 ! 6$le v" 'orres * G% +24-/5. 2! 7ul8 +33/ 1 2 0 Lawrence and Garner vs" 'e9as *5!3 ,S 55/. 2- 7une 200!1 2 0 :strada v" Sandi&anba8an *G% +0/5-0. +3 November 200+1 2 5 'anada v" 'uvera * G% L--!3+5. 23 ;ecember +3/-1 2 4 #hili$$ine International 'radin& Cor$" <#I'C= v" An&eles *G% +0/0-+. 2+ 6ctober +33-1 2 / #ili$inas >ao v" CA *G% +050+0. +/ ;ecember 200+1 2 3 %e$ublic vs" :9$ress 'elecommunications Co" Inc" <:9telcom= *G% +0403-. +5 7anuar8 20021 2 +0 'anada v" #hili$$ine Atomic :ner&8 Commission *G% 40-!2. ++ ?ebruar8 +3/-1 2 ++ An@aldo v" Clave *G% L-50534. +5 ;ecember +3/21 2 +2 'ume8 vs" 6hio *24! ,S 5+0. 4 March +3241 2 +! #eo$le v" CA *G% ++///2. 2- Se$tember +33-1 2 +0 'abuena v" Sandi&anba8an *G% +0!50+-0!. +4 ?ebruar8 +3341A also #eralta v" Sandi&anba8an *G% +0!5041 2 +5 #eo$le v" Medenilla *G% +!+-!/-!3. 2- March 200+1 2 +ebb v" de Leon *G% +2+2!0. 2! Au&ust +3351. also Gatchalian v" de Leon *G% +2+2051 2 +#eo$le v" Sanche@ *G% +2+0!3-05. +/ 6ctober 200+1 2 +4 Summar8 ;ismissal 5oard v" 'orcita *G% +!0002. - A$ril 20001 """ +/ 7ustice Secretar8 v" Lantion *G% +!30-5. +4 6ctober 20001 2 +3 #eo$le v" :strada *G% +!00/4. +3 7une 20001 2 2+ Lim vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +++!34. +2 Au&ust 20021 2 2+ %odri&ue@ vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +!024/. 4 Au&ust 20021 2 2! %o9as vs" VasBue@ *G% ++0300. +3 7une 200+1 2 20 #hilcomsat v" Alcua@ *G% /0/+/. +/ ;ecember +3/31 2 25 Sunta8 v" #eo$le *G% L-30!0. 23 7une +3541 2 2;e 5isscho$ v" Galan& *G% +/!-5. !+ Ma8 +3-!1 2 24 Var-6rient Shi$$in& v" Achacoso *G% L-/+/05. !+ Ma8 +3//1 2 2/ An& 'iba8 v" CI% *G% 0-03-. 24 ?ebruar8 +3001 2 23 Montema8or v" Araneta ,niversit8 *G% L-0025+. !+ Ma8 +3441 2 !0 Meralco vs" #SC *G% L-+!-!/-00. !0 7une +3-01 2 !+ Ateneo v" CA *G% L-5-+/0. +- 6ctober +3/-1 2 !! Alcua@ v" #S5A *G% 4-!5!. 2 Ma8 +3//1 2 !! Non v" ;ames *G% /3!+4. 20 Ma8 +3301 2 !0
This collection contains thirty four (34) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student) during the First emester! school year "##$%"##& in the 'olitical (aw )e*iew class under +ean Mariano Magsalin ,r. at the -rellano .ni*ersity chool of (aw (-. (). /om0iled as '+F! e0tember "#1". 2erne Guerrero entered -. ( in ,une "##" and e*entually graduated from -. ( in "##&. 3e 0assed the 'hili00ine bar e4aminations immediately after (-0ril "##5).
berne&uerrero"word$ress"com
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
62 Hurtado vs. People of State of California [110 U.S. 516, 3 Marc 1!!"# Matthews (J) $acts% The constitution of the state of California adopted in 1879, in article 1, 8, provides as follows: "Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indict ent, shall be prosecuted by infor ation, after e!a ination and co it ent by a a"istrate, or by indict ent, with or without such e!a ination and co it ent, as ay be prescribed by law# $ "rand %ury shall be drawn and su oned at least once a year in each county#" &n pursuance of the fore"oin" provision of the constitution, and of the several sections of the penal Code of California, the district attorney of 'acra ento county, on () *ebruary 188(, filed an infor ation a"ainst +oseph ,urtado, char"in" hi with the cri e of urder in the -illin" of one +ose $ntonio 'tuardo# .pon this infor ation, and without any previous investi"ation of the cause by any "rand %ury, ,urtado was arrai"ned on (( /arch 188(, and pleaded not "uilty# $ trial of the issue was thereafter had, and on 7 /ay 188(, the %ury rendered its verdict, in which it found ,urtado "uilty of urder in the first de"ree# On 0 +une 188(, the superior court of 'acra ento county rendered its %ud" ent upon said verdict, that ,urtado be punished by the infliction of death, and the day of his e!ecution was fi!ed for () +uly 188(# *ro this %ud" ent an appeal was ta-en, and the supre e court of the 'tate of California affir ed the %ud" ent# On 1 +uly 1882, the superior court of said county of 'acra ento ordered that ,urtado be in court on 11 +uly 1882, in order that a day for the e!ecution of the %ud" ent in said cause should be fi!ed# &n pursuance of said order, ,urtado, with his counsel, appeared in court, and upon the court3s inquiry, ob%ected to the e!ecution of said %ud" ent and to any order which the court i"ht a-e fi!in" a day for the e!ecution of the sa e, upon the "rounds 415 that it appeared upon the face of the %ud" ent that ,urtado had never been le"ally, or otherwise, indicted or presented by any "rand %ury, and that he was proceeded a"ainst by infor ation ade and filed by the district attorney of the county of 'acra ento, after e!a ination and co it ent by a a"istrate of the said county6 4(5 that the said proceedin"s, as well as the laws and constitution of California, atte ptin" to authori7e the , and the alle"ed verdict of the %ury, and %ud" ent of the said superior court of said county of 'acra ento, were in conflict with and prohibited by $ end ents 0 and 18 of the constitution of the .nited 'tates, and that they were therefore void6 425 that ,urtado had been held to answer for the said cri e of urder by the district attorney of the said county of 'acra ento, upon an infor ation filed by hi , and had been tried and ille"ally found "uilty of the said cri e, without any present ent or indict ent of any "rand or other %ury, and that the %ud" ent rendered upon the alle"ed verdict of the %ury in such case was and is void, and if e!ecuted would deprive ,urtado of his life or liberty without due process of law# Thereupon the court overruled the said ob%ections, and fi!ed 12 $u"ust 1882, as the ti e for the e!ecution of the sentence# *ro this latter %ud" ent, ,urtado appealed to the supre e court of the state# On 18 'epte ber 1882, the supre e court of the state affir ed the said %ud" ent# $ review of which, by a writ of error, by the .' 'upre e Court was allowed# &ssue% 9hether ,urtado was denied due process by bein" tried and found "uilty without bein" presented or indicted by a "rand %ury# Held% The clause of the 18th article of a end ent to the constitution of the .nited 'tates, provides that ":or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law#" The phrase is to be construed by the usus loquendi of the constitution itself# The sa e words are contained in the 0th a end ent# That article a-es specific and e!press provision for perpetuatin" the institution of the "rand %ury, so far as relates to prosecutions for the ore a""ravated cri es under the laws of the .nited 'tates# &t declares that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infa ous cri e, unless on a present ent or indict ent of a "rand %ury, e!cept in cases arisin" in the land or naval forces, or in the ilitia when in actual service in ti e of war or public dan"er6 nor shall any person be sub%ect for the sa e offense to be twice put in %eopardy of life or li b6 nor shall he be co pelled in any cri inal case to be a witness a"ainst hi self#" &t then i ediately adds: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law#" The natural and obvious inference is that, in the sense of the constitution, "due process of law" was not eant or intended to include, e! vi ter ini, the institution and procedure of a "rand %ury in any case# The conclusion is equally
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )
irresistible, that when the sa e phrase was e ployed in the 18th a end ent to restrain the action of the states, it was used in the sa e sense and with no "reater e!tent6 and that if in the adoption of that a end ent it had been part of its purpose to perpetuate the institution of the "rand %ury in all the states, it would have e bodied, as did the 0th a end ent, e!press declarations to that effect# ;ue process of law in the latter refers to that law of the land which derives its authority fro the le"islative powers conferred upon con"ress by the constitution of the .nited 'tates, e!ercised within the li its therein prescribed, and interpreted accordin" to the principles of the co on law# &n the fourteenth a end ent, by parity of reason, it refers to that law of the land in each state which derives its authority fro the inherent and reserved powers of the state, e!erted within the li its of those funda ental principles of liberty and %ustice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and the "reatest security for which resides in the ri"ht of the people to a-e their own laws, and alter the at their pleasure# The 18th a end ent does not profess to secure to all persons in the .nited 'tates the benefit of the sa e laws and the sa e re edies# <reat diversities in these respects ay e!ist in two states separated only by an i a"inary line# On one side of this line there ay be a ri"ht of trial by %ury, and on the other side no such ri"ht# =ach state prescribes its own odes of %udicial proceedin"# *urther, any le"al proceedin" enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by a"e and custo , or newly devised in the discretion of the le"islative power in furtherance of the "eneral public "ood, which re"ards and preserves these principles of liberty and %ustice, ust be held to be due process of law# ,erein, the Court is unable to say that the substitution for a present ent or indict ent by a "rand %ury of the proceedin" by infor ation after e!a ination and co it ent by a a"istrate, certifyin" to the probable "uilt of the defendant, with the ri"ht on his part to the aid of counsel, and to the cross>e!a ination of the witnesses produced for the prosecution, is not due process of law# The Court found no error and thus affir ed the %ud" ent of the supre e court of California# 63 'ille(as v. Hiu C ion( )sai Pao Ho [*+ ,-2.6"6, 10 /ov 1.0!# En Banc, Fernandez (J) : 4 concur, 3 concur in result, 1 took no part $acts% On (( *ebruary 1918, Ordinance 1027 4$n ordinance a-in" it unlawful for any person not a citi7en of the ?hilippines to be e ployed in any place of e ploy ent or to be en"a"ed in any -ind of trade, business or occupation within the City of /anila without first securin" an e ploy ent per it fro the ayor of /anila6 and for other purposes5 was passed by the /unicipal @oard of /anila and si"ned by /anila /ayor $ntonio +# Aille"as on (7 /arch 1918# The Ordinance prohibits aliens fro e ploy ent and trade in the City of /anila without the requisite ayorBs per it6 but e!ceptin" persons e ployed in the diplo atic or consular issions of forei"n countries, or in the technical assistance pro"ra s of both the ?hilippine <overn ent and any forei"n "overn ent, and those wor-in" in their respective households, and e bers of reli"ious orders or con"re"ations, sect or deno ination, who are not paid onetarily or in -ind# The per it fee is ?0), and the penalty is i prison ent of 2 to 1 onths or fine of ?1))>()), or both# On 8 /ay 1918, ,iu Chion" Tsai ?ao ,o, who was e ployed in /anila, filed a petition, with the Court of *irst &nstance 4C*&5 of /anila 4Civil Case 7(7975, prayin" for 415 the issuance of the writ of preli inary in%unction and restrainin" order to stop the i ple entation of the ordinance, and 4(5 %ud" ent to declare the ordinance null and void# On (8 /ay 1918, +ud"e *rancisco $rca 4C*& /anila, @ranch &5 issued the writ of preli inary in%unction and on 17 'epte ber 1918, the +ud"e rendered a decision declarin" the ordinance null and void, and the preli inary in%unction is ade per anent# /ayor Aille"as filed a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the C*&# &ssue% 9hether the Ordinance, requirin" aliens > however econo ically situated > to secure wor-in" per its fro the City of /anila at a unifor fee of ?0), is reasonable# Held% The ordinance is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, bein" applied only to aliens who are thus, deprived of their ri"hts to life, liberty and property and therefore, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution# Cequirin" a person, before he can be e ployed, to "et a per it fro the City /ayor of /anila, who ay withhold or refuse it at will is tanta ount to denyin" hi the basic ri"ht of the people in the ?hilippines to en"a"e in a eans of livelihood# The shelter of protection under the due
process and equal protection clause is "iven to all persons, both aliens and citi7ens# The ordinance does not lay down any criterion or standard to "uide the /ayor in the e!ercise of his discretion, thus conferrin" upon the ayor arbitrary and unrestricted powers# The ordinanceBs purpose is clearly to raise oney under the "uise of re"ulation by e!actin" ?0) fro aliens who have been cleared for e ploy ent# The a ount is unreasonable and e!cessive because it fails to consider differences in situation a on" aliens required to pay it, i#e# bein" casual, per anent, full>ti e, part>ti e, ran->an>file or e!ecutive# 6" +u1i, et. al. vs. Provincial 2oard of Mindoro [*+ 1"00!, 0 Marc 1.1.# En Banc, Malcolm (J): 3 concur $acts% On 1 *ebruary 1917, the ?rovincial @oard of /indoro adopted Cesolution (0 creatin" a reservation D per anent settle ent for /an"yans 4/an"yanes5 in an 8))>hectare public land in the sitio of Ti"bao on :au%an Ea-e, and resolvin" that /an"yans ay only solicit ho esteads on the reservation provided that said ho estead applications be previously reco ended by the provincial "overnor# On (1 *ebruary 1917, the 'ecretary of &nterior approved Cesolution (0# On 8 ;ece ber 1917, the provincial "overnor of /indoro issued =!ecutive Order ( which directed all /an"yans in the vicinities of the townships of :au%an and ?ola and the /an"yans east of the @aco Civer includin" those in the districts of ;ulan"an and Cubi3s place in Calapan, to ta-e up their habitation on the site of Ti"bao, :au%an Ea-e, not later than 21 ;ece ber 1917, and penali7in" any /an"yan who refused to co ply with the order with i prison ent of not e!ceedin" 1) days, in accordance with section (709 of the Cevised $d inistrative Code# Cubi and those livin" in his rancheria have not fi!ed their dwellin"s within the reservation of Ti"bao and are prosecuted in accordance with section (709 of $ct :o# (711# On the other hand, ;oroteo ;abalos, was detained by the sheriff of /indoro by virtue of the provisions of $rticles (180 and (709 of $ct (711, for havin" run away fro the reservation# Cubi and other /an"uianes of the ?rovince of /indoro applied for writs of habeas corpus, alle"in" that the /an"uianes are bein" ille"ally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province# &ssue% 9hether due process was followed in the restraint of the /an"uianesB liberty, either on their confine ent in reservations andDor i prison ent due to violation of 'ection (180 of the $d inistrative Code # Held% :one of the ri"hts of the citi7en can be ta-en away e!cept by due process of law# The eanin" of "due process of law" is, that "every citi7en shall hold his life, liberty, property, and i unities under the protection of the "eneral rules which "overn society#" To constitute "due process of law," a %udicial proceedin" is not always necessary# &n so e instances, even a hearin" and notice are not requisite, a rule which is especially true where uch ust be left to the discretion of the ad inistrative officers in applyin" a law to particular cases# :either is due process a stationary and blind sentinel of liberty# $ny le"al proceedin" enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by a"e and custo , or newly devised in the discretion of the le"islative power, in furtherance of the public "ood, which re"ards and preserves these principles of liberty and %ustice, ust be held to be due process of law# ;ue process of law" eans si ply that "first, that there shall be a law prescribed in har ony with the "eneral powers of the le"islative depart ent of the <overn ent6 second, that this law shall be reasonable in its operation6 third, that it shall be enforced accordin" to the re"ular ethods of procedure prescribed6 and fourth, that it shall be applicable ali-e to all the citi7ens of the state or to all of a class#" 9hat is due process of law depends on circu stances# &t varies with the sub%ect> atter and necessities of the situation# The pled"e that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infrin"ed by a statute which is applicable to all of a class# The classification ust have a reasonable basis and cannot be purely arbitrary in nature# ,erein, one cannot hold that the liberty of the citi7en is unduly interfered with when the de"ree of civili7ation of the /an"uianes is considered# They are restrained for their own "ood and the "eneral "ood of the ?hilippines# :or can one say that due process of law has not been followed# To "o bac- to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws# There e!ists a law6 the law see s to be reasonable6 it is enforced accordin" to the re"ular ethods of procedure prescribed6 and it applies ali-e to all of a class# $ction pursuant to 'ection (180 of the $d inistrative Code does not deprive a person
of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to hi the equal protection of the laws, and that confine ent in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude# 9e are further of the opinion that 'ection (180 of the $d inistrative Code is a le"iti ate e!ertion of the police power, so ewhat analo"ous to the &ndian policy of the .nited 'tates# Cubi and the other /an"uianes are not unlawfully i prisoned or restrained of their liberty# ,abeas corpus can, therefore, not issue# 65 3ple v. )orres [ *+ 1206!5, 23 4ul5 1..! # En Banc, uno (J) : ! concur, 1 concurs in result $acts% On 1( ;ece ber 1991, ?resident *idel A# Ca os issued $d inistrative Order 2)8, entitled "$doption of a :ational Co puteri7ed &dentification Ceference 'yste #" &t was published in 8 newspapers of "eneral circulation on (( and (2 +anuary 1997# On (8 +anuary 1997, 'enator @las *# Ople, as a 'enator, ta!payer and e ber of the <overn ent 'ervice &nsurance 'yste 4<'&'5, filed instant petition a"ainst then =!ecutive 'ecretary Cuben Torres and the heads of the "overn ent a"encies, who as e bers of the &nter>$"ency Coordinatin" Co ittee are char"ed with the i ple entation of $d inistrative Order 2)8# &ssue% 9hether the ?hilippine ?resident can issue an $d inistrative Order for the adoption of a :ational Co puteri7ed &dentification Ceference 'yste , independent of a le"islative act# Held% $d inistrative Order 2)8 establishes a syste of identification that is all>enco passin" in scope, affects the life and liberty of every *ilipino citi7en and forei"n resident, and ore particularly, violates their ri"ht to privacy# 'uch a syste requires a delicate ad%ust ent of various contendin" state policies: the pri acy of national security, the e!tent of privacy interest a"ainst dossier>"atherin" by "overn ent, the choice of policies, etc# $s said ad inistrative order redefines the para eters of so e basic ri"hts of our citi7enry vis>a>vis the 'tate as well as the line that separates the ad inistrative power of the ?resident to a-e rules and the le"islative power of Con"ress, it ou"ht to be evident that it deals with a sub%ect that should be covered by law# The Order is a law, ne"atin" clai s that it confers no ri"ht, i poses no duty, affords no protection, and creates no office# .nder it, a citi7en cannot transact business with "overn ent a"encies deliverin" basic services to the people without the conte plated identification card# :o citi7en will refuse to "et this identification card for no one can avoid dealin" with "overn ent# &t is thus clear that without the &;, a citi7en will have difficulty e!ercisin" his ri"hts and en%oyin" his privile"es# $d inistrative Order 2)8 does not erely i ple ents the $d inistrative Code of 1987, but establishes for the first ti e a :ational Co puteri7ed &dentification Ceference 'yste # $n ad inistrative order is an ordinance issued by the ?resident which relates to specific aspects in the ad inistrative operation of "overn ent# &t ust be in har ony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of i ple entin" the law and carryin" out the le"islative policy# The authority to prescribe rules and re"ulations is not an independent source of power to a-e laws# $O 2)8 was beyond the power of the ?resident to issue# 66 ,a6rence and *arner vs. )e7as [53. US 55!, 26 4une 2003# "enned# (J): 4 concur, 1 $iled concurrin% opinion, ! $iled dissentin% opinions where ! &oined the dissentin% opinion o$ 'calia (J)( $acts% Cespondin" to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, ,ouston police entered +ohn <eddes EawrenceBs apart ent and saw hi and another adult an, Tyron <arner, en"a"in" in a private, consensual se!ual act# ?etitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate se!ual intercourse in violation of a Te!as statute forbiddin" two persons of the sa e se! to en"a"e in certain inti ate se!ual conduct# The two were arrested, held in custody over ni"ht, and char"ed and convicted before a +ustice of the ?eace# The two e!ercised their ri"ht to a trial de novo in ,arris County Cri inal Court# They challen"ed the statute as a violation of the =qual ?rotection Clause of the 18th $ end ent and of a li-e provision of the Te!as Constitution# Those contentions were re%ected# The two, havin" entered a plea of nolo contendere, were each
fined F()) and assessed court costs of F181#(0# The Court of $ppeals for the Te!as *ourteenth ;istrict considered the two accusedBs federal constitutional ar"u ents under both the =qual ?rotection and ;ue ?rocess Clauses of the *ourteenth $ end ent# $fter hearin" the case en banc the court, in a divided opinion, re%ected the constitutional ar"u ents and affir ed the convictions# The a%ority opinion indicated that the Court of $ppeals considered the .' 'upre e Court decision in @owers v# ,ardwic- 4878 .' 181 G1981H5, to be controllin" on the federal due process aspect of the case# The .' 'upre e Court "ranted certiorari 4027 .# '# 1)88 G())(H, to consider 2 questions: 415 whether the cri inal convictions under the Te!as I,o ose!ual ConductJ law violate the 18th $ end ent "uarantee of equal protection of laws6 4(5 9hether the cri inal convictions for adult consensual se!ual inti acy in the ho e violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the ;ue ?rocess Clause of the 18th $ end ent6 and 425 9hether @owers v# ,ardwic- 4878 .' 181 G1981H5, should be overruled# &ssue% 9hether the statute and the @ower decision denies ho ose!ual persons the autono y of decisions involvin" relationships available to heterose!ual ones# Held% The laws involved in @owers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no ore than prohibit a particular se!ual act# Their penalties and purposes, thou"h, have ore far>reachin" consequences, touchin" upon the ost private hu an conduct, se!ual behavior, and in the ost private of places, the ho e# The statutes do see- to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to for al reco"nition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without bein" punished as cri inals# This, as a "eneral rule, should counsel a"ainst atte pts by the 'tate, or a court, to define the eanin" of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent in%ury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects# &t suffices for us to ac-nowled"e that adults ay choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their ho es and their own private lives and still retain their di"nity as free persons# 9hen se!uality finds overt e!pression in inti ate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one ele ent in a personal bond that is ore endurin"# The liberty protected by the Constitution allows ho ose!ual persons the ri"ht to a-e this choice# Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relatin" to arria"e, procreation, contraception, fa ily relationships, child rearin", and education# These atters, involvin" the ost inti ate and personal choices a person ay a-e in a lifeti e, choices central to personal di"nity and autono y, are central to the liberty protected by the 18th $ end ent# $t the heart of liberty is the ri"ht to define oneBs own concept of e!istence, of eanin", of the universe, and of the ystery of hu an life# @eliefs about these atters could not define the attributes of personhood were they for ed under co pulsion of the 'tate# ?ersons in a ho ose!ual relationship ay see- autono y for these purposes, %ust as heterose!ual persons do# The decision in @owers would deny the this ri"ht# The case of @owers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today# &t ou"ht not to re ain bindin" precedent# @owers v# ,ardwic- should be and now is overruled# Thus, the %ud" ent of the Court of $ppeals for the Te!as *ourteenth ;istrict is reversed, and the case is re anded for further proceedin"s not inconsistent with the present opinion# 60 8strada v. Sandi(an1a5an [*+ 1"!560, 1. /ove91er 2001# En Banc, Bellosillo (J) : ! concur, ! $iled separate concurrin% opinions, ) &oined the concurrin% opinion o$ Mendoza, 3 dissented in a separate opinion, 1 took no part $acts% On 8 $pril ())1, the Office of the O buds an filed before the 'andi"anbayan 8 separate &nfor ations, doc-eted as: 4a5 Cri inal Case (1008, for violation of Cepublic $ct 4C$5 7)8), as a ended by C$ 71096 4b5 Cri inal Cases (1009 to (101(, inclusive, for violation of 'ections 2, para"raph 4a5, 2, para"raph 4a5, 2, para"raph 4e5, and 2, para"raph 4e5 of C$ 2)19 4$nti><raft and Corrupt ?ractices $ct5, respectively6 4c5 Cri inal Case (1012, for violation of 'ection 7, para"raph 4d5, of C$ 1712 4The Code of Conduct and =thical 'tandards for ?ublic Officials and = ployees56 4d5 Cri inal Case (1018, for ?er%ury 4$rticle# 182 of The Cevised ?enal Code56 and, 4e5 Cri inal Case (1010, for &lle"al .se Of $n $lias 4Co onwealth $ct 18(, as a ended by C$ 1)805# On 11 $pril ())1, +oseph =strada filed an O nibus /otion for the re and of the case to the O buds an for preli inary investi"ation with respect to
specification "d" of the char"es in the &nfor ation in Cri inal Case (10086 and, for reconsideration D reinvesti"ation of the offenses under specifications "a," "b," and "c" to "ive the accused an opportunity to file counter>affidavits and other docu ents necessary to prove lacof probable cause# The "rounds raised were only lacof preli inary investi"ation, reconsideration D reinvesti"ation of offenses, and opportunity to prove lacof probable cause# The purported a bi"uity of the char"es and the va"ueness of the law under which they are char"ed were never raised in that O nibus /otion thus indicatin" the e!plicitness and co prehensibility of the ?lunder Eaw# On (0 $pril ())1, the 'andi"anbayan, Third ;ivision, issued a Cesolution in Cri inal Case :o# (1008 findin" that "a probable cause for the offense of plunder e!ists to %ustify the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused#" On (0 +une ())1 petitioner3s otion for reconsideration was denied by the 'andi"anbayan# On 18 +une ())1, =strada oved to quash the &nfor ation in Cri inal Case (1008 on the "round that the facts alle"ed therein did not constitute an indictable offense since the law on which it was based was unconstitutional for va"ueness, and that the $ ended &nfor ation for ?lunder char"ed ore than one 415 offense# On 9 +uly ())1, the 'andi"anbayan denied petitioner3s /otion to Kuash# &ssue% 9hether the ?lunder law, and the infor ation, are clear to infor hi as to enable hi to prepare for an intelli"ent defense# =strada of the accusations a"ainst
Held% $s it is written, the ?lunder Eaw contains ascertainable standards and well>defined para eters which would enable the accused to deter ine the nature of his violation# 'ection ( is sufficiently e!plicit in its description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the ele ents of the cri e with reasonable certainty and particularity# $s lon" as the law affords so e co prehensible "uide or rule that would infor those who are sub%ect to it what conduct would render the liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained# &t ust sufficiently "uide the %ud"e in its application6 the counsel, in defendin" one char"ed with its violation6 and ore i portantly, the accused, in identifyin" the real of the proscribed conduct# &ndeed, it can be understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statute punishes is the act of a public officer in a assin" or accu ulatin" ill>"otten wealth of at least ?0),))),)))#)) throu"h a series or co bination of acts enu erated in 'ection 1, para"raph 4d5, of the ?lunder Eaw# ,erein, the a ended &nfor ation itself closely trac-s the lan"ua"e of the law, indicatin" with reasonable certainty the various ele ents of the offense which =strada is alle"ed to have co itted# There was nothin" that is va"ue or a bi"uous that will confuse =strada in his defense# *actual assertions clearly show that the ele ents of the cri e are easily understood and provide adequate contrast between the innocent and the prohibited acts# .pon such unequivocal assertions, =strada is co pletely infor ed of the accusations a"ainst hi as to enable hi to prepare for an intelli"ent defense# There is no basis for =strada3s clai that the 'upre e Court review the $nti>?lunder Eaw on its face and in its entirety# $ facial challen"e is allowed to be ade to a va"ue statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible "chillin" effect" upon protected speech# The theory is that "GwHhen statutes re"ulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction su""ests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitatin" the statutes in a sin"le prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected e!pression is dee ed to %ustify allowin" attac-s on overly broad statutes with no require ent that the person a-in" the attacde onstrate that his own conduct could not be re"ulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity#" This rationale does not apply to penal statutes# Cri inal statutes have "eneral in terrore effect resultin" fro their very e!istence, and, if facial challen"e is allowed for this reason alone, the 'tate ay well be prevented fro enactin" laws a"ainst socially har ful conduct# &n the area of cri inal law, the law cannot ta-e chances as in the area of free speech# The void>for>va"ueness doctrine states that "a statute which either forbids or requires the doin" of an act in ter s so va"ue that en of co on intelli"ence ust necessarily "uess at its eanin" and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law#" The overbreadth doctrine, on the other hand, decrees that "a "overn ental purpose ay not be achieved by eans which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedo s#" The doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and va"ueness are analytical tools developed for testin" "on their faces" statutes in free speech
cases# "On its face" invalidation of statutes has been described as " anifestly stron" e ployed "sparin"ly and only as a last resort," and is "enerally disfavored# 6! )anada v. )uvera [ *+ ,-63.15, 2. :ece91er 1.!6# *esolution En Banc, +ruz (J) : , concur
edicine," to be
$acts% &nvo-in" the people3s ri"ht to be infor ed on atters of public concern 4'ection 1, $rticle &A of the 1972 ?hilippine Constitution5 as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable ust be published in the Official <a7ette or otherwise effectively pro ul"ated, Eoren7o /# TaLada, $braha *# 'ar iento, and the /ove ent of $ttorneys for @rotherhood, &nte"rity and :ationalis , &nc# G/$@&:&H sou"ht a writ of anda us to co pel ,on# +uan C# Tuvera, in his capacity as =!ecutive $ssistant to the ?resident, ,on# +oaquin Aenus, in his capacity as ;eputy =!ecutive $ssistant to the ?resident, /elquiades ?# ;e Ea Cru7, in his capacity as ;irector, /alacaLan" Cecords Office, and *lorendo '# ?ablo, in his capacity as ;irector, @ureau of ?rintin", to publish, and or cause the publication in the Official <a7ette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, "eneral orders, procla ations, e!ecutive orders, letter of i ple entation and ad inistrative orders# On (8 $pril 1980, the Court affir ed the necessity for the publication to the Official <a7ette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of "eneral application, and unless so published, they shall have no bindin" force and effect# The decision was concurred only by 2 %ustices# Tanada, et# al# ove for reconsideration D clarification of the decision on various questions# They su""est that there should be no distinction between laws of "eneral applicability and those which are not6 that publication eans co plete publication6 and that the publication ust be ade forthwith in the Official <a7ette# The 'olicitor <eneral avers that the otion is a request for advisory opinion# /eanwhile, the *ebruary =;'$ Cevolution tooplace, which subsequently required the new 'olicitor <eneral to file a re%oinder on the issue 4under Cule 2, 'ection 18 of the Cules of Court5# &ssue% 9hether laws should be published in full and in the Official <a7ette only# Held% O ission of publication would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public -nowled"e of the laws that are supposed to "overn it# it is not unli-ely that persons not aware of it would be pre%udiced as a result6 and they would be so not because of a failure to co ply with it but si ply because they did not -now of its e!istence# ?ublication is required, even if their enact ent is Iotherwise providedJ or effective i ediately# The ter "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of "eneral application, for strictly spea-in" all laws relate to the people in "eneral albeit there are so e that do not apply to the directly# To be valid, the law ust invariably affect the public interest even if it i"ht be directly applicable only to one individual, or so e of the people only, and not to the public as a whole# ?ublication require ents applies to 415 all statutes, includin" those of local application and private laws6 4(5 presidential decrees and e!ecutive orders pro ul"ated by the ?resident in the e!ercise of le"islative powers whenever the sa e are validly dele"ated by the le"islature or directly conferred by the Constitution6 425 $d inistrative rules and re"ulations for the purpose of enforcin" or i ple entin" e!istin" law pursuant also to a valid dele"ation6 485 Charter of a city notwithstandin" that it applies to only a portion of the national territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place6 405 /onetary @oard circulars to "fill in the details" of the Central @an- $ct which that body is supposed to enforce# ?ublication require ents does not apply to 415 interpretative re"ulations and those erely internal in nature, i#e# re"ulatin" only the personnel of the ad inistrative a"ency and not the public6 4(5 Eetters of &nstructions issued by ad inistrative superiors concernin" the rules or "uidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the perfor ance of their duties6 and 425 instructions of /inistry heads on case studies# *urther, publication ust be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to infor the public of the contents of the laws# &t should be published in the Official <a7ette and not elsewhere# =ven if newspapers of "eneral circulation could better perfor the function of co unicatin" the laws to the people as such periodicals are ore easily available, have a wider readership, and co e out re"ularly, this -ind of publication is not the one required or authori7ed by e!istin" law#
6. P ilippine &nternational )radin( Corp. ;P&)C< v. =n(eles [*+ 10!"61, 21 3cto1er 1..6# 'econd -i.ision, /orres (J) : 4 concur *acts: On 1 $u"ust 1972, the ?hilippine &nternational Tradin" Corporation 4?&TC5 was created as a "overn ent owned or controlled corporation under ?residential ;ecree 4?;5 (0(# On 9 /ay 1977, ?; 1)71 revised the provisions of ?; (0(, where the purposes and powers of the said "overn ental entity were enu erated under 'ections 0 and 1 thereof# On 9 $u"ust 1971, the late ?resident *erdinand /arcos issued Eetter of &nstruction 4EO&5 888, directin", inter alia, that trade 4e!port or i port of all co odities5 between the ?hilippines and any of the 'ocialist and other Centrally ?lanned =cono y Countries 4'OC?=C5, includin" the ?eople3s Cepublic of China 4?COC5 shall be underta-en or coursed throu"h the ?&TC# $fter the =;'$ Cevolution, or ore specifically on (7 *ebruary 1987, then ?resident Cora7on C# $quino pro ul"ated =!ecutive Order 4=O5 122 reor"ani7in" the ;T& e powerin" the said depart ent to be the "pri ary coordinative, pro otive, facilitative and re"ulatory ar of the "overn ent for the country3s trade, industry and invest ent activities#" The ?&TC was ade one of ;T&3s line a"encies# 'o eti e in $pril 1988, followin" the 'tate visit of ?resident $quino to the ?COC, the ?hilippines and ?COC entered into a /e orandu of .nderstandin" 4/O.5 wherein the two countries a"reed to a-e %oint efforts within the ne!t five years to e!pand bilateral trade and to strive for a steady pro"ress towards achievin" a balance between the value of their i ports and e!ports durin" the period# Confor ably with the /O., the ?hilippines and ?COC entered into a Trade ?rotocol for the years 1989, 199) and 1991, under which was specified the co odities to be traded between the # On $u"ust 1989, ?&TC issued $d inistrative Order 4$O5 'OC?=C 89>)8>)1 under which, applications to the ?&TC for i portation fro China 4?COC5 ust be acco panied by a viable and confir ed =!port ?ro"ra of ?hilippine ?roducts to ?COC carried out by the i porter hi self or throu"h a tie>up with a le"iti ate i porter in an a ount equivalent to the value of the i portation fro ?COC bein" applied for or 1:1 ratio# Ce in"ton &ndustrial 'ales Corp# and *irestone Cera ics, both do estic corporations, or"ani7ed and e!istin" under ?hilippine>laws, individually applied for authority to i port fro ?COC with ?&TC# They were "ranted such authority# 'ubsequently, for failin" to co ply with their underta-in"s to sub it e!port credits equivalent to the value of their i portations, further i port applications were withheld by ?&TC fro Ce in"ton and *irestone, such that the latter were both barred fro i portin" "oods fro ?COC# On () +anuary 199(, Ce in"ton filed a ?etition for ?rohibition and /anda us, with prayer for issuance of Te porary Cestrainin" Order andDor 9rit of ?reli inary &n%unction a"ainst ?&TC in the Ce"ional Trial Court 4CTC, /a-ati @ranch 085# On 8 +anuary 1992, +ud"e Mosi o M# $n"eles 4?residin" +ud"e5 upheld the petition for prohibition and anda us of Ce in"ton and *irestone 4Civil Case 9(>1085, and declarin" ?&TC $O 'OC?=C 89>)8>)1 and its re"ulations null, void, and unconstitutional# ?&TC filed the petition see-in" the reversal of $n"elesB decision# &ssue% 9hether $O 'OC?=C 89>)8>)1 binds Ce in"ton and *irestone# Held% The ?&TC was le"ally e powered to issue $d inistrative Orders, as a valid e!ercise of a power ancillary to le"islation# $d inistrative Order 'OC?=C 89>)8>)1 is not, however, a valid e!ercise of such quasi>le"islative power# The ori"inal $O issued on 2) $u"ust 1989, under which the respondents filed their applications for i portation, was not published in the Official <a7ette or in a newspaper of "eneral circulation# The questioned $d inistrative Order, le"ally, until it is published, is invalid within the conte!t of $rticle ( of Civil Code# The $O under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and i ple ent an e!istin" law pursuant to a valid dele"ation, i#e#, ?; 1)71, in relation to EO& 888 and =O 122# &t was only on 2) /arch 199( when the a end ents to the said $d inistrative Order were filed in the .? Eaw Center, and published in the :ational $d inistrative Ce"ister as required by the $d inistrative Code of 1987#The fact that the a end ents to $O 'OC?=C 89 )8>)1 were filed with, and published by the .? Eaw Center in the :ational $d inistrative Ce"ister, does not cure the defect related to the effectivity of the $d inistrative Order# *urther, the $d inistrative Order, without force and effect due to the lacof publication, thus cannot e!act any obli"ation fro Ce in"ton and *irestone, specifically, char"es for the )#0N Counter =!port ;evelop ent 'ervice#
00 Pilipinas >ao v. C= [*+ 10501", 1! :ece91er 2001# First -i.ision, "apunan (J) : 4 concur $acts% ?ilipinas Oao, &nc# is a corporation or"ani7ed and e!istin" under the laws of the ?hilippines, en"a"ed in ultiple areas of re"istered activity, or has a nu ber of pro%ects re"istered with the @oard of &nvest ents 4@O&5# @atas ?a bansa 291 4&nvest ent ?olicy $ct of 19825 was enacted in 1982, providin", a on" others, for ta! incentives for new and e!pandin" e!port producer# To avail itself of these ta! incentives, the co pany applied with @O& for re"istration of its e!panded production capacity, which @O& approved on 8 +anuary 1987# =ach pro%ect was entitled to a certain set of incentives dependin" upon, a on" others, the law of re"istration and the status and type of re"istration# These ta! incentives apply only to the co panyBs Certificate of Ce"istration 87>1871 4?ro%ect 85 as new e!port producer, and Certificate of Ce"istration 87> 1(87 4?ro%ect 25 as an e!pandin" e!port producer 4an e!pansion of the co pany3s e!istin" pro%ects re"istered under C$ P11205# The initial application by co pany for ta! credit incentives for the year 1987 was approved by @O& substantially as applied for# @ut those applied for in 1988 and onwards were drastically reduced by @O& with the adoption and application of a deductible "base fi"ure" provided in its Ta! Credit on :et Eocal Content 4:EC5 and :et Aalue =arned 4:A=5 /anual of Operations# On 21 /arch 1989, co pany filed applications for its 1988 ta! credits on the :A= for ?8,082,2(8#)) and on the :EC for ?(0,9(8,172#)) for a "rand total of ?28,01(,)))#))# On 1) /ay 199), the @O& &ssued @oard Cesolution 188, series of 199), "rantin" co pany3s application for ta! credit but only in the reduced a ounts of ?1,01(,708 for :A= and ?(,121,)18 for :EC for a "rand total of ?8,((2,771# :otified of the @O& s decision, co pany requested for a reconsideration# @ut before the @O& could act thereon, co pany a"ain filed on 2 +uly 199) its applications for 1989 ta! credits on the :A= in the a ount of ?9,189,809 and on the :EC, ?(0,188,8)1, for a "rand total of ?20,(97,81)# On (7 +uly 199), the @O& denied co pany3s request for reconsideration anent its 1988 ta! credit, the denial bein" co unicated to co pany in a letter dated 1 $u"ust 199) and received by the latter on 10 $u"ust 199)#On 17 ;ece ber 199), co pany a"ain oved for reconsideration of the @O& s letter dated 1 $u"ust 199), but the sa e was denied by the @O& in a letter dated 11 /arch 1991# On 11 /arch 1991, the @O& also advised co pany of the approval of its application for the year 1989 ta! credit but only in the reduced a ounts of ?2,881,872 4:A=5 and ?189,871 4:EC5 for a "rand total of ?8,)9),988# On 10 $pril 1991, and by re"istered ail, co pany then filed with the ,onorable 'upre e Court a otion for e!tension of ti e to file petition pursuant to $rticle 8( of the O nibus &nvest ents Code6 it li-ewise filed a second otion for e!tension of ti e to file petition on 10 /ay 1991, both of which were not acted upon by the ,onorable 'upre e Court# On 1 /ay 1991, however, the 'upre e Court issued a resolution referrin" the instant petition to the trial Court# The trial court, however, dis issed the petition for review "on technical and substantive "rounds"6 rulin" that the petition for review was filed beyond the 2) period of appeal set in $rticle 78 of ?; 1789, as a ended by @? 291# The Court of $ppeals sustained the decision of the trial court and sustained the reduction of credits on net value earned and net local content applied for by the co pany in 1988 and 1989# Consequently, the co pany filed petition to set aside decision of the Court of $ppeals with the 'upre e Court# &ssue% 9hether the @oard of &nvest entBs /anual of Operation, especially as to the :EC and :A=, binds ?ilipinas Oao, or the public as a whole# Held% The /anual of Operations is not e!e pted fro publication as it is not erely internal in nature, re"ulatin" only the personnel of the ad inistrative a"ency and not the public, nor is it a letter of instruction issued by ad inistrative superiors concernin" the rules and "uidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the perfor ance of their duties# The /anual of Operations affected the public in a substantial way# $d inistrative rules and re"ulations ust be published if their purpose is to enforce or i ple ent e!istin" law pursuant to a valid dele"ation# The /anual of Operations was eant to enforce or i ple ent @#?# @l"# 291, a law of "eneral application# The absence of publication is a fatal o ission that renders the /anual of Operations void and of no effect 4'ee Tanada v# Tuvera5# *urther, 'ection 17 of ?; 1789, as a ended by @?
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( )
291, e!plicitly provides that the rules and re"ulations i ple entin" the &nvest ents Code ta-e effect only after due publication# Thus, the 33Ta! Credit on :EC and :A= /anual of Operations" 4/anual of Operations5 of @O& has no le"al effect insofar as it adopts as a "base fi"ure" for net value earned 4:A=5 the "hi"hest attained production volu e" in the period precedin" the re"istration of petitioner3s additional or e!panded capacity6 and 4(5 only the e!panded or additional capacity of petitioner re"istered under @? 1789, as a ended by @? 291, is entitled to the ta! credit provided therein, and not the pre>e!istin" re"istered capacity# 01 +epu1lic vs. 87press )eleco99unications Co. &nc. ;87telco9< [*+ 1"00.6, 15 4anuar5 2002#? also 2a5an )eleco99unications ;2a5antel< &nc., vs. 87press )eleco99unications Co. [*+ 1"0210# First -i.ision, 0nares1'antia%o (J): 4 concur $acts% On (9 ;ece ber 199(, the &nternational Co unications Corporation 4now @ayan Teleco unications, &nc# or @ayantel5 filed an application with the :ational Teleco unications Co ission 4:TC5 for a Certificate of ?ublic Convenience or :ecessity 4C?C:, :TC Case 9(>8815 to install, operate and aintain a di"ital Cellular /obile Telephone 'yste D'ervice 4C/T'5 with prayer for a ?rovisional $uthority 4?$5# 'hortly thereafter, or on (( +anuary 1992, the :TC issued /e orandu Circular 8>1>92 directin" all interested applicants for nationwide or re"ional C/T' to file their respective applications before the Co ission on or before 10 *ebruary 1992, and deferrin" the acceptance of any application filed after said date until further orders# On 1 /ay 1992, and prior to the issuance of any notice of hearin" by the :TC with respect to @ayantel3s ori"inal application, @ayantel filed an ur"ent e!>parte otion to ad it an a ended application# On 17 /ay 1992, the notice of hearin" issued by the :TC with respect to this a ended application was published in the /anila Chronicle# Copies of the application as well as the notice of hearin" were ailed to all affected parties# 'ubsequently, hearin"s were conducted on the a ended application# @ut before @ayantel could co plete the presentation of its evidence, the :TC issued an Order dated 19 ;ece ber 1992 statin" that in view of the recent "rant of ( separate ?rovisional $uthorities in favor of &'E$CO/ and </CC, &nc#, which resulted in the closin" out of all available frequencies for the service bein" applied for by @ayantel, and in order that the case ay not re ain pendin" for an indefinite period of ti e, the case was ordered archived without pre%udice to its reinstate ent if and when the requisite frequency beco es available# On 17 /ay 1999, @ayantel filed an =!>?arte /otion to Cevive Case, citin" the availability of new frequency bands for C/T' operators# On 1 *ebruary ())), the :TC "ranted @ayanTel3s otion to revive the latter3s application and set the case for hearin"s on *ebruary 9, 1), 10, 17 and ((, ()))# The :TC noted that the application was ordered archived without pre%udice to its reinstate ent if and when the requisite frequency shall beco e available# =!press Teleco unication Co#, &nc# 4=!telco 5 filed in :TC Case 9(>881 an Opposition 49ith /otion to ;is iss5 prayin" for the dis issal of @ayantel3s application6 ar"uin" that @ayantel3s otion sou"ht the revival of an archived application filed al ost 8 years a"o, and thus, the docu entary evidence and the alle"ations of @ayantel in said application are all outdated and should no lon"er be used as basis of the necessity for the proposed C/T' service# On 2 /ay ())), the :TC issued an Order "rantin" in favor of @ayantel a provisional authority to operate C/T' service, applyin" Cule 10, 'ection 2 of its 1978 Cules of ?ractice and ?rocedure# =!telco filed with the Court of $ppeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition 4C$><C '? 088925, see-in" the annul ent of the Order revivin" the application of @ayantel, the Order "rantin" @ayantel a provisional authority to construct, install, operate and aintain a nationwide C/T', and /e orandu Circular 9>2>())) allocatin" frequency bands to new public teleco unication entities which are authori7ed to install, operate and aintain C/T'# On 12 'epte ber ())), the Court of $ppeals "ranted the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for, annullin" and settin" aside the :TC orders dated 1 *ebruary and 2 /ay ())) in :TC Case 9(>881, dis issin" @ayantel3s $ ended $pplication without pre%udice to the filin" of a new C/T' application# @ayantel and the :TC, the latter bein" represented by the Office of the 'olicitor <eneral 4O'<5, filed a otion for reconsideration of the above decision# On the other hand, =!telco filed a /otion for ?artial Ceconsideration, prayin" that :TC /e orandu Circular 9>2>())) be also declared null and void# On 9 *ebruary ())1, the Court of $ppeals issued a resolution denyin" all of the otions for reconsideration of the parties for lacof erit# ,ence, the
:TC and @ayantel filed their petitions for review on certiorari 4<C 187)91, and <C 187(1) respectively5# &n the present petition, =!telco contends, a on" others, that the :TC should have applied the Cevised Cules which were filed with the Office of the :ational $d inistrative Ce"ister on 2 *ebruary 1992# These Cevised Cules deleted the phrase "on its own initiative6" accordin"ly, a provisional authority ay be issued only upon filin" of the proper otion before the Co ission# The :TC, on the other hand, issued a certification to the effect that inas uch as the 1992 Cevised Cules have not been published in a newspaper of "eneral circulation, the :TC has been applyin" the 1978 Cules# &ssue% 9hether the 1978 or 1992 :TC Cules of ?ractice and ?rocedure should "overn in the approval of @ayantelBs application# Held% The absence of publication, coupled with the certification by the Co issioner of the :TC statin" that the :TC was still "overned by the 1978 Cules, clearly indicate that the 1992 Cevised Cules have not ta-en effect at the ti e of the "rant of the provisional authority to @ayantel# The fact that the 1992 Cevised Cules were filed with the .? Eaw Center on *ebruary 2, 1992 is of no o ent# There is nothin" in the $d inistrative Code of 1987 which i plies that the filin" of the rules with the .? Eaw Center is the operative act that "ives the rules force and effect# The :ational $d inistrative Ce"ister is erely a bulletin of codified rules and it is furnished only to the Office of the ?resident, Con"ress, all appellate courts, the :ational Eibrary, other public offices or a"encies as the Con"ress ay select, and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and ailin" or distribution costs# 'till, publication in the Official <a7ette or a newspaper of "eneral circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes, rules or re"ulations can ta-e effect# The Cules of ?ractice and ?rocedure of the :TC, which i ple ents 'ection (9 of the ?ublic 'ervice $ct 4Co onwealth $ct 181, as a ended5, fall squarely within the scope of these laws, as e!plicitly entioned in the case TaLada v# Tuvera# $d inistrative rules and re"ulations ust be published if their purpose is to enforce or i ple ent e!istin" law pursuant to a valid dele"ation# The only e!ceptions are interpretative re"ulations, those erely internal in nature, or those so>called letters of instructions issued by ad inistrative superiors concernin" the rules and "uidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the perfor ance of their duties# ,ence, the 1992 Cevised Cules should be published in the Official <a7ette or in a newspaper of "eneral circulation before it can ta-e effect# =ven the 1992 Cevised Cules itself andates that said Cules shall ta-e effect only after their publication in a newspaper of "eneral circulation# &n the absence of such publication, therefore, it is the 1978 Cules that "overns# 02 )anada v. P ilippine =to9ic 8ner(5 Co99ission [*+ 00632, 11 $e1ruar5 1.!6#? also /uclear $ree P ilippines Coalition v. /apocor [ *+ ,-6!"0"# *esolution En Banc, lana (J) : 2 concur, ! took no part $acts% The Official ?hilippine $to ic =ner"y Co ission 4?$=C5 pa phlet, entitled "The ?hilippine :uclear ?ower ?lant>1" was published in 1980 when Co issioners /anuel =u"enio, Kuirino :avarro, and $le%andro Aer $lbano had already been appointed to their present positions# Other pa phlets entitled ":uclear ?ower Q 'afe, Clean, =cono ical, and $vailable," and I:uclear ?ower ?lant and =nviron ental 'afetyJ were issued earlier, but the a%ority of the Co issioners even then were already occupyin" positions of responsibility in the ?$=C# Co issioner =u"enio was $ctin" Chief of the ?$=C ;epart ent on :uclear Technolo"y and =n"ineerin" fro +une, 198) to +uly, 19886 Co issioner :avarro was ?$=C Chief 'cience Cesearch 'pecialist fro /ay, 198) to 'epte ber, 19886 and Co issioner $lbano was ?$=C ;eputy Co issioner fro /arch, 198) to 'epte ber, 1988# These pa phlets continued to be distributed by ?$=C as late as /arch 1980# Their official distribution continued after the filin" of :ational ?ower Corporation 4:apocor53s otion for conversion on (7 +une 1988 and even after ?$=C had issued its order dated (1 *ebruary 1980 for ally ad ittin" the said otion for conversion# &n <C 7)12(, the co petence of the ?$=C Co issioners to pass %ud" ent on the safety of the ?hilippine :uclear ?ower ?lant>1 4?:??>15 was questioned6 4(5 the validity of :apocor3s otionDapplication for the conversion of its construction per it into an operatin" license for ?:??>1 was assailed, and 425 ?$=C Co issioners were char"ed with bias and
pre%ud" ent# &ssue% 9hether the ?$=C Co issioner ay sit in %ud" ent in deter inin" the safety of ?:??>1#
Held% The ?$=C Co issioners would be actin" with "rave abuse of discretion a ountin" to lacof %urisdiction were they to sit in %ud" ent upon the safety of the plant, absent the requisite ob%ectivity that ust characteri7e such an i portant inquiry because they already have pre%ud"ed the safety of ?:??>1# The ?$=C Co issioners cannot escape responsibility fro the official pa phlets, which clearly indicate the pre%ud" ent that ?:??>1 is safe# The official distribution of the pa phlets continued when the Co issioners had already been appointed to their present positions and and even after ?$=C had issued its order dated (1 *ebruary 1980 for ally ad ittin" :apocorBs otion for conversion# 03 =n@aldo v. Clave [*+ ,-5"5.0, 15 :ece91er 1.!2# 'econd -i.ision, 34uino (J)5 4 concur, 1 concur in result, 1 took no part $acts% &n 1978, the position of 'cience Cesearch 'upervisor && 4/edical Cesearch ;epart ent5 beca e vacant when the incu bent, ;r# Ointanar, beca e ;irector of the @iolo"ical Cesearch Center of the :ational &nstitute of 'cience and Technolo"y 4:&'T5# ;r# $n7aldo and ;r# Aen7on were both ne!t>in>ran- to the vacant position, both holdin" positions of 'cientist Cesearch $ssociate &A# ;r# $n7aldo finished @' ?har acy 4190), Colle"e of ?har acy, .?5, and /' ?har acy 4191(, C=.5, ;octor of ?har acy 41910, C=.5# $side fro her civil service eli"ibility as a phar acist, she is a re"istered edical technolo"ist and supervisor 4unasse bled5# 'he started wor-in" in the :&'T in 1908 and has served for (8 years# On the other hand, ;r# Aen7on finished /edicine 41907, .'T5# 'he started wor-in" in the :&'T in 191) and has served for (1 years# ;r# $n7aldo is senior to her in point of service# ;r# Kuintin Ointanar reco ended ;r# Aen7on for the position# ;r# $n7aldo protested a"ainst such reco endation, to which the :&'T Ceor"ani7ation Co ittee found such protest to be valid and eritorious# ;ue to the i passe, the :&'T Co issioner, however, did not resolve the issue# The position was not filled up# ;r# ?edro $fable, Aice Chair an, later beca e O&C of the :&'T# ,e appointed ;r# $n7aldo to the position effective 8 +anuary 1978, after thorou"h study and screenin" of the qualifications of both doctors and upon reco endation of the :&'T 'taff =valuation 488>11 votes5# The Civil 'ervice Co ission approved the appoint ent# ;r# Aen7on appealed to the Office of the ?resident of the ?hilippines 4addressed to ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant +acobo Clave, who was concurrently the Chair an of the C'C5# The appeal was forwarded to the :&' O&C +ose ?# ?lanas, who reiterated ;r# $fableBs decision# The appeal>protest was later sent to the C'C# C'C Chair an Clave and Co issioner +ose $# /elo reco ended &n Cesolution 1178 dated (2 $u"ust 1979 that ;r# Aen7on be appointed to the position, in conflict with the 1978 appoint ent of ;r# $n7aldo which was duly attested and approved by the C'C# The Cesolution was ade in pursuance to 'ection 19415 of the Civil 'ervice ;ecree of the ?hilippines 4?; 8)7, 1 October 19705, which provides that "before decidin" a contested appoint ent, the Office of the ?resident shall consult the Civil 'ervice Co ission#" On 0 +anuary 198), after denial of her otion for the reconsideration of the resolution, ;r# $n7aldo appealed to the Office of the ?resident of the ?hilippines# ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant Clave in his decision of () /arch 198) revo-ed ;r# $n7aldo3s appoint ent and ruled that, "as reco ended by the Civil 'ervice Co ission" 4 eanin" Chair an Clave hi self and Co issioner /elo5, ;r# Aen7on should be appointed to the contested position but that ;r# $n7aldo3s appoint ent to the said position should be considered "valid and effective durin" the pendency" of ;r# Aen7on3s protest# &n a resolution dated 18 $u"ust 198), ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant Clave denied ;r# $n7aldo3s otion for reconsideration# On (0 $u"ust 198), ;r# $n7aldo filed in the 'upre e Court the special civil action of certiorari# &ssue% 9hether C'C Co issioner +acobo Clave can concur with the reco =!ecutive $ssistant, who is hi self, in the appoint ent of ;r# Aen7on# endation of the ?residential
Held% The () /arch 198) decision of ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant Clave i ple ented the (2 $u"ust
1979 Cesolution 411785 of Clave 4as C'C Chair an5, concurred with by Co issioner /elo, reco endin" the appoint ent of ;r# Aen7on as 'cience Cesearch 'upervisor && in place of ;r# $n7aldo# 9hen ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant Clave said in his decision that he was "inclined to concur in the reco endation of the Civil 'ervice Co ission", what he eant was that he was concurrin" with Chair an Clave3s reco endation: he was concurrin" with hi self # &t is evident that ;octor $n7aldo was denied due process of law when ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant Clave concurred with the reco endation of Chair an Clave of the Civil 'ervice Co ission 4'ee also Ma bales Chro ite /inin" Co# vs# Court of $ppeals5# Co on sense and propriety dictate that the co issioner in the Civil 'ervice Co ission, who should be consulted by the Office of the ?resident, should be a person different fro the person in the Office of the ?resident who would decide the appeal of the protestant in a contested appoint ent# 0" )u9e5 vs. 3 io [203 US 510, 0 Marc 1.20# /a$t (+J): $acts% Tu ey was arrested at 9hite Oa-, and was brou"ht before /ayor ?u"h, of the villa"e of :orth Colle"e ,ill, char"ed with unlawfully possessin" into!icatin" liquor# ,e oved for his dis issal because of the disqualification of the ayor to try hi under the 18th $ end ent# The ayor denied the otion, proceeded to the trial, convicted Tu ey of unlawfully possessin" into!icatin" liquor within ,a ilton county as char"ed, fined hi F1)), and ordered that he be i prisoned until the fine and costs were paid# Tu ey obtained a bill of e!ceptions and carried the case on error to the court of co on pleas of ,a ilton county# That court heard the case and reversed the %ud" ent, on the "round that the ayor was disqualified as clai ed# The state sou"ht review by the Court of $ppeals of the *irst $ppellate ;istrict of Ohio, which reversed the co on pleas and affir ed the %ud" ent of the ayor# On 8 /ay 19(1, the state 'upre e Court refused Tu ey3s application to require the Court of $ppeals to certify its record in the case# Tu ey then filed a petition in error in that court as of ri"ht, as-in" that the %ud" ent of the ayor3s court and of the appellate court be reversed on constitutional "rounds# On 11 /ay 19(1, the 'upre e Court ad%ud"ed that the petition be dis issed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question was involved in the cause# The %ud" ent was then brou"ht to the .' 'upre e Court upon a writ of error allowed by the Chief +ustice of the state 'upre e Court, to which it was ri"htly directed# &ssue% 9hether the pecuniary interest of the /ayor and his villa"e, and the syste of courts in prosecutin" violations of the ?rohibition $ct, renders the ayor disqualified fro hearin" the case# Held% $ll questions of %udicial qualification ay not involve constitutional validity# Thus atters of -inship, personal bias, state policy, re oteness of interest would see "enerally to be atters erely of le"islative discretion# @ut it certainly violates the 18th $ end ent and deprives a defendant in a cri inal case of due process of law to sub%ect his liberty or property to the %ud" ent of a court, the %ud"e of which has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reachin" a conclusion a"ainst hi in his case# ,erein, the ayor has authority, which he e!ercised in the case, to order that the person sentenced to pay a fine shall re ain in prison until the fine and costs are paid# The ayor thus has a direct personal pecuniary interest in convictin" the defendant who ca e before hi for trial, in the F1( of costs i posed in his behalf, which he would not have received if the defendant had been acquitted# This was not e!ceptional, but was the result of the nor al operation of the law and the ordinance# The syste by which an inferior %ud"e is paid for his service only when he convicts the defendant has not beco e so e bedded by custo in the "eneral practice, either at co on law or in this country, that it can be re"arded as due process of law, unless the costs usually i posed are so s all that they ay be properly i"nored as within the a!i "de ini is non curat le!#" The Court cannot re"ard the prospect of receipt or loss of such an e olu ent in each case as a inute, re ote, triflin", or insi"nificant interest# &t is certainly not fair to each defendant brou"ht before the ayor for the careful and %udicial consideration of his "uilt or innocence that the prospect of such a prospective loss by the ayor should wei"h a"ainst his acquittal# @ut the pecuniary interest of the ayor in the result of his %ud" ent is not the only reason for holdin" that due process of law is denied to the defendant here# The statutes were drawn to
sti ulate s all unicipalities, in the country part of counties in which there are lar"e cities, to or"ani7e and aintain courts to try persons accused of violations of the ?rohibition $ct everywhere in the county# The induce ent is offered of dividin" between the state and the villa"e the lar"e fines provided by the law for its violations# The trial is to be had before a ayor without a %ury, without opportunity for retrial, and with a review confined to questions of law presented by a bill of e!ceptions, with no opportunity by the reviewin" court to set aside the %ud" ent on the wei"hin" of evidence, unless it should appear to be so anifestly a"ainst the evidence as to indicate ista-e, bias, or willful disre"ard of duty by the trial court# Thus, no atter what the evidence was a"ainst hi , the defendant had the ri"ht to have an i partial %ud"e# ,e seasonably raised the ob%ection, and was entitled to halt the trial because of the disqualification of the %ud"e, which e!isted both because of his direct pecuniary interest in the outco e, and because of his official otive to convict and to "raduate the fine to help the financial needs of the villa"e# There were thus presented at the outset both features of the disqualification# The %ud" ent of the 'upre e Court of Ohio is reversed, and the cause re anded for further proceedin"s not inconsistent with the present opinion# 05 People v. C= [*+ 11!!!2, 26 Septe91er 1..6# *esolution o$ /hird -i.ision, Melo (J)5 4 concur $acts% The are no preli inary facts provided re"ardin" C$><C '? :o# 21722, "?eople vs# ,on# ?edro '# =spina et al#" 4in Court of $ppeals5, Cri inal Case 92>)1>28, "?eople vs# Cristeta Ceyes, et al#," and Cri inal Case 92>)1>29, "?eople of the ?hilippines vs# +ane C# <o" 4both in CTC branch presided by +ud"e ?edro =spina, @ranch 7, CTC, 8th +udicial Ce"ion: Tacloban5 in the present resolution6 e!cept the fact that +ane <o is the principal accused in the -illin" of her husband ;o inador <o# The Office of the 'olicitor <eneral filed a petition for review with ur"ent prayer for a writ of preli inary in%unction andDor restrainin" order to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of $ppeals in C$><C '? 21722 in so far as it denied ?eopleBs prayer for the inhibition of +ud"e =spina in hearin" Cri inal cases 92>)1>28 and 92>)1>29, and en%oinin" the %ud"e fro conductin" further proceedin"s in such cri inal cases, before the 'upre e Court# On 2 $pril 1990, the Court resolved to require Cristeta Ceyes and Co"er ;octora, +ohny 'antos and $ntonio $le"ro, and +ane C# <o to co ent within 1) days fro notice, to issue the te porary restrainin" order prayed for, and to en%oin +ud"e ?edro '# =spina fro ta-in" further action in Cri inal Cases 92>)1>28 and 92>)1>29 until further orders fro the Court# Ceyes, ;octora, 'antos, $le"ro, and <o failed to file their respective co ents within the re"le entary period, nor within the second deadline# $s the latter are already in detention and that sanction relatin" to delay in the sub ission of the co ents ay not a ount to uch, and as not to unduly delay the disposition of Cri inal Cases 92>)1>28 and 92>)1>29, the Court resolved to dispense with the latter3s co ents and to proceed with the disposition of the petition# &ssue% 9hether the decision of a +ud"e favorable to the accused in a different special civil proceedin" is enou"h basis to render the +ud"e to be partial or bias in the present cri inal case# Held% One of the essential require ents of procedural due process in a %udicial proceedin" is that there ust be an i partial court or tribunal clothed with %udicial power to hear and deter ine the atter before it# Thus, every liti"ant, includin" the 'tate, is entitled to the cold neutrality of an i partial %ud"e# The %ud"e ust not only be i partial but ust also appear to be i partial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be %ust# They should be sure that when their ri"hts are violated they can "o to a %ud"e who shall "ive the %ustice# They ust believe in his sense of fairness, otherwise they will not see- his %ud" ent# ;ue process is intended to insure that confidence by requirin" co pliance with the rudi ents of fair play# *air play calls for equal %ustice# There cannot be equal %ustice where a suitor approaches a court already co itted to the other party and with a %ud" ent already ade and waitin" only to be for ali7ed after the liti"ants shall have under"one the charade of a for al hearin"# The +ud"e will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the ar"u ents are filed, on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent law# ,erein, +ud"e ?edro =spina cannot be considered to adequately possess such cold neutrality of an i partial %ud"e as to fairly assess both the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and the defense in view of his previous decision in
'pecial Civil $ction 9(>11>(19 wherein he en%oined the preli inary investi"ation at the Ce"ional 'tate ?rosecutor3s Office level a"ainst +ane <o, the principal accused in the -illin" of her husband ;o inador <o# +ud"e =spina3s decision in favor of +ane <o serves as sufficient and reasonable basis for the prosecution to seriously doubt his i partiality in handlin" the cri inal cases# &t would have been ore prudent for +ud"e =spina to have voluntarily inhibited hi self fro hearin" the cri inal cases# 06 )a1uena v. Sandi(an1a5an [*+ 103501-03, 10 $e1ruar5 1..0#? also Peralta v. Sandi(an1a5an [*+ 103500# En Banc, Francisco (J) : 4 concur, 3 concur pro hac .ice, 1 took no part $acts% Then ?resident /arcos instructed Euis Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the president3s office and in cash what the /anila &nternational $irport $uthority 4/&$$5 owes the ?hilippine :ational Construction Corporation 4?:CC5, pursuant to the 7 +anuary 1980 e orandu of then /inister Trade and &ndustry Coberto On"pin# Tabuena a"reed# $bout a wee- later, Tabuena received fro /rs# *e Coa><i ene7, then private secretary of /arcos, a ?residential /e orandu dated 8 +anuary 1981 reiteratin" in blac- and white such verbal instruction# &n obedience to ?resident /arcos3 verbal instruction and e orandu , Tabuena, with the help of <erardo <# ;abao and $dolfo ?eralta, caused the release of ?00 /illion of /&$$ funds by eans of three 425 withdrawals# On 1) +anuary 1981, the first withdrawal was ade for ?(0 /illion, followin" a letter of even date si"ned by Tabuena and ;abao requestin" the ?:@ e!tension office at the /&$$ the depository branch of /&$$ funds, to issue a ana"er3s chec- for said a ount payable to Tabuena# The chec- was encashed, however, at the ?:@ Ailla or @ranch# ;abao and the cashier of the ?:@ Ailla or branch counted the oney after which, Tabuena too- delivery thereof# The ?(0 /illion in cash was delivered on the sa e day to the office of /rs# <i ene7# /rs# <i ene7 did not issue any receipt for the oney received# 'i ilar circu stances surrounded the second withdrawalDencash ent and delivery of another ?(0 /illion, ade on 11 +anuary 1981# The third and last withdrawal was ade on 21 +anuary 1981 for ?0 /illion# ?eralta was Tabuena3s co>si"natory to the letter> request for a ana"er3s chec- for this a ount# ?eralta acco panied Tabuena to the ?:@ Ailla or branch as Tabuena requested hi to do the countin" of the ?0 /illion# $fter the countin", the oney was loaded in the trun- of Tabuena3s car# ?eralta did not "o with Tabuena to deliver the oney to /rs# <i ene73 office# &t was only upon delivery of the ?0 /illion that /rs# <i ene7 issued a receipt for all the a ounts she received fro Tabuena# The receipt was dated +anuary 2), 1981# Tabuena and ?eralta were char"ed for alversation of funds, while ;abao re ained at lar"e# One of the %ustices of the 'andi"anbayan actively too- part in the questionin" of a defense witness and of the accused the selves6 the volu e of the questions as-ed were ore the co bined questions of the counsels# On 1( October 199), they were found "uilty beyond reasonable doubt# Tabuena and ?eralta filed separate petitions for review, appealin" the 'andi"anbayan decision dated 1( October 1999) and the Cesolution of () ;ece ber 1991# &ssue% 9hether Tabuena and ?eralta were denied due process by the active participation of a 'andi"anbayan %ustice in the questionin" witnesses in the trial# Held% ;ue process requires no less than the cold neutrality of an i partial %ud"e# @olsterin" this require ent, we have added that the %ud"e ust not only be i partial but ust also appear to be i partial, to "ive added assurance to the parties that his decision will be %ust# The parties are entitled to no less than this, as a ini u "uaranty of due process# Our courts should refrain fro showin" any se blance of one>sided or ore or less partial attitude in order not to create any false i pression in the inds of the liti"ants# *or obvious reasons, it is the bounden duty of all to strive for the preservation of the people3s faith in our courts# Cespect for the Constitution is ore i portant than securin" a conviction based on a violation of the ri"hts of the accused# The Court was struc- by the way the 'andi"anbayan actively too- part in the questionin" of a defense witness and of the accused the selves, as shown in the records# The volu e of questions hurled by the 'andi"anbayan was ore the co bined questions of the counsels# /ore i portantly, the questions of the court were in the nature of cross e!a inations characteristic of confrontation, probin" and insinuation# 9e
have not adopted in this country the practice of a-in" the presidin" %ud"e the chief inquisitor# &t is better to observe our ti e>honored custo of orderly %udicial procedure, even at the e!pense of occasional delays# The i partiality of the %ud"e6 his avoidance of the appearance of beco in" the advocate of either one side or the other of the pendin" controversy is a funda ental and essential rule of special i portance in cri inal cases# 00 People v. Medenilla [*+ 13163!-3., 26 Marc 2001# First -i.ision, "apunan (J) : 4 concur $acts% On 11 $pril 1991, Eoreto /edenilla y ;oria was cau"ht for ille"al possession and unlawfully sellin" 0#)8" of shabu 4Cri inal Case 2118>;5, was in unlawful possession of 8 transparent plastic ba"s of shabu wei"hin" ())#80" 4Cri inal Case 2119>;5 in /andaluyon" City# Aersions of facts leadin" to the arrest are conflictin"6 the prosecution alle"in" buy>bust operations, while defense clai ille"al arrest, search and sei7ure# $rrai"ned on (0 +une 1991, /edenilla pleaded not "uilty# The %ud"e therein, for the purpose of clarification, propounded a question upon a witness durin" the trial# On (1 :ove ber 1997, the Ce"ional Trial Court of ?asi" 4@ranch (1(5 found /edenilla, in Cri inal Cases 2118>; and 2119>;, "uilty beyond reasonable doubt of violatin" 'ections 10 and 11 of C$ 18(0, as a ended 4;an"erous ;ru"s $ct of 197(5# &ssue% 9hether %ud"es are allowed to as-ed clarificatory questions# Held% $ sin"le noted instance of questionin" cannot %ustify a clai that the trial %ud"e was biased# The Court have e!haustively e!a ined the transcript of steno"raphic notes and deter ined that the trial %ud"e was ore than equitable in presidin" over the hearin"s of this case# /oreover, a %ud"e is not prohibited fro propoundin" clarificatory questions on a witness if the purpose of which is to arrive at a proper and %ust deter ination of the case# IThe trial %ud"e ust be accorded a reasonable leeway in puttin" such questions to witnesses as ay be essential to elicit relevant facts to a-e the record spea- the truth# &t cannot be ta-en a"ainst hi if the clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of one party# 0! Ae11 v. de ,eon [*+ 12123", 23 =u(ust 1..5#, also *atc alian v. de ,eon [*+ 1212"5#, and ,eBano v. de ,eon [*+ 1212.0# 'econd -i.ision, uno (J) : ! concur, 1 on lea.e $acts% This was a hi"hly>publici7ed case 4dubbed as Ai7conde /assacre, and involves a son of a ?hilippine 'enator5# On 19 +une 1998, the :ational @ureau of &nvesti"ation 4:@&5 filed with the ;epart ent of +ustice 4;O+5 a letter>co plaint char"in" petitioners ,ubert 9ebb, /ichael <atchalian# $ntonio +# Ee%ano and 1 other persons, with the cri e of Cape with ,o icide# *orthwith, the ;O+ for ed a panel of prosecutors headed by $ssistant Chief 'tate prosecutor +ovencito C# MuLo to conduct the preli inary investi"ation of those char"ed with the rape and -illin" on 2) +une 1991 of Car ela :# Ai7conde, her other =strellita :icolas>Ai7oonde, and sister $nne /arie +ennifer in their ho e at ?araLaque# ;urin" the preli inary investi"ation, the :@& presented the sworn state ents of /aria +essica $lfaro, ( for er house aids of the 9ebb fa ily, Carlos Cristobal 4a plane passen"er5, Eolita @irrer 4live>in partner of @ion"5, ( of Ai7condeBs aids, :or al 9hite 4a security "uard5 and /anciano <at aitan 4an en"ineer5# The :@& also sub itted the autopsy report involvin" =strellita 41( stab wounds5, Car ela 49 stab wounds5, and +ennifer 419 stab wounds56 and the "enital e!a ination of Car ela confir in" the presence of sper ato7oa# The :@& sub itted photocopies of the docu ents requested by 9ebb in his /otion for ?roduction and =!a ination of =vidence and ;ocu ents, "ranted by the ;O+ ?anel# 9ebb clai ed durin" the preli inary investi"ation that he did not co it the cri e as he went to the .nited 'tates on 1 /arch 1991 and returned to the ?hilippines on (7 October 199(# The others R *ernande7, <atchalian, Ee%ano, =strada, Codri"ue7 and @ion" R sub itted sworn state ents, responses, and a otion to dis iss denyin" their co plicity in the rape>-illin" of the Ai7condes# Only *ilart and Aentura failed to file their counter>affidavits thou"h they were served with subpoena in their last -nown address# On 8 $u"ust 1990, the ;O+ ?anel issued a (1>pa"e Cesolution "findin"
probable cause to hold respondents for trial" and reco endin" that an &nfor ation for rape with ho icide be filed a"ainst 9ebb, et# al# On the sa e date, it filed the correspondin" &nfor ation a"ainst 9ebb, et# al# with the CTC ?araLaque# ;oc-eted as Cri inal Case 90>8)8 and raffled to @ranch (08 presided by +ud"e Mosi o A# =scano# &t was, however, +ud"e Caul de Eeon, pairin" %ud"e of +ud"e =scano, who issued the warrants of arrest a"ainst 9ebb, et# al# On 11 $u"ust 1990, +ud"e =scano voluntarily inhibited hi self fro the case to avoid any suspicion about his i partiality considerin" his e ploy ent with the :@& before his appoint ent to the bench# The case was re>raffled to branch (78, presided by +ud"e $ elita Tolentino who issued new warrants of arrest a"ainst 9ebb, et# al# On 11 $u"ust 1990, 9ebb voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities at Ca p Cicardo ?apa 'r#, in Ta"ui"# 9ebb, et# al# filed petitions for the issuance of the e!traordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and anda us with application for te porary restrainin" order and preli inary in%unction with the 'upre e Court to: 415 annul and set aside the 9arrants of $rrest issued a"ainst petitioners by respondent +ud"es Caul =# de Eeon and $ elita Tolentino in Cri inal Case :o# 90> 8)86 4(5 en%oin the respondents fro conductin" any proceedin" in the afore entioned cri inal case6 and 425 dis iss said cri inal case or include +essica $lfaro as one of the accused therein# <atchalian and Ee%ano li-ewise "ave the selves up to the authorities after filin" their petitions before the Court# &ssue% 9hether the attendant publicity of the case deprived 9ebb, et#al, of their ri"ht to fair trial# Held% ?ervasive and pre%udicial publicity under certain circu stances can deprive an accused of his due process ri"ht to fair trial# ,erein, however, nothin" in the records that will prove that the tone and content of the publicity that attended the investi"ation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and i partiality of the ;O+ ?anel# The ;O+ ?anel is co posed of an $ssistant Chief 'tate ?rosecutor and 'enior 'tate ?rosecutors6 and their lon" e!perience in cri inal investi"ation is a factor to consider in deter inin" whether they can easily be blinded by the -lie" li"hts of publicity# $t no instance in the case did 9ebb, et# al# see- the disqualification of any e ber of the ;O+ ?anel on the "round of bias resultin" fro their bo bard ent of pre%udicial publicity# *urther , on the contention of the denial of their constitutional ri"ht to due process and violation of their ri"ht to an i partial investi"ation, records show that the ;O+ ?anel did not conduct the preli inary investi"ation with indecent haste# 9ebb, et# al# were "iven fair opportunity to prove lacof probable cause a"ainst the # 'till, the 'upre e Court re inds a trial %ud"e in hi"h profile cri inal cases of hisDher duty to control publicity pre%udicial to the fair ad inistration of %ustice# The ability to dispense i partial %ustice is an issue in every trial and in every cri inal prosecution, the %udiciary always stands as a silent accused# /ore than convictin" the "uilty and acquittin" the innocent, the business of the %udiciary is to assure fulfill ent of the pro ise that %ustice shall be done and is done, and that is the only way for the %udiciary to "et an acquittal fro the bar of public opinion# 0. People v. Sanc e@ [*+ 12103.-"5, 1! 3cto1er 2001# *esolution o$ First -i.ision, Melo (J) : 3 concur $acts% 4The 'ar enta><o e7 rape>slay5 On (8 +une 1992, Euis and Co"elio "@oy" Corcolon approached =ileen 'ar enta and $llan <o e7, forcibly too- the two and loaded the at the bac- of the latter3s van, which was par-ed in front of CafS $ alia, $"ri! Co ple!, Eos @anos, Ea"una# <eor"e /edialdea, Moilo $ a, @aldwin @rion and ?epito Oawit also boarded the van while $urelio Centeno and Aicencio /alabanan, who were also with the "roup, stayed in the a bulance# @oth vehicles then headed for =rais *ar situated in @aran"ay Curba, which was owned by /ayor $ntonio 'anche7 of Calauan, Ea"una# The two youn"sters were then brou"ht inside the resthouse where =ileen was ta-en to the /ayorBs roo # $llan was badly beaten up by Euis, @oy, $ a and /edialdea and thereafter thrown out of the resthouse# $t around 1:)) a# # of the ne!t day, a cryin" =ileen was dra""ed out of the resthouse by Euis and /edialdea Q her hair disheveled, outh covered by a hand-erchief, hands still tied and stripped of her shorts# =ileen and $llan were then loaded in the Ta araw van by /edialdea, et# al# and headed for Calauan, followed closely by the a bulance# =n route to Calauan, "unfire was heard fro the van# The van pulled over whereupon Oawit dra""ed $llan, whose head was already drenched in blood, out of the vehicle onto the road and finished hi off with a sin"le "unshot
fro his ar alite# The a bulance and van then sped away# .pon reachin" a su"arcane field in 'itio ?aputo-, Oilo etro 78 of @aran"ay /abacan, =ileen was "an">raped by Euis Corcolon, /edialdea, Co"elio Corcolon, $ a, @rion and Oawit# $fter OawitBs turn, Euis Corcolon shot =ileen with his baby ar alite# /o ents later, all 8 en boarded the a bulance and proceeded to Calauan, leavin" the Ta araw van with =ileenBs re ains behind# &nitially, the cri e was attributed to one Oit $lque7a, a son of a feared "eneral 4;ictador $lque7a5# Euis and Co"elio Corcolon were also i plicated therein# ,owever, further investi"ation, and forensic findin"s, pointed to the "roup of /ayor 'anche7# Centeno and /alabanan bolstered the prosecution3s theory# On 11 /arch 1990, +ud"e ,arriet O# ;e etriou of the Ce"ional Trial Court 4?asi" City, @ranch 7)5 found /ayor 'anche7, /edialdea, $ a, @rion, Euis Corcolon, Co"elio Corcolon and Oawit "uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri e of rape with ho icide, orderin" the to pay =ileen 'ar enta the a ount of ?0),))) and additionally, the a ount of ?7)),)))#)) to the heirs of =ileen 'ar enta and $llan <o e7 as additional inde nity# On (0 +anuary 1999, the 'upre e Court, throu"h +ustice /artine7, affir ed in toto the %ud" ent of conviction rendered by the trial court# $ntonio 'anche7, Moilo $ a, @aldwin @rion and ?epito Oawit seasonably filed their respective otions for reconsideration# The Office of the 'olicitor <eneral filed its Co ent on 1 ;ece ber 1999# 'anche7 avers that he is a victi of trial and conviction by publicity, besides clai s that principal witness Centeno and /alabanan lac- credibility, that the testi ony of his 12> year old dau"hter should have been "iven full faith and credit, and that the "ar"antuan da a"es awarded have no factual and le"al bases# $ a, @rion and Oawit aintain that Centeno and /alabanan were sufficiently i peached by their inconsistent state ents pertain to aterial and crucial points of the events at issue, besides that independent and disinterested witnesses have destroyed the prosecutionBs version of events# On ( *ebruary 1999, +ustice /artine7 retired in accordance with $/ 99>8>)9# The otions for reconsideration was assi"ned to +ustice /elo for study and preparation of the appropriate action on 18 'epte ber ())1# &ssue% 9hether the publicity of the case i paired the i partiality of the %ud"e handlin" the case# Held% ?ervasive publicity is not per se pre%udicial to the ri"ht of an accused to fair trial# The ere fact that the trial of /ayor 'anche7, et# al#, was "iven a day>to>day, "avel>to>"avel covera"e does not by itself prove that publicity so per eated the ind of the trial %ud"e and i paired his i partiality# The ri"ht of an accused to a fair trial is not inco patible to a free press# Cesponsible reportin" enhances an accused3s ri"ht to a fair trial# The press does not si ply publish infor ation about trials but "uards a"ainst the iscarria"e of %ustice by sub%ectin" the police, prosecutors, and %udicial processes to e!tensive public scrutiny and criticis # Our %ud"es are learned in the law and trained to disre"ard off>court evidence and on ca era perfor ances of parties to a liti"ation# Their ere e!posure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their i partiality# To warrant a findin" of pre%udicial publicity, there ust be alle"ation and proof that the %ud"es have been unduly influenced by the barra"e of publicity# Cecords herein do not show that the trial %ud"e developed actual bias a"ainst /ayor 'anche7, et# al#, as a consequence of the e!tensive edia covera"e of the pre>trial and trial of his case# The totality of circu stances of the case does not prove that the trial %ud"e acquired a fi!ed position as a result of pre%udicial publicity which is incapable of chan"e even by evidence presented durin" the trial# /ayor 'anche7, et# al#, has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not dischar"ed the burden# !0 Su99ar5 :is9issal 2oard v. )orcita [*+ 130""2, 6 =pril 2000# /hird di.ision, 6onza%a1*e#es (J): 4 concur $acts% On (1 $pril 1998, a red Cortina *ord, driven by CD&nsp# Ea7aro Torcita, with his aide, ?O( +ava, in the front seat and his wife with two ladies at the bac-seat, were overta-en by a /a7da pic->up owned by Con"ress an /anuel ?uey and driven by one Ceynaldo Conse%o with four 485 passen"ers in the persons of $le! =dwin del Cosario, Cosita @istal, Car en @ra"an7a and Cristina ;awa# $fter the /a7da pic->up has overta-en the red Cortina *ord, and after a vehicular collision al ost tooplace, it accelerated speed and proceeded to ,acienda $i ee, a su"arcane plantation owned by the con"ress an# The red Cortina *ord followed also at hi"h speed until it reached the hacienda where Torcita and +ava ali"hted and the
confrontation with del Cosario and +esus ?uey occurred# Torcita identified hi self but the sa e had no effect# ?O( +ava whispered to hi that there are ar ed en around the and that it is dan"erous for the to continue# That at this point, they radioed for bac->up# Torcita,upon the arrival of the bac->up force of ?:? Cadi7 City, proceeded to the place where Capt# +esus ?uey and $le! =dwin del Cosario were# On 1 +uly 1998, 1( verified ad inistrative co plaints were filed a"ainst Torcita for Conduct .nbeco in" of a ?olice Officer, &lle"al 'earch, <rave $buse of $uthority and Aiolation of ;o icile, and $buse of $uthority and Aiolation of CO/=E=C <un @an# The 1( ad inistrative co plaints were consolidated into 1 a%or co plaint for conduct unbeco in" of a police officer# The 'u ary ;is issal @oard, however, did not find sufficient evidence to establish that Torcita threatened anybody with a "un, nor that a serious confrontation tooplace between the parties, nor that the urinatin" incident tooplace, and held that the char"es of violation of do icile and ille"al search were not proven# 'till, while the @oard found that Torcita was "in the perfor ance of his official duties" when the incident happened, he alle"edly co itted a si ple irre"ularity in perfor ance of duty 4for bein" in the influence of alcohol while in perfor ance of duty5 and was suspended for () days and salary suspended for the sa e period of ti e# Torcita appealed his conviction to the Ce"ional $ppellate @oard of the ?hilippine :ational ?olice 4?:?, Ce"ion A&, &loilo City5, but the appeal was dis issed for lacof %urisdiction# 9hereupon, Torcita filed a petition for certiorari in the Ce"ional Trial Court of &loilo City 4@ranch 215, questionin" the le"ality of the conviction of an offense for which he was not char"ed 4lacof procedural due process of law5# The @oard filed a otion to dis iss, which was denied# The CTC "ranted the petition for certiorari and annulled the dispositive portion of the questioned decision insofar as it found Torcita "uilty of si ple irre"ularity in the perfor ance of duty# The @oard appealed fro the CTC decision, by petition of review to the Court of $ppeals, which affir ed the sa e for the reason that the respondent could not have been "uilty of irre"ularity considerin" that the 1( cases were eventually dis issed# The @oard filed the petition for review on certiorari before the 'upre e Court# &ssue% 9hether Torcita ay be proceeded a"ainst or suspended for breach of internal discipline, when the ori"inal char"es a"ainst hi were for Conduct .nbeco in" of a ?olice Officer, &lle"al 'earch, <rave $buse of $uthority and Aiolation of ;o icile, and $buse of $uthority and Aiolation of CO/=E=C <un @an# Held% :otification of the char"es conte plates that the respondent be infor ed of the specific char"es a"ainst hi # The absence of specification of the offense for which he was eventually found "uilty is not a proper observance of due process# There can be no short>cut to the le"al process# 9hile the definition of the ore serious offense is broad, and al ost all>enco passin" a findin" of "uilt for an offense, no atter how li"ht, for which one is not properly char"ed and tried cannot be countenanced without violatin" the rudi entary require ents of due process# ,erein, the 1( ad inistrative cases filed a"ainst Torcita did not include char"es or offenses entioned or ade reference to the specific act of bein" drun- while in the perfor ance of official duty# There is no indication or warnin" at all in the su ary dis issal proceedin"s that Torcita was also bein" char"ed with breach of internal discipline consistin" of ta-in" alcoholic drin-s while in the perfor ance of his duties# The o ission is fatal to the validity of the %ud" ent findin" hi "uilty of the offense for which he was not notified nor char"ed# *urther, the cursory conclusion of the ;is issal @oard that Torcita "co itted breach of internal discipline by ta-in" drin-s while in the perfor ance of sa e" should have been substantiated by factual findin"s referrin" to this particular offense# =ven if he was prosecuted for irre"ular perfor ance of duty, he could not have been found to have the odor or s ell of alcohol while in the perfor ance of duty because he was not on duty at the ti e that he had a taste of liquor6 he was on a private trip fetchin" his wife# !1 4ustice Secretar5 v. ,antion [*+ 13."65, 10 3cto1er 2000# *esolution En Banc, uno (J): ) concur, 1 dissents, 1 concurs 7ased on prior opinion, 1 concurs in result $acts% On 12 +anuary 1977, then ?resident *erdinand =# /arcos issued ?residential ;ecree 1)19 "?rescribin" the ?rocedure for the =!tradition of ?ersons 9ho ,ave Co itted Cri es in a *orei"n Country"# On 12 :ove ber 1998, then 'ecretary of +ustice *ran-lin /# ;rilon, representin" the <overn ent of the Cepublic
of the ?hilippines, si"ned in /anila the "=!tradition Treaty @etween the <overn ent of the Cepublic of the ?hilippines and the <overn ent of the .nited 'tates of $ erica# "The 'enate, by way of Cesolution 11, e!pressed its concurrence in the ratification of said treaty# &t also e!pressed its concurrence in the ;iplo atic :otes correctin" ?ara"raph 4054a5, $rticle 7 thereof 4on the ad issibility of the docu ents acco panyin" an e!tradition request upon certification by the principal diplo atic or consular officer of the requested state resident in the Cequestin" 'tate5# On 18 +une 1999, the ;epart ent of +ustice received fro the ;epart ent of *orei"n $ffairs .# '# :ote Aerbale )0(( containin" a request for the e!tradition of /ar- +i ene7 to the .nited 'tates# $ttached to the :ote Aerbale were the <rand +ury &ndict ent, the warrant of arrest issued by the .#'# ;istrict Court, 'outhern ;istrict of *lorida, and other supportin" docu ents for said e!tradition# +i ene7 was char"ed in the .nited 'tates for violation of 4a5 18 .'C 271 4Conspiracy to co it offense or to defraud the .nited 'tates, ( counts5, 4b5 (1 .'C 7()1 4$tte pt to evade or defeat ta!, 8 counts5, 4c5 18 .'C 1282 4*raud by wire, radio, or television, ( counts5, 4d5 18 .'C 1))1 4*alse state ent or entries, 1 counts5, and 4=5 ( .'C 881f 4=lection contributions in na e of another6 22 counts5# On the sa e day, the 'ecretary issued ;epart ent Order (89 desi"natin" and authori7in" a panel of attorneys to ta-e char"e of and to handle the case# ?endin" evaluation of the aforestated e!tradition docu ents, +i ene7 4on 1 +uly 19995 requested copies of the official e!tradition request fro the .' <overn ent, as well as all docu ents and papers sub itted therewith, and that he be "iven a ple ti e to co ent on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers# The 'ecretary denied the request# On 1 $u"ust 1999, +i ene7 filed with the Ce"ional Trial Court a petition a"ainst the 'ecretary of +ustice, the 'ecretary of *orei"n $ffairs, and the ;irector of the :ational @ureau of &nvesti"ation, for anda us 4to co pel the +ustice 'ecretary to furnish +i ene7 the e!tradition docu ents, to "ive hi access thereto, and to afford hi an opportunity to co ent on, or oppose, the e!tradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request i partially, fairly and ob%ectively56 certiorari 4to set aside the +ustice 'ecretaryBs letter dated 12 +uly 199956 and prohibition 4to restrain the +ustice 'ecretary fro considerin" the e!tradition request and fro filin" an e!tradition petition in court6 and to en%oin the 'ecretary of *orei"n $ffairs and the ;irector of the :@& fro perfor in" any act directed to the e!tradition of +i ene7 to the .nited 'tates5, with an application for the issuance of a te porary restrainin" order and a writ of preli inary in%unction# The trial court ruled in favor of +i ene7# The 'ecretary filed a petition for certiorari before the 'upre e Court# On 18 +anuary ())), by a vote of 9>1, the 'upre e Court dis issed the petition and ordered the +ustice 'ecretary to furnish +i ene7 copies of the e!tradition request and its supportin" papers and to "rant hi a reasonable period within which to file his co ent with supportin" evidence# On 2 *ebruary ())), the 'ecretary ti ely filed an .r"ent /otion for Ceconsideration# &ssue% 9hether +i ene7 had the ri"ht to notice and hearin" durin" the evaluation sta"e of an e!tradition process# Held% ?residential ;ecree 4?;5 1)19 which i ple ents the C?>.' =!tradition Treaty provides the ti e when an e!traditee shall be furnished a copy of the petition for e!tradition as well as its supportin" papers, i#e#, after the filin" of the petition for e!tradition in the e!tradition court 4'ection 15# &t is of %udicial notice that the su ons includes the petition for e!tradition which will be answered by the e!traditee# There is no provision in the Treaty and in ?; 1)19 which "ives an e!traditee the ri"ht to de and fro the +ustice 'ecretary copies of the e!tradition request fro the .' "overn ent and its supportin" docu ents and to co ent thereon while the request is still under"oin" evaluation# The ;*$ and the ;O+, as well as the .' "overn ent, aintained that the Treaty and ?; 1)19 do not "rant the e!traditee a ri"ht to notice and hearin" durin" the evaluation sta"e of an e!tradition process# &t is neither an international practice to afford a potential e!traditee with a copy of the e!tradition papers durin" the evaluation sta"e of the e!tradition process# +i ene7 is, thus, bereft of the ri"ht to notice and hearin" durin" the e!tradition processB evaluation sta"e# *urther, as an e!tradition proceedin" is not cri inal in character and the evaluation sta"e in an e!tradition proceedin" is not a-in to a preli inary investi"ation, the due process safe"uards in the latter do not necessarily apply to the for er# The procedural due process required by a "iven set of circu stances " ust be"in with a deter ination of the precise nature of the "overn ent function involved as well as the private interest that has been affected
by "overn ental action#" The concept of due process is fle!ible for "not all situations callin" for procedural safe"uards call for the sa e -ind of procedure#" Thus, the te porary hold on +i ene73s privile"e of notice and hearin" is a soft restraint on his ri"ht to due process which will not deprive hi of funda ental fairness should he decide to resist the request for his e!tradition to the .'# There is no denial of due process as lon" as funda ental fairness is assured a party# !2 People v. 8strada [*+ 130"!0, 1. 4une 2000# En Banc, uno (J): 13 concur, 1 on o$$icial lea.e $acts% On (7 ;ece ber (7, 1998, Coberto =strada y Eope7 sat at the bishopBs chair while the sacra ent of confir ation was bein" perfor ed at the 't# +ohnBs Cathedral, ;a"upan City# Co"elio /ararac, the security "uard at the cathedral, was su oned by so e church"oers# /ararac went near =strada and told hi to vacate the @ishop3s chair# /ararac twice tapped =stradaBs hand with his ni"htstic-# 9hen /ararac was about to stri-e a"ain, =strada drew a -nife fro his bac-, lun"ed at /ararac and stabbed hi , hittin" hi below his left throat# /ararac fell# 9ounded and bleedin", /ararac slowly dra""ed hi self down the altar# '?)1 Conrado *rancisco received a report of the co otion inside the cathedral, went inside the cathedral, approached =strada who was sittin" on the chair, and advised the latter to drop his -nife# =strada obeyed# ,owever, when Chief &nspector 9endy Cosario, ;eputy ?olice Chief, who was also at the confir ation rites, went near =strada, =strada e braced Cosario and two wrestled with each other# Cosario was able to subdue =strada# =strada was brou"ht to the police station and placed in %ail# /aranac e!pired a few inutes after arrival at the hospital# On (9 ;ece ber 1998, =strada was char"ed with the cri e of urder for the -illin" of /ararac# On 1 +anuary 1990, at the arrai"n ent, the ?ublic $ttorney3s Office, filed an ".r"ent /otion to 'uspend $rrai"n ent and to Co it $ccused to ?sychiatric 9ard at @a"uio <eneral ,ospital#" &t was alle"ed that =strada could not properly and intelli"ently enter a plea because he was sufferin" fro a ental defect6 that before the co ission of the cri e, he was confined at the psychiatric ward of the @a"uio <eneral ,ospital in @a"uio City# The otion was opposed by the City ?rosecutor# The trial court, otu proprio, propounded several questions on =strada# *indin" that the questions were understood and answered by hi "intelli"ently," the court denied the otion that sa e day# The arrai"n ent proceeded and a plea of not "uilty was entered by the court on =strada3s behalf# On (2 +une 1997, the trial court 4CTC ;a"upan City, @ranch 88, Cri inal Case 98>))81)>;5 rendered a decision upholdin" the prosecution evidence and found =strada "uilty of the cri e char"ed and thereby sentenced hi to death, and ordered hi to pay ?0),))) for inde nity, ?18,87) for actual e!penses, and ?1)),))) as oral da a"es# =stradaBs counsel appealed# &ssue% 9hether a trial# ental e!a ination of the accused should be ade before the accused ay be sub%ected to
Held% The rule barrin" trial or sentence of an insane person is for the protection of the accused, rather than of the public# &t has been held that it is inhu an to require an accused disabled by act of <od to a-e a %ust defense for his life or liberty# To put a le"ally inco petent person on trial or to convict and sentence hi is a violation of the constitutional ri"hts to a fair trial and due process of law# 'ection 1(, Cule 111 of the 1980 Cules on Cri inal ?rocedure spea-s of a " ental e!a ination#" $n intelli"ent deter ination of an accused3s capacity for rational understandin" ou"ht to rest on a deeper and ore co prehensive dia"nosis of his ental condition than lay en can a-e throu"h observation of his overt behavior# Once a edical or psychiatric dia"nosis is ade, then can the le"al question of inco petency be deter ined by the trial court# @y deprivin" appellant of a ental e!a ination, the trial court effectively deprived appellant of a fair trial# The trial court3s ne"li"ence was a violation of the basic require ents of due process6 and for this reason, the proceedin"s before the said court ust be nullified# !3 ,i9 vs. Court of =ppeals [*+ 1113.0, 12 =u(ust 2002# /hird -i.ision, +arpio (J): ! concur, 1 on lea.e
$acts% On 7 ;ece ber 199(, @istro ?i"alle &nc# filed before the trial court a petition for anda us and prohibition, with prayer for te porary restrainin" order or writ of preli inary in%unction, a"ainst $lfredo Ei in his capacity as /ayor of the City of /anila# The @istro filed the case because police en under Ei Bs instructions inspected and investi"ated the @istroBs license as well as the wor- per its and health certificates of its staff# This caused the stoppa"e of wor- in the @istroBs ni"ht club and restaurant operations 4i#e# the :ew @an"-o- Club and the =!otic <arden Cestaurant5# Ei also refused to accept the @istroBs application for a business license, as well as the wor- per it applications of the @istroBs staff, for the year 1992# $ctin" on the @istroBs application for in%unctive relief, the trial court issued the te porary restrainin" order on (9 ;ece ber 199(, orderin" Ei andDor his a"ents to refrain fro inspectin" or otherwise interferin" in the operation of the establish ents of the @istro# $t the hearin", the parties sub itted their evidence in support of their respective positions# On () +anuary 1992, the trial court "ranted the @istroBs application for a writ of prohibitory preli inary in%unction# ,owever, despite the trial courtBs order, Ei still issued a closure order on the @istroBs operations effective (2 +anuary 1992, even sendin" police en to carry out his closure order# Ei insisted that the power of a ayor to inspect and investi"ate co ercial establish ents and their staff is i plicit in the statutory power of the city ayor to issue, suspend or revo-e business per its and licenses# This statutory power is e!pressly provided for in 'ection 11 4l5, $rticle && of the Cevised Charter of the City of /anila and in 'ection 800, para"raph 2 4iv5 of the Eocal <overn ent Code of 1991# On (0 +anuary 1992, the @istro filed an ".r"ent /otion for Conte pt" a"ainst Ei and the police en who stopped the @istroBs operations on +anuary (2, 1992# $t the hearin" of the otion for conte pt on (9 +anuary 1992, the @istro withdrew its otion on condition that Ei would respect the courtBs in%unction# ,owever, on *ebruary 1(, 12, 10, (1 and (7, and on /arch 1 and (, 1992, Ei , actin" throu"h his a"ents and police en, a"ain disrupted the @istroBs business operations# /eanwhile, on 17 *ebruary 1992, Ei filed a otion to dissolve the in%unctive order and to dis iss the case# The trial court denied Ei Bs otion to dissolve the in%unction and to dis iss the case in an order dated ( /arch 1992# On 1) /arch 1992, Ei filed with the Court of $ppeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and anda us a"ainst the @istro and +ud"e 9ilfredo Ceyes# The Court of $ppeals sustained the CTC orders in a decision on (0 /arch 1992, and denied Ei 3s otion for reconsideration in a resolution dated 12 +uly 1992# On 1 +uly 1992, /anila City Ordinance 778218 too- effect# On the sa e day, Ei ordered the 9estern ?olice ;istrict Co and to per anently close down the operations of the @istro, which order the police i ple ented at once# Ei filed the petition for review on certiorari before the 'upre e Court# &ssue% 9hether the @istro should be "iven an opportunity to rebut the alle"ations that it violated the conditions of its licenses and per its# Held% *ro the lan"ua"e of 'ection 11 4l5, $rticle && of the Cevised Charter of the City of /anila and 'ection 800 425 4iv5 of the Eocal <overn ent Code, it is clear that the power of the ayor to issue business licenses and per its necessarily includes the corollary power to suspend, revo-e or even refuse to issue the sa e# ,owever, the power to suspend or revo-e these licenses and per its is e!pressly pre ised on the violation of the conditions of these per its and licenses# The laws specifically refer to the "violation of the condition4s5" on which the licenses and per its were issued# 'i ilarly, the power to refuse to issue such licenses and per its is pre ised on non>co pliance with the prerequisites for the issuance of such licenses and per its# The ayor ust observe due process in e!ercisin" these powers, which eans that the ayor ust "ive the applicant or licensee notice and opportunity to be heard# True, the ayor has the power to inspect and investi"ate private co ercial establish ents for any violation of the conditions of their licenses and per its# ,owever, the ayor has no power to order a police raid on these establish ents in the "uise of inspectin" or investi"atin" these co ercial establish ents# Ei has no authority to close down @istroBs business or any business establish ent in /anila without due process of law# Ei cannot ta-e refu"e under the Cevised Charter of the City of /anila and the Eocal <overn ent Code# There is no provision in these laws e!pressly or i pliedly "rantin" the ayor authority to close down private co ercial establish ents without notice and hearin", and even if there is, such provision would be void# The due process clause of the Constitution requires that Ei should have "iven the @istro an opportunity to rebut the alle"ations that it violated the
conditions of its licenses and per its# !" +odri(ue@ vs. Court of =ppeals [*+ 13"20!, 0 =u(ust 2002# 'econd -i.ision, 8uisum7in% (J): 3 concur $acts% On (8 /ay 199), the ?hilippine Constabulary>&nte"rated :ational ?olice 4?C>&:?5, now ?hilippine :ational ?olice or ?:?, launched O?E$: $+$T to ini i7e, if not entirely eli inate, the e!tortion activities of traffic police en at the vicinity of <uadalupe @rid"e, /a-ati, /etro /anila# On 0 +uly 199), at about 2:)) p# #, two operatives of O?E$: $+$T, na ely, (ET *ederico @ulanday, ?C and &ntelli"ence $"ent $n"elito C# Eeoncio, both e bers of the Counter>&ntelli"ence <roup 4C&<5, were on board a car with ?late :o# :;O>(28# They were travelin" alon" +#?# Ci7al 'treet, /a-ati, when they were fla""ed down by 2 police en in unifor # These were ?*C Codolfo Codri"ue7, ?*C $rsenio 'ilun"an, and ?*C Colando ?ilandi, who were e bers of the /etropolitan Traffic Co and assi"ned with the /a-ati ?olice 'tation# .pon pullin" up, @ulanday and Eeoncio were infor ed by the 2 police en that they had violated traffic re"ulations, and de anded oney# @ulanday and Eeoncio handed over cash a ountin" to ?1)) consistin" of two ?() bills, one ?1) bill, and one ?0) bill which were ar-ed with ultraviolet fluorescent powder# On seein" what happened, other C&< operatives who were behind the vehicle of @ulanday and Eeoncio i ediately swooped down on the 2 police en, but where they were able to arrest only Codri"ue7 and 'ilun"an# ?*C ?ilandi was able to escape by co andeerin" a private vehicle at "unpoint# $n ad inistrative case for "rave isconduct was subsequently filed a"ainst Codri"ue7, 'ilun"an, and ?ilandi, who was at lar"e, with the :ational ?olice Co ission or :$?OECO/ 4$d inistrative Case 9)>8), the case was assi"ned to $tty# :ar7al @# /allares as hearin" officer5# $ second ad inistrative case was filed with :$?OECO/ a"ainst the 2 errin" police officers for their su ary dis issal# $ char"e for robberyDe!tortion was filed with ,eadquarters, ?C>&:? 4$d inistrative Case )1>91 and assi"ned to ?D/a%or =fren 'antos as 'u ary ,earin" Officer5# On 7 *ebruary 1991, then ?:? Chief /a%or <eneral Cesar ?# :a7areno issued 'pecial Order 20 su arily dis issin" Codri"ue7, 'ilun"an, and ?ilandi fro the police force# On (7 /arch 1991, Codri"ue7 appealed the su ary dis issal to the :$?OECO/ :ational $ppellate @oard# ,e alle"ed that the su ary dis issal proceedin"s violated his ri"ht to due process, and clai ed that only a preli inary inquiry had been conducted by the :$?OECO/ hearin" officer and that he had not been afforded a chance to present his side# &n the eanti e, the case a"ainst Codri"ue7 and his co panions for robberyDe!tortion was filed by ?C>&:? with the public prosecutorBs office of /a-ati# The investi"atin" prosecutor, however, subsequently reco ended the dis issal of the co plaint on the "round that Ithe scenarios of the arrestin" officers left so uch to be desired#J On 0 :ove ber 199(, the :$?OECO/ :ational $ppellate @oard dis issed Codri"ue73 appeal in the su ary dis issal case# On (9 /arch 1992, Codri"ue7 filed a otion for reconsideration, but the :$?OECO/ denied it on 11 /arch 1991# $""rieved, Codri"ue7 elevated his case to the Court of $ppeals by way of certiorari and anda us# On (( October 1997, the appellate court denied the petition for lacof erit# Codri"ue7 filed a otion for reconsideration of the appellate courtBs decision, but it was denied on (7 /ay (1998# On 12 +uly 1998, Codri"ue7 filed the petition for review# &ssue% 9hether Codri"ue7 was afforded due process by the :$?OECO/# Held% 9here a police officer is dis issed by the ?:? ;irector <eneral and the dis issal is affir ed by the :$?OECO/ :ational $ppellate @oard, the proper re edy is to appeal the dis issal with the ;&E< 'ecretary# That the :$?OECO/ Chair an is also the ;&E< 'ecretary is of no o ent, for under the aforecited laws and re"ulations, only the ;&E< 'ecretary can act on the appeal# 'hould the ;&E< 'ecretaryBs decision prove adverse to appellant, then he as the a""rieved party ay brin" an appeal to the Civil 'ervice Co ission# &n instances where the C'C denies the appeal, the re edy under Cepublic $ct 79)( would be to appeal the adverse decision to the Court of $ppeals# :either certiorari nor anda us can substitute for appeal where the latter is the proper re edy# The e!traordinary re edies of certiorari, prohibition, and anda us will lie only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate re edy in the ordinary course of law# ,erein, Codri"ue7 had three opportunities to appeal the decision of the :$?OECO/# ,e chose not to avail
of the , but instead opted to file an action for certiorari and anda us with the appellate court# The Court of $ppeals co itted no reversible error of law in dis issin" petitionerBs special civil action for certiorari and anda us# Codri"ue7 cannot now clai that he was not afforded due process by the :$?OECO/# &n ad inistrative proceedin"s, the filin" of char"es and "ivin" reasonable opportunity for the person so char"ed to answer the accusations a"ainst hi constitute the ini u require ents of due process# The essence of ad inistrative due process is the opportunity to be heard# $s lon" as a party was "iven the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process# !5 +o7as vs. 'asCue@ [*+ 11"."", 1. 4une 2001# First -i.ision, 0nares1'antia%o (J): 4 concur $acts% /anuel C# Co!as and $h ed '# :acpil were Chair an and /e ber, respectively, of the @ids and $wards Co ittee of the ?C>&:?# 'o eti e in 'epte ber 199), the ?C>&:? invited bids for the supply purchase of 10 units of fire truc-s, and accordin"ly, the public biddin" was held on 18 'epte ber 199)# The lowest bidder, $eolus ?hilippines, was disqualified since its fire truc-s had a water tan- capacity of only 1,8)) liters, far below the required 2,780 liter capacity# $fter ocular inspections ade by a $ Technical =valuation Co ittee, two fire truc-s, na ely /orita &su7u and :i--i>,ino, were reco ended# The @ids and $wards Co ittee, however, voted to award the contract in favor of the Oorean co pany C&'C, which offered 'san"yon" fire truc-s# To avoid the possibility of failure to bid, the @ids and $wards Co ittee reviewed its reco endations, and thus li ited its choice to the two brands reco ended by <en# Tanchanco and, by a%ority vote, elected :i--i>,ino of the Tahei Co#, Etd# as the lower bidder# Thereafter, the Contract of ?urchase and 'ale of 10 units of :i--i>,ino fire truc-s was e!ecuted between <en# :a7areno, on behalf of the ?C>&:?, and Tahei Co pany, Etd# The correspondin" ?urchase Order was then prepared# ?ursuant to a disburse ent voucher, the ?:? paid Tahei Co#, Etd# the a ount of ?117,220,177#(8, representin" ar"inal deposit for the 10 units of fire truc-# The ;isburse ent Aoucher showed that, while the bid price of Tahei Co# was only ?(,(9(,788#)) per unit, the price appearin" on the ?urchase Order was ?(,080,01(#)) per unit# ,ence, there was a discrepancy of ?(9(,778#)) per unit of fire truc-, or a total of ?19,)2),07)#)) for all 10 fire truc-s# The Co ission on $udit discovered the irre"ularities in the biddin", awardin" and purchase of the 10 fire truc-s, thus pro ptin" then ;&E< 'ecretary Cafael $lunan &&& to file a co plaint on 1( *ebruary 1992 for violation of 'ection 2 4e5 of Cepublic $ct 2)19 before the O buds an, a"ainst 415 ;ir# <en# Cesar :a7areno, ?:?, 4(5 ;ep# ;ir# /anuel Co!as, ?:?, 425 *ire /arshal /ario Tanchanco, 485 *ire @D<en# ;iosdado <odoy 4Cet#5, 405 ?D'r# 'upt# $h ed :acpil, ?:?, 415 ?D'upt# +uhan Oairan, ?:?, 475 &nsp# Ceynaldo Osea, ?:?, 485 ;ep# ;ir# <en# <erardo *lores, ?:?, 495 ;ir# :icasio Custodio, ?:?, 41)5 'upt# Obedio =speLa, ?:?, 4115 *or er ;&E< 'ecretary Euis 'antos, and 41(5 /s# <enerosa Ca ire7# The ;eputy O buds an for the /ilitary conducted a preli inary investi"ation where the accused sub itted their respective counter>affidavits# On 19 /arch 1992, it reco ended the indict ent of all, e!cept <enerosa Ca ire7# On review, the Office of the 'pecial ?rosecutor Ceview Co ittee reco ended the dis issal of the co plaints a"ainst Co!as, :acpil, Codoy, Oairan and Ca ire7# This latter reco endation was approved by the 'pecial ?rosecutor and the O buds an in a /e orandu dated 10 $pril 1992# $ccordin"ly, the appropriate &nfor ation was filed by the O buds an before the 'andi"anbayan 4Cri inal Case 189015, a"ainst :a7areno, *lores, Tanchanco, Custodio, Osea, =spena and 'antos# Co!as, :acpil, Codoy, Oairan and Ca ire7 were not included a on" the accused# ,owever, upon otion of <enerals *lores and Tanchanco, a reinvesti"ation was conducted by the Office of the 'pecial ?rosecutor# On 19 October 1992, without any notice to or participation of Co!as and :acpil, the Office of the 'pecial ?rosecutor issued an Order, dis issin" the char"es a"ainst *lores and Tanchanco, and reco endin" that Co!as, :acpil, and Oairan be li-ewise indicted# ;eputy 'pecial ?rosecutor +ose de *errer voted for the approval of the reco endation, while 'pecial ?rosecutor $niano $# ;esierto dissented# O buds an Conrado /# Aasque7 approved the reco endation# Co!as and :acpil, to"ether with Oairan, filed a /otion for Ceconsideration# The Ceview Co ittee of the Office of the 'pecial ?rosecutor reco ended that the /otion be "ranted and the char"e a"ainst the ovants be dis issed# ,owever, ;eputy 'pecial ?rosecutor de *errer and O buds an Aasque7 disapproved the reco endation in the second assailed Order dated 1)
*ebruary 1998# Thus, on (7 /arch 1998, the Office of the O buds an filed an $ ended &nfor ation with respondent 'andi"anbayan, i pleadin" Co!as and :acpil as additional accused# Co!as and :acpil filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the 'upre e Court# &ssue%9hether the lacof notice to Co!as and :acpil at the reinvesti"ation render the issuance of Office of the O buds an null and void# Held% &t is not aterial either that no new atter or evidence was presented durin" the reinvesti"ation of the case# &t should be stressed that reinvesti"ation, as the word itself i plies, is erely a repeat investi"ation of the case# :ew atters or evidence are not prerequisites for a reinvesti"ation, which is si ply a chance for the prosecutor, or in this case the Office of the O buds an, to review and re>evaluate its findin"s and the evidence already sub itted# :either do the lacof notice to, or participation of, Co!as and :acpil at the reinvesti"ation render the questioned issuances of Office of the O buds an null and void# $t any rate, Co!as and :acpil cannot ar"ue that they have been deprived of due process# The rule is well established that due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to e!plain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to ove for a reconsideration of the action or rulin" co plained of# ,erein, the record clearly shows that petitioners not only filed their respective Counter>$ffidavits durin" the preli inary investi"ation, they also filed separate /otions for Ceconsideration of the 19 October 1992 Order of the O buds an i pleadin" the as accused in Cri inal Case 18901# !6 P ilco9sat v. =lcua@ [*+ !"!1!, 1! :ece91er 1.!.# En Banc, *e%alado (J): 1! concur, 1 took no part $acts% @y virtue of Cepublic $ct 0018, the ?hilippine Co unications 'atellite Corporation 4?,&ECO/'$T5 was "ranted "a franchise to establish, construct, aintain and operate in the ?hilippines, at such places as the "rantee ay select, station or stations and associated equip ent and facilities for international satellite co unications," the authority to "construct and operate such "round facilities as needed to deliver teleco unications services fro the co unications satellite syste and "round ter inal or ter inals#" @y desi"nation of the Cepublic of the ?hilippines, it is also the sole si"natory for the ?hilippines in the $"ree ent and the Operatin" $"ree ent relatin" to the &nternational Teleco unications 'atellite Or"ani7ation 4&:T=E'$T5, as well as in the Convention and the Operatin" $"ree ent of the &nternational /ariti e 'atellite Or"ani7ation 4&:/$C'$T5, which two "lobal co ercial teleco unications satellite corporations were collectively established by various states in line with the principles set forth in Cesolution 17(1 4TA&5 of the .nited :ationsBs <eneral $sse bly# 'ince 1918, &t has been leasin" its satellite circuits to ?E;T, ?hilippine <lobal Co unications, =astern Teleco , <lobe /ac-ay Cable and Cadio Corp# &TT, and Capitol 9ireless or their predecessors>in>interest# The satellite services thus provided by ?,&ECO/'$T enable said international carriers to serve the public with indispensable co unication services, such as overseas telephone, tele!, facsi ile, tele"ra s, hi"h speed data, live television in full color, and television standard conversion fro =uropean to $ erican or vice versa# &t was e!e pt fro the %urisdiction of the then ?ublic 'ervice Co ission, now :ational Teleco unications Co ission 4:TC5# ,owever, pursuant to =!ecutive Order 4=O5 191 issued on 17 +une 1987, it was placed under the %urisdiction, control and re"ulation of :TC, includin" all its facilities and services and the fi!in" of rates# & ple entin" said e!ecutive order, :TC required ?,&ECO/'$T to apply for the requisite certificate of public convenience and necessity coverin" its facilities and the services it renders, as well as the correspondin" authority to char"e rates therefor# On 9 'epte ber 1987, ?,&ECO/'$T filed with :TC an application for authority to continue operatin" and aintainin" the sa e facilities it has been continuously operatin" and aintainin" since 1917, to continue providin" the international satellite co unications services it has li-ewise been providin" since 1917, and to char"e the current rates applied for in renderin" such services# ?endin" hearin", it also applied for a provisional authority so that it can continue to operate and aintain the facilities, provide the services and char"e therefor the aforesaid rates therein applied for# On 11 'epte ber 1987, ?,&ECO/'$T was "ranted a provisional authority to continue operatin"
its e!istin" facilities, to render the services it was then offerin", and to char"e the rates it was then char"in"# This authority was valid for 1 onths fro the date of said order# 9hen said provisional authority e!pired on 17 /arch 1988, it was e!tended for another 1 onths, or up to 11 'epte ber 1988# Thereafter, the :TC further e!tended the provisional authority of ?,&ECO/'$T for another 1 onths, counted fro 11 'epte ber 1988, but it directed ?,&ECO/'$T to char"e odified reduced rates throu"h a reduction of 10N on the present authori7ed rates# ?,&ECO/'$T assailed said order# &ssue% 9hether the :TC is not required to provide notice and hearin" to ?,&ECO/'$T in its rate>fi!in" order, which fi!ed a te porary rate pendin" final deter ination of ?,&ECO/'$TBs application# Held% The :TC, in the e!ercise of its rate>fi!in" power, is li ited by the require ents of public safety, public interest, reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates, which con%ointly ore than satisfy the require ents of a valid dele"ation of le"islative power# The :TC order violates procedural due process because it was issued otu proprio, without notice to ?,&ECO/'$T and without the benefit of a hearin"# 'aid order was based erely on an "initial evaluation," which is a unilateral evaluation, but had ?,&ECO/'$T been "iven an opportunity to present its side before the order in question was issued, the confiscatory nature of the rate reduction and the consequent deterioration of the public service could have been shown and de onstrated to :TC# The order pertains e!clusively to ?,&ECO/'$T and to no other# Ceduction of rates was ade without affordin" ?,&ECO/'$T the benefit of an e!planation as to what particular aspect or aspects of the financial state ents warranted a correspondin" rate reduction# ?,&ECO/'$T was not even afforded the opportunity to cross>e!a ine the inspector who issued the report on which :TC based its questioned order# 9hile the :TC ay fi! a te porary rate pendin" final deter ination of the application of ?,&ECO/'$T, such rate> fi!in" order, te porary thou"h it ay be, is not e!e pt fro the statutory procedural require ents of notice and hearin", as well as the require ent of reasonableness# $ssu in" that such power is vested in :TC, it ay not e!ercise the sa e in an arbitrary and confiscatory anner# Cate"ori7in" such an order as te porary in nature does not perforce entail the applicability of a different rule of statutory procedure than would otherwise be applied to any other order on the sa e atter unless otherwise provided by the applicable law# :TC has no authority to a-e such order without first "ivin" ?,&ECO/'$T a hearin", whether the order be te porary or per anent, and it is i aterial whether the sa e is ade upon a co plaint, a su ary investi"ation, or upon the co ission3s own otion# !0 Sunta5 v. People [*+ ,-."30, 2. 4une 1.50# En Banc, adilla (J) : 9 concur $acts% On (1 +une 1908, ;r# $ntonio :ubla, father of $licia :ubla, a inor of 11 years, filed a verified co plaint a"ainst = ilio 'untay in the Office of the City $ttorney of Kue7on City, alle"in" that on or about (1 +une (1908, the accused too- $licia :ubla fro 't# ?aul3s Colle"e in Kue7on City with lewd desi"n and too- her to so ewhere near the .niversity of the ?hilippines 4.?5 co pound in ;ili an and was then able to have carnal -nowled"e of her# On 10 ;ece ber 1908, after an investi"ation, an $ssistant City $ttorney reco ended to the City $ttorney of Kue7on City that the co plaint be dis issed for lacof erit# On (2 ;ece ber 1908 attorney for the co plainant addressed a letter to the City $ttorney of Kue7on City wherein he too- e!ception to the reco endation of the $ssistant City $ttorney referred to and ur"ed that a co plaint for seduction be filed a"ainst 'untay# On 1) +anuary 1900, 'untay applied for and was "ranted a passport by the ;epart ent of *orei"n $ffairs 40981 G$29188H5# On () +anuary 1900, 'untay left the ?hilippines for 'an *rancisco, California, where he is at present enrolled in school# On 21 +anuary 1900, $licia :ubla subscribed and swore to a co plaint char"in" 'untay with seduction which was filed, in the Court of *irst &nstance 4C*&5 Kue7on City, after preli inary investi"ation had been conducted 4Cri inal case K>10915# On 9 *ebruary 1900 the private prosecutor filed a otion prayin" the Court to issue an order "directin" such "overn ent a"encies as ay be concerned, particularly the :ational @ureau of &nvesti"ation and the ;epart ent of *orei"n $ffairs, for the purpose of havin" the accused brou"ht bac- to the ?hilippines so that he ay be dealt with in accordance with law#" On 1) *ebruary 1900 the Court "ranted the otion# On 7 /arch 1900 the
'ecretary cabled the $ bassador to the .nited 'tates instructin" hi to order the Consul <eneral in 'an *rancisco to cancel the passport issued to 'untay and to co pel hi to return to the ?hilippines to answer the cri inal char"es a"ainst hi # ,owever, this order was not i ple ented or carried out in view of the co ence ent of this proceedin"s in order that the issues raised ay be %udicially resolved# On 0 +uly 1900, 'untayBs counsel wrote to the 'ecretary requestin" that the action ta-en by hi be reconsidered, and filed in the cri inal case a otion prayin" that the Court reconsider its order of 1) *ebruary 1900# On 7 +uly 1900, the 'ecretary denied counsel3s request and on 10 +uly 1900 the Court denied the otion for reconsideration# 'untay filed the petition for a writ of certiorari# &ssue% 9hether 'untay should be accorded notice and hearin" before his passport ay be cancelled#
Held% ;ue process does not necessarily ean or require a hearin"# 9hen discretion is e!ercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as the filin" of a serious cri inal char"e a"ainst the passport holder, hearin" ay be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport6 lacof such hearin" does not violate the due process of law clause of the Constitution6 and the e!ercise of the discretion vested in hi cannot be dee ed whi sical and capricious because of the absence of such hearin"# &f hearin" should always be held in order to co ply with the due process of law clause of the Constitution, then a writ of preli inary in%unction issued e! parte would be violative of the said clause# ,earin" would have been proper and necessary if the reason for the withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear but doubtful# @ut where the holder of a passport is facin" a cri inal char"e in our courts and left the country to evade cri inal prosecution, the 'ecretary for *orei"n $ffairs, in the e!ercise of his discretion 4'ection (0, =O 1, '# 1981, 8( O< 18))5 to revo-e a passport already issued, cannot be held to have acted whi sically or capriciously in withdrawin" and cancellin" such passport# 'untayBs suddenly leavin" the country in such a convenient ti e, can reasonably be interpreted to ean as a deliberate atte pt on his part to flee fro %ustice, and, therefore, he cannot now be heard to co plain if the stron" ar of the law should %oin to"ether to brin" hi bac- to %ustice# !! :e 2issc op v. *alan( [*+ 1!365, 31 Ma5 1.63# En Banc, *e#es JB: (J): 1; concur, 1 took no part $acts% <eor"e de @isschop, an $ erican citi7en, was allowed to stay in this country for 2 years, e!pirin" 1 $u"ust 1909, as a prearran"ed e ployee of the @iss a" ?roduction, &nc#, of which he is president and "eneral ana"er# ,e applied for e!tension of stay with the @ureau of & i"ration, in a letter dated 1) +uly 1909# &n view, however, of confidential and da a"in" reports of the & i"ration Office, @en%a in de /esa, to the effect that the @iss a" ?roduction, &nc#, is ore of a "a blin" front than the enterprise for pro otions of local and i ported shows that it purports to be, and that de @isschop is suspected of havin" evaded pay ent of his inco e ta!, the Co issioner of & i"ration 4= ilio E# <alan"5, in a co unication of 1) 'epte ber 1909, advised hi that his application for e!tension of stay as a prearran"ed e ployee has been denied by the @oard of Co issioners, and that he should depart within 0 days# Thereafter, counsel of de @isschop requested for a copy of the adverse decision of said @oard, but the le"al officer of the @ureau of & i"ration replied that, pursuant to i i"ration practice and procedure and as is usual in such cases where the result is a vote for denial, for reasons of practicability and e!pediency, no for al decision, order or resolution is pro ul"ated by the @oard# Thereafter, /r# @isschop was si ply advised of said denial as per letter dated 1) 'epte ber 1909# :o request for reinvesti"ation was ade with the @ureau of & i"ration# &nstead, to forestall his arrest and the filin" of the correspondin" deportation proceedin"s, de @isschop filed the case on 18 'epte ber 1909# ?endin" resolution of the ain case for prohibition, a writ of preli inary in%unction was issued e!>parte by the Court of *irst &nstance 4C*&5 /anila 4with +ud"e $ntonio Cani7ares presidin", Civil Case 818775 on the sa e day orderin" the Co issioner of & i"ration to desist fro arrestin" and detainin" de @isschop# ;urin" the hearin", only docu entary evidence were presented# On (7 /arch 1911, the lower court "ranted the petition for prohibition and ordered the Co issioner of & i"ration to desist and refrain fro arrestin" and e!pellin" de @isschop fro the ?hilippines unless and
until proper and le"al proceedin"s are conducted by the @oard of Co issioners of the @ureau of & i"rations in connection with the application for e!tension of stay filed by de @isschop with said @oard# The Co issioner of & i"ration appealed# &ssue% 9hether the ri"ht to notice and hearin" is essential to due process in ad inistrative proceedin"s, and whether the @oard of Co issioners are required to render written decisions on petitions for e!tension of stay# Held% The ad inistration of i i"ration laws is the pri ary and e!clusive responsibility of the =!ecutive branch of the "overn ent# =!tension of stay of aliens is purely discretionary on the part of i i"ration authorities# 'ince C$ 112 4?hilippines & i"ration $ct of 198)5 is silent as to the procedure to be followed in these cases, the Courts are inclined to uphold the ar"u ent that courts have no %urisdiction to review the purely ad inistrative practice of i i"ration authorities of not "rantin" for al hearin"s in certain cases as the circu stances ay warrant, for reasons of practicability and e!pediency# This would not violate the due process clause as, in the case at bar, the letter of appellant>co issioner advisin" de @isschop to depart in 0 days is a ere for ality, a preli inary step, and, therefore, far fro final, because, as alle"ed in para"raph 7 of appellant3s answer to the co plaint, the "require ent to leave before the start of the deportation proceedin"s is only an advice to the party that unless he departs voluntarily, the 'tate will be co pelled to ta-e steps for his e!pulsion"# &t is already a settled rule in this %urisdiction that a day in court is not a atter of ri"ht in ad inistrative proceedin"s# *urther, the i i"ration laws specifically enu erate when the decisions of the @oard of Co issioners shall be in writin", to wit: 415 in cases of appeal fro a decision of the @oard of 'pecial &nquiry as to atters of ad ission or e!clusion of aliens, as provided in 'ection (74c5 of the & i"ration $ct6 and 4(5 the decision of the @oard of Co issioners in cases of deportation under 'ection 27, para"raph 4a5 and 4c5# There is nothin" in the i i"ration law which provides that the @oard of Co issioners ust render written decisions on petitions for e!tension of stay# 'ection 8 of the & i"ration $ct erely refers to the nu ber of IvotesJ necessary to constitute the decision of said @oard# !. 'ar-3rient S ippin( v. =c acoso [*+ ,-!1!05, 31 Ma5 1.!!# First di.ision, 6rino134uino (J): 4 concur $acts% Aar>Orient 'hippin" Co# &nc# and Co ninos @ros# filed a co plaint with the 9or-ers3 $ssistance and $d%udication Office 49$$O5, ?hilippine Overseas = ploy ent $d inistration 4?O=$5 a"ainst the =d"ar T# @unyo", Aedasto :avarro, =u"enio Capalad, Caul Tu asis, $ntonio Tanio>an, Celestino Cason, ;anilo /anela and Coberto <enesis, crew e bers of the /?A "'ilver Ceefer," for havin" alle"edly violated their Contracts of = ploy ent with the , which supposedly resulted in da a"es arisin" fro the interdiction of the vessel by the &nternational Transport 9or-ers3 *ederation 4&T*5 at Oiel Canal, <er any, in /arch 1981# $fter %oinder of the issues, the case was heard on 8 /arch 1987 with both parties required to sub it e oranda# Only the sea en sub itted e oranda# On 1) +une 1987, the sea en filed a otion to resolve, which the co panies3 counsel did not oppose# Thus, on the basis of the pleadin"s and e oranda, $chacoso rendered a decision on 9 'epte ber 1987 orderin" 415 the dis issal of the case with a repri and and a"ainst :avarro, Capalad, Tu asis, Tanio>an, Ca"on, /anela and <enesis, a"ainst the co ission of the sa e or si ilar offense otherwise it shall be dealt with ore severe penalty6 4(5 e!clusion of Elanes fro the case6 425 repri andin" Aar>Orient 'hippin" Co# for failure to co ply with its obli"ations pursuant to ?O=$ rules and re"ulations and warnin" a"ainst co ittin" the sa e or a si ilar offense otherwise it shall be dealt with ore severely6 485 archivin" the case of $rsolon, $# dela Cru7, /ontero and ;# de la Cru7 with their na es included in the ?O=$ watchlist until they shall have voluntarily sub itted the selves to 9$$OBs %urisdiction6 405 pay ent by the co panies %ointly and severally, unto :avarro, Capalad, Tu asis, Tanio>an, Cason, /anela and <enesis the a ount of ?1,00)#09 each, representin" deductions fro allot ents, plus ?1,)))#)) as and for attorney3s fees6 and 415 pay ent by the co panies %ointly and severally unto @unyo" the a ount of .'F8,18)#)) or its peso equivalent at the ti e of pay ent representin" his salaries for the unserved portion of his e ploy ent contract plus ?8,)))#)) as and for attorney3s fees6 to be tendered thru
9$$O, 1) days fro receipt of the decision# $ copy of the decision was sent by re"istered ail and delivered by the post an to the co panies3 counsel, then $ttorney *rancisco @# *i"ura throu"h the receptionist, /arlyn $quino on (1 'epte ber 1987# $tty# *i"ura alle"ed he did not receive the envelope containin" the decision# The co panies alle"edly learned about the decision only when the writ of e!ecution was served on the on () :ove ber 1987 by :ational Eabor Celations Co ission 4:ECC5 ;eputy 'heriff Cene /asilun"an and $ttorney 9ilfredo On"# ?reviously, on 19 October 1987, the sea en filed "/otion for =!ecution of ;ecision," the co panies3 counsel did not oppose# On (2 :ove ber 1987, the co panies, throu"h new counsel, $tty# Kuintin $seron, +r#, filed an ".r"ent /otion to Cecall 9rit of =!ecution" on the "round that the decision had not been received by the , hence, it was not yet final and e!ecutory# On 19 +anuary 1988, the ?O=$ $d inistrator 4To as ;# $chacoso5# &n due ti e, the co panies filed the petition for certiorari# &ssue% 9hether the decision of the ?O=$ ad inistrator has been received, renderin" said decision final and unappealable# Held% The essence of due process is si ply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to ad inistrative proceedin"s, an opportunity to e!plain one3s side, or an opportunity to see- a reconsideration of the action or rulin" co plained of# ,erein, the parties a"reed that they would file their respective e oranda at the 8 /arch 1987 hearin" and thereafter consider the case sub itted for decision# This procedure is authori7ed by law to e!pedite the settle ent of labor disputes# $tty# *i"ura3s affidavit involvin" that he has not received the decision is self>servin"# The co panies failed to sub it an affidavit of the receptionist /arlyn $quino e!plainin" what she did with the decision which she received for $tty# *i"ura# .nder the circu stances, the $d inistrator3s rulin" that the decision had been properly served on co panies3 counsel and that it is now final and unappealable, should be sustained# The issuance of the writ of e!ecution is therefore not pre ature# .0 =n( )i1a5 v. C&+ [*+ "6".6, 20 $e1ruar5 1."0# En Banc, :aurel (J): ) concur $acts% Toribio Teodoro, the ana"er and proprietor of $n" Tibay, laid off 89 laborers, who were e bers of the :ational Eabor .nion 4:E.5, due to alle"ed shorta"es of leather aterials# The :ational Eabor .nion filed a co plaint for unfair labor practice a"ainst $n" Tibay, alle"in" therein, a on" others, that Toribio do inates the :ational 9or-ersB @rotherhood 4:9@5 of $n" Tibay, another union in the co pany, and that Toribio discri inated a"ainst the :E. and un%ustly favorin" the :9@, which he alle"edly do inated# The Court of &ndustrial Celations ruled in favor of :E., due to the failure of $n" Tibay to present records of the @ureau of Custo s and @oo-s of $ccounts of native dealers in leather and thus to disprove :E.Bs alle"ation that the lacof leather aterials as a sche e to dischar"e :E. e bers# The 'upre e Court, however, reversed the decision, findin" no substantial evidence that the 89 wor-ers were dis issed due to their union affiliation or activities# Thus, the 'olicitor <eneral, in behalf of the Court of &ndustrial Celations filed a otion for reconsideration, while the :E. filed a otion for new trial, prayin" that the case be re anded to the Court of &ndustrial Celations# &ssue% 9hether the C&CBs freedo fro the ri"idity of procedural require ents prescribe special require ents of due process in ad inistrative cases# Held% The Court of &ndustrial Celations 4C&C5 is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and the $ct requires it to "act accordin" to %ustice and equity and substantial erits of the case, without re"ard to technicalities or le"al for s and shall not be bound by any technical rules of le"al evidence but ay infor its ind in such anner as it ay dee %ust and equitable#" The fact, however, that the C&C ay be said to be free fro the ri"idity of certain procedural require ents does not ean that it can, in %usticiable cases co in" before it, entirely i"nore or disre"ard the funda ental and essential require ents of due process in trials and investi"ations of an ad inistrative character# There are cardinal pri ary ri"hts which ust be respected even in proceedin"s of this character, to wit:
a# Ci"ht to a hearin" which includes the ri"ht of the party interested or affected to present his own case and sub it evidence in support thereof# The liberty and property of the citi7en shall be protected by the rudi entary require ents of fair play# b# The tribunal ust consider the evidence presented, after the party is "iven an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tendin" to establish the ri"hts which he asserts# The ri"ht to adduce evidence, without the correspondin" duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain# 'uch ri"ht is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to who the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration# c# 9ile the duty to deliberate does not i pose the obli"ation to decide ri"ht, it does i ply a necessity which cannot be disre"arded, na ely, that of havin" so ethin" to support its decision# $ decision with absolutely nothin" to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached# This principle e anates fro the ore funda ental principle that the "enius of constitutional "overn ent is contrary to the vestin" of unli ited power anywhere# Eaw is both a "rant and a li itation upon power# d# :ot only ust there be so e evidence to support a findin" or conclusion but the evidence ust be "substantial#" 'ubstantial evidence is ore than a ere scintilla# &t eans such relevant evidence as a reasonable ind i"ht accept as adequate to support a conclusion#" The statute provides that 3the rules of evidence prevailin" in courts of law and equity shall not be controllin"#3 The obvious purpose of this and si ilar provisions is to free ad inistrative boards fro the co pulsion of technical rules so that the ere ad ission of atter which would be dee ed inco petent in %udicial proceedin"s would not invalidate the ad inistrative order# @ut this assurance of a desirable fle!ibility in ad inistrative procedure does not "o so far as to %ustify orders without a basis in evidence havin" rational probative force# /ere uncorroborated hearsay or ru or does not constitute substantial evidence# e# The decision ust be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearin", or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected# Only by confinin" the ad inistrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their ri"ht to -now and eet the case a"ainst the # &t should not, however, detract fro their duty actively to see that the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authori7ed le"al ethods of securin" evidence and infor in" itself of facts aterial and relevant to the controversy# @oards of inquiry ay be appointed for the purpose of investi"atin" and deter inin" the facts in any "iven case, but their report and decision are only advisory# 4'ection 9, C$ 1)2#5 The C&C ay refer any industrial or a"ricultural dispute of any atter under its consideration or advise ent to a local board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal, a %ustice of the peace or any public official in any part of the ?hilippines for investi"ation, report and reco endation, and ay dele"ate to such board or public official such powers and functions as the C&C ay dee necessary, but such dele"ation shall not affect the e!ercise of the Court itself of any of its powers 4'ection 1)5 f# The C&C or any of its %ud"es, therefore, ust act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not si ply accept the views of a subordinate in arrivin" at a decision# &t ay be that the volu e of wor- is such that it is literally i possible for the titular heads of the C&C personally to decide all controversies co in" before the # There is no statutory authority to authori7e e!a iners or other subordinates to render final decision, with ri"ht to appeal to board or co ission, to solve the difficulty# "# The C&C should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a anner that the parties to the proceedin" can -now the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered# The perfor ance of this duty is inseparable fro the authority conferred upon it# .1 Monte9a5or v. =raneta Universit5 [*+ ,-""251, 31 Ma5 1.00# 'econd -i.ision, Fernando (J): 4 concur, 1 on lea.e( $acts% *eli! /onte ayor was a full>ti e professor of $raneta .niversity *oundation 4$.*5, servin" as head of its ,u anities and ?sycholo"y ;epart ent# On 17 $pril 1978, a co plaint for i orality lod"ed a"ainst hi by the Chaplain of the $.* for alle"ed i orality# &ts then ?resident, ;r# +uan 'alcedo, +r#, created a
co ittee to investi"ate such char"e# The accusation centered on conversations on se! and i oral advances co itted a"ainst the person of Eeonardo de Eara# The first hearin", which tooplace on (8 $pril 1978, was attended by /onte ayor as well as the co plainant with his two witnesses# /onte ayor sou"ht the postpone ent of the investi"ation to 2 /ay 1978, which was "ranted# On (8 /ay 1978, he filed a otion to dis iss or to hold the hearin" in abeyance, and on 17 +une 1978, he filed an affidavit to sustain his defense# On 8 +uly 1978, the report and reco endation of the investi"atin" co ittee ca e, and was adverse to /onte ayor# The reco endation was for his de otion in ran- by one de"ree# On 0 $u"ust 1978, 'alcedo adopted such reco endation and thereafter referred the sa e to the @oard of Trustees of the $.* for appropriate action# On 8 :ove ber 1978, new char"es were filed by ?rofessor Euis C# $l a7an, one +ai e CastaLeda, and +esus /artine7 a"ainst /onte ayor for conduct unbeco in" of a faculty e ber# $nother co ittee was appointed# /onte ayor oved to postpone the hearin" set for 18 and 19 :ove ber 1978, but was denied# The hearin" proceeded in his absence# On 0 ;ece ber 1978, the Co ittee sub itted its report findin" the char"es a"ainst /onte ayor to have been sufficiently established and reco endin" to the ?resident and the @oard of Trustees of the $.* his separation fro the .niversity, in accordance with 'ections 111 and 201 of the /anual of ?olicies of the .niversity# On 1) ;ece ber 1978, his dis issal was ordered effective 10 :ove ber 1978, the date of his preventive suspension# On 1( ;ece ber 1978, the .niversity filed with the :ational Eabor Celations Co ission 4:ECC5 a report of his suspension and application for clearance to ter inate his e ploy ent# /eanwhile, on (1 :ove ber 1978, /onte ayor in turn lod"ed a co plaint with the :ECC a"ainst $.* for reinstate ent and pay ent of bac- wa"es and salaries, with all the privile"es, benefits and incre ents attendant thereto# There was a otion to dis iss on the part of the latter# @oth the labor arbiter and the :ECC found in favor of /onte ayor# ,e was ordered reinstated to his for er position with bac- wa"es and without loss of seniority and other privile"es# /onte ayor3s co plaint for unfair labor practice was, however, dis issed# $.* appealed to the 'ecretary of Eabor who, on 18 +uly 1971, set aside the Co ission3s order for his reinstate ent, findin" /onte ayor3s dis issal %ustified# The $.* was, however, required to pay /onte ayor the a ount of ?18,88)#)) representin" the latter3s accrued bac- wa"es which the for er voluntarily offered to e!tend hi # ;issatisfied with the 'ecretary3s decision, /onte ayor filed a petition for certiorari# &ssue% 9hether /onte ayor was absolutely denied of due process in the proceedin"s relatin" to his dis issal fro $.*# Held% &n procedural due process, there ust be a hearin" before conde nation, with the investi"ation to proceed in an orderly anner, and %ud" ent to be rendered only after such inquiry# $cade ic due process, a ter coined, is a syste of procedure desi"ned to yield the best possible %ud" ent when an adverse decision a"ainst a professor ay be the consequence with stress on the clear, orderly, and fair way of reachin" a conclusion# =very university or colle"e teacher should be entitled before dis issal or de otion, to have the char"es a"ainst hi stated in writin", in specific ter s and to have a fair trial on these char"es before a special or per anent %udicial co ittee of the faculty or by the faculty at lar"e# $t such trial the teacher accused should have full opportunity to present evidence# ,erein, the procedure followed in the first investi"ation of /onte ayor 4+une 19785 satisfied the procedure due process requisite# The second investi"ation 4:ove ber 19785, however, did not# The otion for postpone ent therein was denied, the hearin" proceeded as scheduled in the absence of /onte ayor, and the co ittee lost no ti e in sub ittin" its report findin" the char"es a"ainst /onte ayor to have been sufficiently established and reco endin" his re oval# The deficiency, however, was re edied, as /onte ayor was able to present his case before the Eabor Co ission# ;enial of due process happened only in the proceedin" he had before the investi"atin" co ittees and not in the proceedin"s before the :ECC wherein he was "iven the fullest opportunity to present his case, the latter bein" the sub%ect atter of the petition for certiorari# /onte ayor was afforded his day in court# .2 Meralco vs. PSC [*+ ,-1363!-"0, 30 4une 1.6"# En Banc, aredes (J): , concur, ! took no part
$acts% On 1) /arch 1900, the /anila =lectric Co pany 4/eralco5 filed two applications with the ?ublic 'ervice Co ission 4?'C5, one, for revision and reduction of its rates for co ercial and other non> residential custo ers for "eneral li"htin", heatin" andDor power purposes 4?'C Case 808895 and the other for revision and reduction of its residential eter rate, schedule C/>2 4?'C Case 8089)5# These applications were approved by the ?'C in a decision rendered on (8 'epte ber 1900# On (8 $u"ust 1900, the /eralco filed another application for revision and reduction of its "eneral power rate, 'chedule <?>( 4?'C Case 89(925, which was provisionally approved on 21 $u"ust 1900# ?revious to these applications, /eralco filed 7 other applications for revision and reduction rates# On 9 +une 1908, upon petition of ;r# ?edro <il, the Co ission requested the $uditor <eneral to cause an audit and e!a ination of /eralco3s boo-s of accounts# The <eneral $uditin" Office 4<$O5 e!a ined and audited the boo-s and under date of 11 /ay 1901, it presented a report which was sub itted to the Co ission on (8 /ay 1901# On 2) /ay 1901, the ?'C, thru Co issioner *eliciano Oca po, reset the hearin" of the cases for (( +une 1901 "for the purpose of considerin" such further revision of applicant3s rates as ay be found reasonable#" On said date, the parties appeared and $tty# Aenancio E# de ?eralta, Technical $ssistant and Chief of the *inance and Cate ;ivision of the ?'C, who was duly authori7ed to receive the evidence of the parties, announced that the hearin" was an "infor al hearin"", and its purpose was to hear any re ar-s or state ents of the parties and to define the issues "so that at the hearin" we -now e!actly what are disputed at this infor al hearin""# ;r# ?edro <il sub itted the 2 cases on the report of the <$O dated 11 /ay 1901 and on a letter dated 7 +une 1901 he sent to the Co ission, in which he as-ed the Co ission, inter alia, to allow the /eralco "a rate of return of only 8N on its invested capital#"# The 'olicitor <eneral sub itted the case on the sa e report and letter of ;r# <il and on a letter>report addressed by the ;eputy $uditor <eneral to the Co ission on (1 :ove ber 1900# Other parties ade co on cause with ;r# <il# /eralco was "iven by the Co ission a period of 2) days within which to file an answer, specifyin" its ob%ections to the report of the <$O# On 21 +uly 1901, the /eralco filed its answer to the <$O3s report, specifyin" its ob%ection, and prayed that the cases be reset for hearin" to enable the parties to present their proofs# 9ithout havin" 415 first reset the said 2 cases for hearin"6 4(5 9ithout havin" "iven the /eralco an opportunity, as requested by it, to cross>e!a ine the officers of the <$O who prepared the report dated /ay 11, 1901, on which report the Co ission based its decision6 and 425 9ithout havin" "iven the /eralco an opportunity, as requested by it, to present evidence in support of its answer to refute the facts alle"ed in said report and controverted by /eralco, on (7 ;ece ber 1907, the ?'C handed down a decision, "rantin" the petition for the reduction of rates# The otion for reconsideration and to set aside decision, filed on 18 +anuary 1908 by /eralco, was denied by the Co ission on a ( to 1 vote, on 2 /arch 1908# /eralco filed the petition for review with preli inary in%unction before the 'upre e Court# &ssue% 9hether the infor al hearin" held (( +une 1901 serves the purpose of Iproper notice and hearin"J in ad inistrative cases# Held% The record shows that no hearin" was held# On (( +une 1901, parties appeared before "$ttorney Aivencio E# ?eralta, Technical $ssistant, and Chief, *inance and Cate ;ivision, ?ublic 'ervice Co ission, who was duly authori7ed to receive the evidence of the parties", and the record shows that the hearin" held before the said Co issioner was erely an infor al hearin" because, usin" his own words, "& said at the be"innin" that this is only preli inary because & want that the parties could co e to so e -ind of understandin"#" /eralco has not been "iven its day in court# The decision of (7 ;ece ber 1907 was not pro ul"ated "upon proper notice and hearin"", as required by law, and that therefore it can not serve as a le"al basis for requirin" the /eralco to put in effect the reductions ordered in the decision# &t is the cardinal ri"ht of a party in trials and ad inistrative proceedin"s to be heard, which includes the ri"ht of the party interested or affected to present his own case and sub it evidence in support thereof and to have such evidence presented considered by the tribunal# =ven if the Co ission is not bound by the rules of %udicial proceedin"s, it ust how its head to the constitutional andate that no person shall be deprived of ri"ht without due process of law, which binds not only the "overn ent of the Cepublic, but also each and everyone of its branches, a"encies, etc# ;ue process of law "uarantees notice and opportunities to be heard to persons
who would be affected by the order or act conte plated# .3 =teneo v. C= [*+ ,-561!0, 16 3cto1er 1.!6# 'econd -i.ision, 6utierrez (J): 4 concur, 1 took no part $acts% On 1( ;ece ber 1917, +uan Ca on <uan7on 4fro @acolod, son of Co eo <uan7on and Teresita Ce"alado5, first year student of $d/. Eoyola ,ei"hts, and boarder at the Cervini ,all5 struc- at the left te ple of Car elita /ateo, a waitress in the Cervini ,all cafeteria# Other boarders held hi fro stri-in" a"ain, but the boarders hid the incident fro *r# Ca pbell# The university conducted an investi"ation of the slappin" incident# On the basis of the investi"ation results, +uan Ca on was dis issed fro the university# The dis issal of +uan Ca on tri""ered off the filin" of a co plaint for da a"es by his parents a"ainst the university in the then Court of *irst &nstance 4C*&5 of :e"ros Occidental at @acolod City# The co plaint states that +uan Ca on was e!pelled fro school without "ivin" hi a fair trial in violation of his ri"ht to due process and that they are pro inent and well -nown residents of @acolod City, with the uncere onious e!pulsion of their son causin" the actual, oral, and e!e plary da a"es as well as attorney3s fees# &n its answer, the university denied the aterial alle"ations of the co plaint and %ustified the dis issal of +uan Ca on on the "round that his unbeco in" behavior is contrary to "ood orals, proper decoru , and civility, that such behavior sub%ected hi as a student to the university3s disciplinary re"ulations3 action and sanction and that the university has the sole prero"ative and authority at any ti e to drop fro the school a student found to be undesirable in order to preserve and aintain its inte"rity and discipline so indispensable for its e!istence as an institution of learnin"# $fter due trial, the lower court found for the <uan7ons and ordered the university to pay the ?9(#)) as actual da a"es6 ?0),)))#)) as oral da a"es6 ?0,)))#)) as attorney3s fees and to pay the costs of the suit# .pon appeal to the Court of $ppeals by the university, the trial court3s decision was initially reversed and set aside# ,owever, upon otion for reconsideration filed by the <uan7ons, the appellate court reversed its decision and set it aside throu"h a special division of five# The otion for reconsideration had to be referred to a special division of five in view of the failure to reach unani ity on the resolution of the otion, the vote of the re"ular division havin" beco e ( to 1# ,ence, the .niversity filed a petition for review before the 'upre e Court# &ssue% 9hether the absence of notice to the dis issed studentBs parents ne"ates the co pliance of the require ents of ad inistrative due process# Held% @esides the ad inistrative body underta-in" a fair and ob%ective investi"ation of the incident, due process in ad inistrative proceedin"s also requires consideration of the evidence presented and the e!istence of evidence to support the decision# ,erein, the ori"inal Court of $ppeals decision 4penned by +ustice <ancayco5 showed that the procedures in the e!pulsion case were fair, open, e!haustive, and adequate# There were nothin" in the records to reverse the findin"s in the reconsideration# Clearly, there was absolutely no indication of alice, fraud, and i proper or wilful otives or conduct on the part of the $teneo de /anila .niversity# +uan Ca on was "iven notice of the proceedin"s# ,e actually appeared to present his side# The investi"atin" board acted fairly and ob%ectively# $ll requisites of ad inistrative due process were et# &t cannot be ne"ated by the fact that the parents of +uan Ca on were not "iven any notice of the proceedin"s# +uan Ca on, who at the ti e was 18 years of a"e, was already a colle"e student, intelli"ent and ature enou"h to -now his responsibilities# ,e was fully co"ni7ant of the "ravity of the offense he co itted as he as-ed if he could be e!pelled for what he did# 9hen infor ed about the 19 ;ece ber 1917 eetin" of the @oard of ;iscipline, he was as-ed to see- advice and assistance fro his "uardian and or parents# The fact that he chose to re ain silent and did not infor the about his case, not even when he went ho e to @acolod City for his Christ as vacation, was not the fault of the .niversity# ." =lcua@ v. PS2= [*+ 06353, 2 Ma5 1.!!# 'econd di.ision, aras (J): 3 concur(
$acts% 'ophia $lcua7, /a# Cecilia $lindayu, @ernadette $n", &rna $nonas, /a# Ce edios @alta7ar, Cora7on @undoc, +ohn Car ona, $nna 'hiela ;inoso, Cafael =ncarnacion, et# al#, are all bonafide students of the ?hilippine 'chool of @usiness $d inistration 4?'@$5 Kue7on City# $s early as (( /arch 1981, the students and the ?'@$, K#C# had already a"reed on certain atters which would "overn their activities within the school# &n spite of the a"ree ent, the students felt the need to hold dialo"ues# $ on" others they de anded the ne"otiation of a new a"ree ent, which de and was turned down by the school, resultin" in ass asse blies and barricades of school entrances# 'ubsequently dialo"ues proved futile# *inally, on 8 October 1991, the students received unifor letters fro ?'@$ "ivin" the 2 days to e!plain why the school should not ta-eD ete out any ad inistrative sanction on their direct participation andDor conspirin" with others in the co ission of tu ultuous and anarchic acts on October (, 2, and 7# On (( October 198(, the letter was answered by the counsel for the students in a reply letter# ;urin" the re"ular enroll ent period, the students were alle"edly blac-listed and denied ad ission for the second se ester of 'U 1981>1987# On (8 October 1981 the ?resident of the 'tudent Council filed a co plaint with the ;irector of the /inistry of =ducation, Culture and 'ports 4/=C'5 a"ainst the ?'@$ for barrin" the enroll ent of the 'tudent Council Officers and student leaders# 'i ultaneously on the sa e date, the student council wrote the ?resident, @oard of Trustees, requestin" for a written state ent of the schools final decision re"ardin" their enroll ent# $nother de and letter was ade by Counsel for the students $tty# $lan Co ullo Uap, also to the ?resident, @oard of Trustees, to enroll his clients within 88 hours# $ll these notwithstandin", no relief appeared to be forthco in"# The students filed a petition for review on certiorari and prohibition with preli inary andatory in%unction# &ssue% 9hether the students were deprived of due process in the refusal of ?'@$ to read it the # Held% $fter the close of the first se ester, the ?'@$>KC no lon"er has any e!istin" contract either with the students or with the intervenin" teachers# The contract havin" been ter inated, there is no ore contract to spea- of# The school cannot be co pelled to enter into another contract with said students and teachers# The ri"ht of the school to refuse re>enroll ent of students for acade ic delinquency and violation of disciplinary re"ulations has always been reco"ni7ed by the Court, as it is sanctioned by law# 'ection 1)7 of the /anual of Ce"ulations for ?rivate 'chools considers acade ic delinquency and violation of disciplinary re"ulations as valid "rounds for refusin" re>enroll ent of students# ;ue process in disciplinary cases involvin" students does not entail proceedin"s and hearin"s si ilar to those prescribed for actions and proceedin"s in courts of %ustice# 'uch proceedin"s ay be su ary and cross>e!a ination is not even an essential part thereof# $ccordin"ly, the ini u standards laid down by the Court to eet the de ands of procedural due process are: 415 the students ust be infor ed in writin" of the nature and cause of any accusation a"ainst the 6 4(5 they shall have the ri"ht to answer the char"es a"ainst the , with the assistance of counsel, if desired: 425 they shall be infor ed of the evidence a"ainst the 6 485 they shall have the ri"ht to adduce evidence in their own behalf6 and 405 the evidence ust be duly considered by the investi"atin" co ittee or official desi"nated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case# ,erein, conditions 2, 8 and 0 had not been co plied with# The Court, however, ordered an investi"ation to be conducted by the school authorities in the interest of %ustice# *urther, it is well settled that by reason of their special -nowled"e and e!pertise "ained fro the handlin" of specific atters fallin" under their respective %urisdictions, the Court ordinarily accords respect if not finality to factual findin"s of ad inistrative tribunals, unless the factual findin"s are not supported by evidence6 where the findin"s are vitiated by fraud, i position or collusion6 where the procedure which led to the factual findin"s is irre"ular6 when palpable errors are co itted6 or when a "rave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness is anifest# ,erein, a careful scrutiny of the Ceport and Ceco endation of the 'pecial &nvesti"atin" Co ittee shows it does not fall under any of the above e!ceptions# Thus, the 'upre e Court dis issed the petition, but in the li"ht of co passionate equity, students who were, in view of the absence of acade ic deficiencies, scheduled to "raduate durin" the school year when the petition was filed, should be allowed to re>enroll and to "raduate in due ti e# .5 /on v. :a9es [*+ !.310, 20 Ma5 1..0# En Banc, +ortes (J): 1; concur, 1 on lea.e(
$acts% $riel :on, Ce! /a"ana, $lvin $"ura, :or andy Occiano, +or"e ;ayaon, Eourdes @anares, @artolo e &basco, = anuel @arba, 'onny /oreno# <iovani ?al a, +oselito Aillalon, Euis 'antos and ;aniel Torres, students in /abini Colle"es, &nc# in ;aet, Ca arines :orte, were not allowed to re>enroll by the school for the acade ic year 1988>1989 for leadin" or participatin" in student ass actions a"ainst the school in the precedin" se ester# They thus filed a petition in the Ce"ional Trial Court of ;aet 4@ranch 285 see-in" their read ission or re>enroll ent to the school, but the trial court dis issed the petition in an order dated 8 $u"ust 1988# $ otion for reconsideration was filed, but this was denied by the trial court on (8 *ebruary 19896 statin" that they waived>their privile"e to be ad itted for re>enroll ent with respondent colle"e when they adopted, si"ned, and used its enroll ent for for the first se ester of school year 1988>89# &n addition, for the sa e se ester, they duly si"ned pled"es "to abide and co ply with all the rules and re"ulations laid down by co petent authorities in the Colle"e ;epart ent or 'chool in which & a enrolled#" ,ence, the affected students filed the petition for certiorari with prayer for preli inary andatory in%unction before the 'upre e Court# &ssue% 9hether the school e!clude students because of failin" "rades when the cause for the action ta-en a"ainst the relates to possible breaches of discipline# Held% The contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary contract# &t is i bued with public interest, considerin" the hi"h priority "iven by the Constitution to education and the "rant to the 'tate of supervisory and re"ulatory powers over all educational institutions# The authority for schools to refuse enroll ent to a student on the "round that his contract, which has a ter of one se ester, has already e!pired, cannot be %ustified# 'till, institutions3 discretion on the ad ission and enroll ent of students as a a%or co ponent of the acade ic freedo "uaranteed to institutions of hi"her learnin"# The ri"ht of an institution of hi"her learnin" to set acade ic standards, however, cannot be utili7ed to discri inate a"ainst students who e!ercise their constitutional ri"hts to speech and asse bly, for otherwise there will be a violation of their ri"ht to equal protection# Thus, an institution of learnin" has a contractual obli"ation to afford its students a fair opportunity to co plete the course they see- to pursue# ,owever, when a student co its a serious breach of discipline or fails to aintain the required acade ic standard, he forfeits his contractual ri"ht6 and the court should not review the discretion of university authorities# =!cludin" students because of failin" "rades when the cause for the action ta-en a"ainst the undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline not only is a denial of due process but also constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of fair play# *urther, the failures in one or two sub%ects by so e cannot be considered ar-ed acade ic deficiency# :either can the acade ic deficiency be "au"ed fro the acade ic standards of the school due to insufficiency of infor ation# ,erein, the students could have been sub%ected to disciplinary proceedin"s in connection with the ass actions, but the penalty that could have been i posed ust be co ensurate to the offense co itted and it ust be i posed only after the require ents of procedural due process have been co plied with 4?ara"raph 180, /anual of Ce"ulations for ?rivate 'chools5# @ut this atter of disciplinary proceedin"s and the i position of ad inistrative sanctions have beco e oot and acade ic6 as the students have been refused read ission or re>enroll ent and have been effectively e!cluded fro for 8 se esters, have already been ore than sufficiently penali7ed for any breach of discipline they i"ht have co itted when they led and participated in the ass actions that resulted in the disruption of classes# To still sub%ect the to disciplinary proceedin"s would serve no useful purpose and would only further a""ravate the strained relations between the students and the officials of the school which necessarily resulted fro the heated le"al battle#

Due Process

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

Due Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narratives

Some %i&hts %eserved"

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 7 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 21 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 33 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 35 )

You might also like